(PDF) Agonistic Structure in Canonical British Novels of the Nineteenth Century

(PDF) Agonistic Structure in Canonical British Novels of the Nineteenth Century
About
Press
Papers
We're Hiring!
Outline
Title
Abstract
Key Takeaways
Collecting Data
The Research Design
Conclusion
The Scope of Our Claims
Limitations in Our Analytic Model
References
FAQs
All Topics
Biology
Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
Agonistic Structure in Canonical British Novels of the Nineteenth Century
John Johnson
2016, Oxford University Press eBooks
visibility
description
28 pages
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
check
Get notified about relevant papers
check
Save papers to use in your research
check
Join the discussion with peers
check
Track your impact
Abstract
Literature did not become the subject ofan academic discipline until the last two decades of the 19th century and, until the 1940s, liter ary scholarship consisted chiefly ofphilological and historical schol arship and moralized aesthetic commentary (Abrams 1997; Graff 2007). During the 1930s, "The New Criticism" introduced methods for the intensive formal analysis oftheme, tone, and style. During the late 1970s, "poststructuralism" or "postmodernism," spearheaded by the "deconstructive" philosophy ofJacques Derrida, produced a revolution in literary studies. Deconstruction identifies language or "discourse" as the primary constitutive material of human experi ence. In its political aspect, post structuralism seeks to undermine traditionally dominant terms in social, psychological, and sexual binaries: ruling classes versus the oppressed, whites versus people of color, colonialists versus colonized peoples, mentally healthy people versus the insane, law-abiding citizens versus outlaws, males versus females, and heterosexuals versus homosexuals. In modern Western civilization, science is itself a dominant cultural value and is con trasted with terms such as superstition, foith, ignorance, mysticism, and ideology. In its epistemological aspect, poststructuralist theo ries of science seek to undermine the ideas of "truth" and "reality" through which science claims normative epistemic authority (Gross
Key takeaways
AI
Agonistic structure critically organizes characters in 19th-century British novels, influencing reader responses.
The study analyzes data from 519 respondents rating 435 characters across 134 novels.
Literary Darwinists integrate evolutionary science with literary criticism, challenging traditional poststructuralist views.
Protagonists exhibit prosocial traits, while antagonists focus on dominance and power, revealing character dynamics.
Quantifying literary meaning aims to create a universal framework for analyzing fictional narratives' emotional impact.
Related papers
Postmodernism, Philosophy and Literature
Hossein Sabouri
2018
No special definite definition does exist for postmodernism however it has had an inordinate effect on art, architecture, music, film, literature, philosophy, sociology, communications, fashion, and technology. The main body of this work can be seen as an admiration and reverence for the values and ideals associated with postmodern philosophy as well as postmodern literature. , I have argued that postmodern has mainly influenced philosophy and literature and they are recognized and praised for their multiplicity. Postmodernism might seem exclusive in its work, its emphasis on multiplicity and the decentered subject makes very uncomfortable reading for traditional theorists or philosophers. It rejects western values and beliefs as only small part of the human experience and it rejects such ideas, beliefs, culture and norms of the western. Integrity is fragmented apart into unharmonious narratives which lead to a shattering of identity and an overall breakdown of any idea of the self....
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Literary Criticism after the Revolution, or How to Read a Polemical Postmodern Literary Text
Janet Sarbanes
Paroles Gelees, 1996
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Dis/coursing Post-Modernism: Science, Magic,(Post)-Modernity
Theo D'haen
Canadian Review of Comparative …, 1996
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Postmodern Literature and its background
Rozina Bibi
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Postmodernism and Post Structuralism: A Literary Dichotomy
Mohan Tumbahang
Dristikon: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 2021
This article entitled 'Postmodern and Post Structuralism: A Literary Dichotomy' has fairly attempted to compare and contrast between the most discussed and comprehensive notions of postmodernism and post structuralism in a possible precise form. In addition, the study focuses on dichotomies of these trends against their respective pre-forms, 'modernism' and 'structuralism' as well. Their tendencies in literary creation and theory have been briefly discussed. The study method it has availed is essentially the qualitative research design which is concerned with establishing answers to 'why' and 'how' of the study in question. The writing is based on the views on the foreign writers, scholars and critics in different published materials or the online resources. The views forwarded by the aforementioned personalities have been duly considered and cited in both types of citations-direct as well as paraphrased versions. This study has followed the c...
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Jacques Derrida as a Deconstructive Theorist with Special Reference to “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of Human Sciences”
Babbi'ta Kalpde
2013
Jacques Derrida (1930-2004) is undoubtedly one of the most influential thinkers in the history of western thought. Derrida is responsible for the pervasive phenomenon in modern literary and cultural theory known as "deconstruction." While Derrida himself has insisted that Deconstruction is not a theory unified by any set of consistent rules or procedures, it has been widely regarded as a way of reading, a mode of writing, and, above all, a way of challenging interpretations of texts based upon conventional notions of the stability of the human self, the external world, and of language and meaning. Often deconstruction, a French word is described as a 'method' of 'analysis,' a 'type' of 'critique,' and 'act' of 'reading' as a 'way' of 'writing,' deconstruction as a broad phenomenon has become all of the things. Like the New Criticism in the 1940's and Structuralism thereafter, Deconstruction is the most influential critical movement of our time. According to the theoru of Deconstruction, no work of literature whatsoever has been able to express exactly what it wanted to say and thus the critics' business is to deconstruct and recreate them, taking their words as not the outward form of their meaning but only the 'trace of a quest.' (Das 31) The purpose of this paper is to show what the theory of deconstruction means and how it is different from earlier theories of literary criticism particularly New Criticism and Structuralism. The deconstructive philosophy of Derrida is a reaction to the structural anthropology of Claude Levi-Strauss. Derrida moved from a text oriented deconstructive approach through analysis of politics and institution. The work of Jacques Derrida in the 1960's is generally considered of crucial moment in the rise of post structuralism. In three seminal works-"Of Grammatology," "Speech and Phenomenon" and "Writing and Difference." Derrida calls into question the notion of centres, unity, identity, signification working at a point where he is intensely self-conscious and self-critical of his own writings, Derrida demolishes the boundaries between literature and non-literature. Derrida's transatlantic influence can be traced to an important seminar held at John Hopkins University in 1966. A number of leading French theorists, such as Roland Barthes, Jacques Lacan, and Lucien Goldmann, spoke at this conference. Derrida himself presented what was quickly recognized as a pioneering paper entitled "Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences," a text which shows both what Derrida owes to structuralism and his paths of
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Paradigm Shift in Literary Studies: From Literary Criticism to Political Criticism
Muhammad Asif
Prof. Dr. Muhammad Saeed Akhter
JOURNAL OF RESEARCH (HUMANITIES) ISSN 1812-1128 E-ISSN 2522-6851, 2018
Literature has been studied in every age according to the critical tools available to the readers and critics of that age. Literature has been studied in humanist perspective with its focus on objectivity, universality and originality for a long time. Realism has been its hallmark for centuries. Saussure's focus on language as a system of signs resulted in what has been called 'linguistic turn'. Linguistic turn drew attention to literature as a construct, which comprised signs deriving its significance from the system that produces it. 'Cultural turn' was occasioned by Williams' and Althusser's reinterpretation of Marx's materialist approach to literature. Cultural studies equate literature with cultural artifacts and ideology. Postmodern turn challenges all the traditional claims to objectivity and originality. Edward Said's Orientalism is called 'Political turn'. This political turn ushered in postcolonial theories of literature which focus on literature as a site of conflict between the colonizer and the colonized in the contemporary intellectual milieu.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Tracing postmodernism from its roots in
Sakim Sukhan Ganj
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
CONTEMPORARY LITERARY AND CULTURAL THEORY From Structuralism to Ecocriticism
Ramesh Biswal
sports, fashion-all cultural practices, of which Literature is one. Contemporary literary and cultural theory, which is how this book positions it, has conceptual, general, political and methodological questions that it asks of cultural practices. It seeks to understand modes of interpretation, of how knowledge is formed and distributed, the pedagogic-i.e., teaching, classroom and educative-role of literary texts, the philosophical basis of metaphors or image-making, the historical location and sources of texts (by 'texts' we now mean any form of representation, from fiction to film to the Google opening menu) and interpretation, the psychological (individual or collective) roots of particular kinds of images or representations and the political consequences of literary and cultural representations. Thus, Theory now is not restricted to literary texts or literary approaches to, say, the novel, but has widened out into other domains. Such multiple roots of Theory in anthropology, psychoanalysis and philosophy in addition to traditional literary criticism, generates its complexity, its political edge, its jargon, its agenda and (to its more sophisticated 'users') its riveting analytical rigour. The most sophisticated approaches to literary texts have, at least since the mid-1960s, come from these diverse, non-literary fields. Studies of anthropology, of history or of art have influenced the way we read literary texts. Theory speculates on meaning-making, practices of representation and consumption, on the relation of social structures and meanings in films and books, on the nature of knowledge produced, on abstract realities like dreams or desires, on the visible effects of invisible forces like power or structures like class. But such 'speculation' cannot be taken as mere extended and random fantasizing. Theory's speculation is based on close studies of words, images, sounds, structures and economics. 'Speculation' here gestures at the unquantifiable effects of words and social practices, but it is also taken to mean a careful, considered reflection on how these practices work, of the language in which power or desire operates in film or image or words. Barbara Johnson's translator's introduction to Derrida's Dissemination is a useful description of Theory itself:
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
The Political Shortcomings of Poststructural Critique
Jeff Rose
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
AGONISTIC STRUCTURE IN CANONICAL
BRITISH NOVELS OF THE NINETEENTH
CENTURY

joseph Carroll, jonathan Gottschall, john A. johnson,
and Daniel Kruger

Historical and Methodological Context
Evolutionary Literary Study
Literature did not become the subject ofan academic discipline until
the last two decades of the 19th century and, until the 1940s, liter­
ary scholarship consisted chiefly ofphilological and historical schol­
arship and moralized aesthetic commentary (Abrams 1997; Graff
2007). During the 1930s, "The New Criticism" introduced methods
for the intensive formal analysis oftheme, tone, and style. During the
late 1970s, "poststructuralism" or "postmodernism," spearheaded
by the "deconstructive" philosophy ofJacques Derrida, produced a
revolution in literary studies. Deconstruction identifies language or
"discourse" as the primary constitutive material of human experi­
ence. In its political aspect, post structuralism seeks to undermine
traditionally dominant terms in social, psychological, and sexual
binaries: ruling classes versus the oppressed, whites versus people of
color, colonialists versus colonized peoples, mentally healthy people
versus the insane, law-abiding citizens versus outlaws, males versus
females, and heterosexuals versus homosexuals. In modern Western
civilization, science is itself a dominant cultural value and is con­
trasted with terms such as superstition, foith, ignorance, mysticism,
and ideology. In its epistemological aspect, poststructuralist theo­
ries of science seek to undermine the ideas of "truth" and "reality"
through which science claims normative epistemic authority (Gross
and Levitt 1994; Gross et al. 1996; Fromm 1997; Koertge 1998;

196 • A BIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVE ON LITERATURE

Sokal and Bricmont 1998; Weinberg 2001; Parsons 2003; Boghossian 2006: literary scholars
Smith 2006). theory of"discourse.­
Before the poststructuralist revolution, humanists for the most part felt that activity within the
their own kind ofintellectual activity-scholarly, impressionistic, intuitive, and literary authors and
discursive-was fundamentally distinct from the activity of the sciences, both ist revolution, they ~
the physical and the social sciences. The "two cultures," as C. P. Snow (1993) in all periods and
designated them, were supposed to have different subject matters, to operate ways of thinking
according to different rules, and to produce different kinds of knowledge. New social science to prorilllll
Critics regarded literary texts as autonomous systems of meaning, independent
of all external conditioning, either social or biographical. Post structuralist the­
ory expanded the notion of textual autonomy to include not just the isolated readers.
literary text, but also the whole textual universe-the world constituted by "dis­
course." The idea ofcultural autonomy brings "standard social science"-that is,
nonevolutionary social science-into partial alignment with poststructuralism,
and during the 1990s, poststructuralist theory began to seep over into anthro­
pology. Much standard social science nonetheless remains epistemologically
distinct from poststructuralism. Even when social scientists reject the idea that
genetically transmitted dispositions influence culture, most still regard scientific
methodology as a medium ofobjective knowledge about a real world that exists
independently ofcultural and linguistic constructs.
During the past two decades, a growing body of literary scholars has assimi­
lated research in the evolutionary human sciences. Variously known as "literary
Darwinists" "biocultural critics" or "evolutionary literary scholars," these schol­
ars have rejected the anti rationalism ofthe poststructuralists and the blank-slate
model ofhuman nature that informs standard social science. They have rejected
also the idea that science and the humanities form two distinct cultures, with
different subject areas, different forms of knowledge, and different criteria of
validity. In adopting the framework of evolutionary social science, the literary
Darwinists adopt an overarching rationale for the integration of all disciplines
under the canons of scientific criteria of epistemic validity. They believe that
nature forms a unified causal network and that science proVides an integrated
understanding of that network. Nature forms a nested hierarchy in which more
elementary causal forces constrain the organization of phenomena at higher
levels. Thus, causal forces in physics constrain chemical phenomena, the causal
forces in chemistry constrain biological phenomena, the causal forces in biology
constrain human psychology, and the causal forces in psychology constrain all
cultural products, including literature and the other arts.
In Consilience: 1he Unity ofKnowledge, Edward O. Wilson (1998) identifies ences.Wep~
the humanities as the last frontier for bringing all possible phenomena within the also be incorpoo •
scope of scientific understanding. Unlike poststructuralist theorists of science. ing. We mala:

ATUR.E
Agonistic Structure in Canonical British Novels ofthe Nineteenth Century • 197

literary scholars who concur with Wilson do not seek to assimilate science to the
theory of "discourse." Instead, they seek to bring all discursive and imaginative
or the most part felt tha activity within the scope of subjects accessible to science. Like the majority of
I!Ssionistic, intuitive. . . literary authors and theorists from the time ofAristotle until the poststructural­
ity of the sciences, boda ist revolution, they believe in "human nature." That is, they believe that humans
:," as C. P. Snow (1993) in all periods and cultures display a common, basic set of motives, feelings, and
ieet matters, to operare ways of thinking (Brown 1991). The literary Darwinists look to evolutionary
ndsofknowledge.~cwr social science to provide the most thorough, detailed gUide to the actual content
:" meaning, independc. and structure ofhuman nature, and they use that guide in analyzing the content
1 Poststructuralist the­ and form ofliterary depictions, the perspectives of authors, and the responses of
:Ie not just the iso.laa:d readers.
·rld constituted by· m..
;acial science "-that hi.
rich poststructura.J.isn... Quantifying Literary Meaning
seep over into anthm­ The advent of a new critical vocabulary naturally initiates a phase of redescrip­
ains epistemological.ly tive commentary on the standard body of canonical literary texts. Evolutionary
sts reject the idea tha literary critics have already had considerable success in gaining a sharper focus
!It still regard sdenti6c .
on the themes that provide the skeletal structure for a number ofspecific literary
I real world that exisa
works (for examples. see Scalise Sugiyama 2001b; Carroll 2004,129-145.163­
185.206-113; Nordlund 2007; Saunders 2007; Gotuchall2008; Boyd 2009;
y scholars has assimi­ Saunders 2009; Winkelman 2009; Boyd et al. 2010; Clasen 2010; Duncan
:ly known as "liter.u:y 2010; Swirsk! 2010; Carroll 2011b, 2012a, 2012b; Clasen 2012; Jonsson 2012;
dtolars," these schal­ Saunders 2012; Carroll 2013a, 2013b; Clasen 2014; Carroll 2015). This pro­
ts and the blank-_ cess has only just begun, and there are thousands of occasions legitimately open
e. They have rejectal for the process of redescription within a more adequate critical vocabulary.
stinct cultures, widt Moreover, the source theories of evolutionary literary criticism are empirical
different criteria of and progressive. Evolutionary literary criticism can progress in tandem with the
science, the liter.u:y advance ofknowledge in evolutionary social science.
-on of all disdp1ioc:s The process ofredescription within a vocabulary congruent with empirically
r. They believe tha derived knowledge is an important phase ofDarwinian literary study. It is none­
tVides an integrated theless a kind ofstudy that accepts the limitations inherent within all purely dis­
rchy in which IllOR cursive. humanistic commentary. It respects the canons ofempirical probability,
:nomena at higher but it cannot submit its findings to impartial tests or assess alternative hypoth­
nomena, the causal eses by making predictions and analyzing data statistically. Consequently, it can­
al forces in biolog not produce empirically grounded concepts ofits own.
:>logy constrain aJI In the research described in this chapter, we seek to bridge the gap between
humanistic literary criticism and the empirical methodology of the social sci­
ences. We produce data that can constrain interpretive criticism and that can
also be incorporated into future empirical studies that quantify literary mean­
ing. We make use of concepts available within evolutionary psychology, and

Agonistic Structure in Canonica'
198 • A BIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVE ON LITERATURE

Similar invitations were P05tewe aim to produce findings that can, in turn, contribute to the development t1
period or to individual authors i
theory and research within evolutionary psychology.
Approximately 519 respon(
Building on findings in the evolutionary human sciences, we constructed
on 435 characters from 134 n
a model of human nature, incorporated the model in on online questionnaire.
study can be accessed at htt
and used responses to the questionnaire to illuminate the evolved psychology
survey.html. (Please note that
that shapes the organization of characters in nineteenth-century British novels
to collect data.) Many charac
(Austen to Forster). We induced hundreds ofreaders to give numerical ratings to
the most popular character. E
the attributes ofhundreds of characters. Participants also rated their own emo­
Prejudice, received 81 coding!
tional responses to the characters.
received only one coding. FOI
The questionnaire was designed to test one central hypothesis: the idea that
averaged the results. The resul
"agonistic structure" shapes the organization of characters in these novels.
in the total set of scores.
Respondents identified characters as protagonists, antagonists. or minor charac­
The respondents provid~
ters. We delineate the features that distinguish these groups ofcharacters, demon­
(34%) were male and 341 (66
strate that relations among the groups form a central organizing principle in the
noyels, and propose an explanation for the adaptive function ofagonistic structure.
ranged between 25 years and 1
dents had a bachelor's degree cII
Agonistic structure has a wide conceptual scope in its own right, but in ana­
doctorates. The quality of the
lyzing agonistic structure, we are also serving a deeper purpose. By constructing
well informed and took their
a research design that correlates the features of characters with the responses of
The scores on motives, the
readers, we seek to produce a first approximation to a universal set of categories
produced data that we co
for analyzing meaning structures in fictional narratives. We believe that liter­
analysis. The five personality
ary meaning is a natural phenomenon. Like all other natural phenomena. it
decades of factor analytic
can be reduced to constituent parts, measured, and located precisely within the
Winter 2008). In this c
causal network of nature. This broad supposition stands in sharp contrast to a
protagonists and antago: .
belief. common in the humanities, that literary meaning is illimitably complex
term mating, personality.
and contains irreducible elements of the qualitatively unique (Goodheart 2007;
main tendencies in the,
Crews 2008; Deresiewicz 2009; Goodheart 2009; Smee 2009; Spolsky 2009).
No one study could confirm definitively that all literary meaning can be ana­
lyzed objectively, but individual studies can prOVide strong evidence that major
features of meaning can be reduced effectively to simple categories grounded in
an evolutionary understanding of human nature. By quantifYing literary mean­ The questionnaire was
ing, we are translating a naturalistic interpretive vision into empirical evidence to discrete categories.
that literary meaning is determinate, delimited in scope, and consilient with the ulate, in protocol form.
knowledge ofevolutionary biology. rive: an author, who is a
persons, describingthOIC
persons, and eliciting
Collecting Data The causal flow in F
Consulting websites for English literature faculty at universities on several con­
point in a causal se'
tinents, we identified scholars interested in 19th-century British literature, espe­
normative values wic::m.
cially fiction. We sent e-mails inviting these scholars to go to the website, select
one or more characters. and fill out a questionnaire on each character selected.

Agonistic Structure in Canonical British Novels of the Nineteenth Century • 199

Similar invitations were posted on listservs dedicated to the literature of the
period or to individual authors in the period.
.. we COD5ImIIIII Approximately 519 respondents completed a total of 1470 questionnaires
DC~ on 435 characters from 134 novels. A copy of the questionnaire used in the
DIved psrdwlrl study can be accessed at http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kruger/carroll­
survey.html. (Please note that the form is no longer active and is not used
to collect data.) Many characters were coded multiple times. For example,
the most popular character, Elizabeth Bennet from Jane Austen's Pride and
Prejudice, received 81 codings. A little more than half the characters (53%)
received only one coding. For characters who received multiple codings, we
averaged the results. The results for anyone character were counted only once
in the total set of scores.
The respondents provided demographic information indicating that 178
(34%) were male and 341 (66%) were female. The majority of the respondents
ranged between 25 years and 55 years of age. Eighty-one percent of the respon­
dents had a bachelor's degree or higher, 58% had advanced degrees, and 32% had
doctorates. The quality of the data indicates the respondents were, on the whole,
well informed and took their task seriously.
The scores on motives, the criteria for selecting mates, and emotional responses
produced data that we condensed into smaller sets of categories through factor
analysis. The five personality domains represent a condensation oftraits from six
decades of factor analytic studies (John and Srivastava 1999; Barenbaum and
Winter 2008). In this chapter, further condensing the results, we compare only
protagonists and antagonists, and we display the results only for motives, long­
term mating, personality, and emotional responses. These results bring out the
main tendencies in the data. (For details omitted here, see Carroll et al. [2012]')

The Research Design
The questionnaire was designed to reduce the components of human nature
to discrete categories, reduce the categories to finite sets of elements, and sim­
ulate, in protocol form, the socially interactive situation of a fictienal narra­
tive: an author, who is a person, talking about characters, who are fabricated
persons, describing those characters and their actions for readers, who are also
persons, and eliciting emotional and evaluative responses to those characters.
The causal flow in Figure 12.1 forms a feedback loop. The designs or inten­
tions ofthe author, in the top left-hand corner of the diagram, are the starting
point in a causal sequence. The end point in the sequence-the creation of
normative values within the novels of a given culture-feeds back into the
Ia' . . . . . designs or intentions of the author. Authors determine a character's attributes

200 • A B I 0 C U L T U R ALP E R S PEe T I V EON LIT E R AT U R E AgonistiC Structure in

such as sex, age, attractiveness, personality, motives, and preferences in mari­ thefeaturesofchat~'"
tal partners.
Readers respond emotionally to characters, wish them to succeed or fail in
achieving their goals, and recognize whether the character is a major or minor
character. On the basis of those responses, readers decide whether the character
is a protagonist, an antagonist, a good minor character (associate of a protag­
onist), or a bad minor character (associate of an antagonist). Protagonists and feel an aversion and
their associates embody the positive values that authors anticipate their read­ ize most completely the
ers will share with the authors. Antagonists and their associates elicit morally antagonists would rea.1ix4111
and emotionally negative evaluative responses. The array ofpositive and negative Taken individually.
evaluations elicited from readers is the "ethos" of the novel. The common fea­ ifone presupposes the
tures in the ethos ofmultiple novels in a given period reflects the ethos ofthe cul­ terms our study was
ture as a whole. Readers form an imaginative community ofshared experience in cal study has tested the
their responses to the novels. Authors are influenced by the ethos of the culture One could argue retiOl . .
.in which they live. They recognize the shared values of that culture and design cal reality. and that (b)
characters who will elicit predictable emotional responses from their readers. groups. If this argumaa.
The four agonistic roles-protagonists. antagonists. good minor characters. ably display a compla
and bad minor characters-were divided into male and female sets. thus produc­ forms of behavior. One
ing eight character sets in totaL Organizing characters into these eight sets forms antagonist are bits
an implicit empirical hypothesis: that agonistic structure. differentiated by sex. The four main
is a fundamental shaping feature in the organization ofcharacters in the novels. personality, and emotiolll
We predicted (a) that each ofthe eight character sets would be sharply defined regarding whether agooitI
by a distinct and integrated array offeatures, that these features would correlate
in sharply defined ways with the emotional responses of readers. and that both a sexual or marital
accordingly, excep .
novels. Motives are the

Nordlund 2006). P
I Designs of the Author I 2007; McAdams 20(9).
Responses of Readers:
Content of Characters
• Emotional responses
• Do you want the character to succeed?
• Is the character's success a main
motives and guide our
people (Feagin 1997.
• Sex '-----tl feature ofthe story? etaL2012).
eAge These four cat~
• Attractiveness
e Personality
• Motives
Role Assignment:
agonistic patterns
• Mate selection
criteria Is the chacacter: inconsistent in their
A protagonist?
suggested that agonisDc,.
Ethos of Individuals Novels L An antagonist? of characters in the
Agood minor character? and inconsistent. They
I Or a bad minor character? While testing for
I Ethos of a Whole Culture I
into the actual contem::
FIGURE H.1 Research design.

;re
Agonistic Structure in Canonical British Novels ofthe Nineteenth Century • 201

treferences in
the features ofcharacters and the emotional responses ofreaders would correlate.
on the average, with character role assignments; (b) that characters identified as
'0 succeed or fail. protagonists, and their friends and associates. would have attributed to them.
is a major or miaaJ' on average, the features to which readers are most attracted and most admire;
-tther the chacaaa­ (c) that characters identified as antagonists, and their friends and associates,
;ociate of a PcotiW"
would have attributed to them, on average. the characteristics for which readers
'. Protagonists aalII feel an aversion and of which they disapprove; (d) that protagonists would real­
:idpate their ~ ize most completely the approbatory tendencies in reader response; and (e) that
iates dicit morallr antagonists would realize most completely the aversive tendencies.
:sitive and negatiw: Taken individually. each of these propositions might seem obvious. but only
The common fQ. ifone presupposes the validity of the terms protagonist and antagonist-the very
Ie ethos ofthe cui­
terms our study was designed to test. To our knowledge, no previous empiri­
ared experience ia cal study has tested the validity of these terms. Their validity is not self-evident.
hos ofthe cu.lt:un: One could argue reasonably enough that (a) novels reflect social and psycholOgi­
Uture and desiga cal reality, and that (b) in reality people are not divided into morally polarized
I their readers.
groups. If this argument was correct, the characters in the novels would presum­
ninor characteu,. ably display a complex and situationally contingent blend of morally valenced
.ers, thus produc­ forms of behavior. One might then conclude that the terms protagonist and
: eight sets forms antagonist are bits of"folk" wisdom that fail to cut fictional narrative at its joints.
l'entiated by SCI',. The four main categories on which we collected scores-motives. mating,
:rs in the novels. personality, and emotional responses-should be able to give decisive evidence
=sharply defined
regarding whether agonistic structure forms a central structural principle in the
would correlate novels. Motives are the basis for action in human life (McAdams 2009). Selecting
.. and that both a sexual or marital partner enters crucially into reproductive success and evokes,
accordingly. exceptionally strong feelings (Buss 2000, 2003; Gottschall and
Nordlund 2006). Personality traits are dispositions to act on motives (Nettle

. 2007; McAdams 2009). Emotions are the proximal mechanisms that activate
motives and guide our social judgments, including our judgments of imaginary
~eed? people (Feagin 1997; Plutchik 2003; McEwan 2005; Ekman 2007; Oatley
lin
et al. 2012).
These four categories take in a broad swath of human experience, the depic­
tion of characters in novels, and readers' responses to those dep!ctions. If the
-tit: agonistic patterns produced by the categories had been vague in outline and
!r. inconsistent in their relations to one another, that result would have strongly
suggested that agonistic structure does not account for much in the organization
of characters in the novels. As it turns out, though, the patterns are not vague
arader?
and inconsistent. They are clear and robust.
r character?
While testing for the validity of agonistic structure. we were also inquiring
into the actual content of the attributes in characters that produce approbatory
and aversive responses. Our most general supposition about those attributes was

202 • A B I 0 C U L T U R ALP E R S PEe T I V EON LIT ERA T U R IE AgonistiC Structure in

that protagonists would have prosocial dispositions and that antagonists would
not. Implicit in that hypothesis was the idea that the novels form a medium
through which authors and their readers affirm their membership within a com­
munity dependent on shared norms of cooperative behavior.

Results on Motives, Selecting Mates, Personality, and
Emotional Responses
Motives
The mOst comprehensive scientific concepts for the systemic organization of the
phases and functional roles of human life derive from "human life history the­
ory." All species have a "life history," a species-typical pattern for birth, growth,
reproduction, social relations (if the species is social), and death. For each species,
the pattern oflife history forms a reproductive cycle. In the case ofhumans, that
cycle centers on parents, children, and the social group. Successful parental care
produces children capable, when grown, of forming adult pair bonds, becom­
ing functioning members of a communiry, and caring for children of their own.
"Human nature" is the set of species-typical characteristics regulated by the
human reproductive cycle (MacDonald 1997; Kaplan et al. 2009; Carro112011a; emphasis on social
Muehlenbein and Flinn 2011). Male protagoniDt
For the purposes of this study, we divided human life history into a set of effort and on subsitaili
12 basic motives-that is, goal-Oriented behaviors regulated by the reproduc­
tive cycle. For survival, we included two motives-survival itself (fending off
immediate threats to life) and performance of routine work to earn a living.
We also asked about the importance of acquiring wealth. power, and prestige,
and about the importance of acquiring a mate in both the short term and the
long term. In the context ofthese novels, short-term mate selection would mean
flirtation or illicit sexual activity; long-term mate selection would mean seeking
a marital partner. Taking account of"reproduction" in its wider significance of
replicating genes one shares with kin ("inclusive fitness"), we asked about the
importance ofhelping offspring and other kin. For motives oriented. to positive "
social relations beyond one's own kin, we included a question on "acquiring
friends and making alliances" and another on "helping nonkin." And finally,
to capture the uniquely human dispositions for acquiring complex forms of
culture. we included "seeking education or culture~ and "bUilding, creating, or
discovering something."
We predicted (a) that protagonists would be generally affiliative in their
motives-concerned. with helping kin and making friends; (b) that antagonists
would be chiefly concerned with acquiring wealth, power, and. prestige; and

Agonistic Structure in Canonical British Novels ofthe Nineteenth Century • 203

(c) that protagonists would, on average, be much more concerned than antago­
nists or minor characters with acquiring education and cultural knowledge.
When we submitted scores on the 12 separate motives to factor analysis. five
main factors emerged: social dominance, constructive effort, romance, subsis­
tence, and nurture. Seeking wealth, power, and prestige all have strong positive
and loadings on social dominance; helping nonkin has a moderate negative loading.
(That is, helping nonkin correlates negatively with seeking wealth, power, and
prestige.) Constructive effort was defined most strongly by loadings from the
twO cultural motives, seeking education or culture, and creating, discovering,
or building something' and also by loadings from two prosocial or affiliative
motives: making friends and alliances and helping nonkin. Romance is a mat­
ing motive, chiefly loading on short-term and long-term mating. Subsistence
combines two motives: survival and performance of routine tasks to gain a live­
;greach ..~
lihood. Nurture is defined most heavily by loadings from nurturing/fostering
tfhumans.
offspring or other kin, and that motive correlates negatively with short-term
Uparenral
mating. Helping nonkin also contributes moderately to this factor, bringing
:>ODds. beco.. affiliative kin-related behavior into association with generally affiliative social
I oftheir OWIL
behavior.
ulatedby_
Male and female antagonists both display a pronounced and exclusive
:arroU 2OlJa;
emphasis on social dominance (Figure 12.2).
Male protagonists score higher than any other character set on constructive
• into a set fIlE
effort and on subsistence. Female protagonists score higher than any other char­
;he reprocIac_
acter set on romance, but their positive motives are fairly evenly balanced among
"(fending. .
amam.u.. constructive effort, romance, and nurture. In these novels, female protagonists
are largely restricted to the nubile age range. That restriction corresponds with a
and pRSI:ip.
pronounced emphasis on romance as a motive.
=nnand • .
IVOU.Id lIIQa 1.20

em . . . 1.00

IIi 6ca 'XI.' fIlE 0.80

labour. ~
0.60

ro~ "il
.. ~
nd1in4 Vl

r funnsfIIE
~-

FIGURE 12..2. Motive factors for protagonists and antagonists.

AgonistiC Structure in
204 • A B I 0 C U L T U R ALP E R S PEe T I V EON LIT ERA T U R E

0.8
Criteria for Selecting Mates 0.6
04
Evolutionary psychologists have identified mating preferences that males and ~

females share and also preferences that differ by sex. Males and females both ~
value kindness, intelligence, and reliability in mates. Males preferentially value ]
~ -0·4
physical attractiveness, and females preferentially value wealth, prestige, and
B -0.6
power. These sex-specific preferences are rooted in the logic ofreproduction and '" -0.8
have become part of human nature because they had adaptive value in ances­ -I

tral environments. Physical attractiveness in females correlates with youth and -L2 , Malts

health-hence, with reproductive potential. Wealth, power, and prestige enable
a male to provide for a mate and her offspring (Buss 2003; Gangestad 2007;
Geary 2010). We anticipated that scores for mate selection would correspond
to the differences between males and females found in studies of mate selection
in the real world. Because protagonists typically evoke admiration and liking
in readers, we anticipated that protagonists would give stronger preference than
'antagonists to intelligence, kindness, and reliability. We reasoned that a prefer­
ence for admirable qualities in a mate would evoke admiration in readers.
We asked questions about selecting mates in both the short term and the
long term. In the results of the factor analyses for mate selection, the loadings
for short-term and long-term mating are almost identical and divide with the
sharpest possible clarity into three distinct factors: extrinsic attributes (a desire
for wealth, power, and prestige in a mate), intrinsic qualities (a desire for kind­
ness, reliability, and intelligence in a mate), and physical attractiveness (that one
criterion by itself).
We anticipated differences in mate preferences in the short and long term,
but our respondents evidently read the question on short-term mating to mean
something different from what we had in mind. We had in mind illicit sexual
activity. But respondents gave scores on short-term mating to many characters
who do not engage in illicit sex. In many cases, the respondents evidently inter­
preted short-term mating to mean any romantic excitement in its early phases,
even for relations that eventually culminate in marriage. The scores on selecting
mates in the short and long term are essentially equivalent. We give the results
here only for the long term (Figure 12.3).
Female protagonists and an~agonists both give a stronger preference to
extrinsic attributes-wealth, power, and prestige-than male protagonists
or antagonists, but female antagonists exaggerate the female tendency toward
preferring extrinsic attributes. The emphasis female antagonists give to extrin­ scientious, ~
sic attributes parallels their single-minded pursuit of social dominance. Female Femalep~
protagonists give a more marked preference than male protagonists to intrinsic
qualities-intelligence, kindness, and reliability.

Agonistic Structure in Canonical British Novels of the Nineteenth Century • 205

0.8
0.6
:es that males and 0""
and females both ~ 0.2
~ 0
"I'eferentially value ] -<>.2
1th, prestige, and ~
] -0·4
reproduction and l!I -<>.6
'"
re value in ances­ -0.8

:S with youth and
-1

td prestige enable
::;angestad 2007.
iOnId correspond
:If mate selection
ation and .liking
preference than FIGURE 12..3 Mate selection criteria for protagonists and antagonists.

cd that a prefer­
3reaaers. Personality Factors
"t term and the
The standard model for personality is the five-factor or "Big Five" model.
tn, the loadings
Extraversion signals assertive. exuberant activity in the social world versus a ten­
:livide with the
dency to be quiet. withdrawn. and disengaged. Agreeableness signals a pleasant,
ibutes (a desire
friendly disposition and tendency to cooperate and compromise versus a ten­
lesire for kind­
dency to be self-centered and inconsiderate. Conscientiousness refers to an incli­
eness (that one
nation toward purposeful planning, organization, persistence, and reliability
versus impulsivity. aimlessness, laziness, and undependability. Emotional stabil­
.nd long term,
ity reflects a temperament that is calm and relatively free from negative feelings
ating to mean
versus a temperament marked by extreme emotional reactivity and persistent
:1 illicit sexual anxiety, anger, or depression. Openness to experience describes a dimension of
.ny characters personality that distinguishes open (imaginative, intellectual. creative. complex)
ridently int:er­
people from closed (down-to-earth, uncouth, conventional, simple) people (John
early phases.
et al. 1988; Johnson and Ostendorf 1993; Costa and McCrae 1997; Saucier and
5 on selecting
Ostendorf 1999; Nettle 2007; McAdams 2009).
Fe the results
We predicted that (a) protagonists and their friends would. on average, score
higher on the personality factor ofagreeableness, a measure ofwarmth and affili­
!teference to
ation; and (b) that pr:otagonists would score higher than antagonists on open­
protagonists ness to experience, a measure ofintellectual vivacity.
:ncy toward
Male and female protagonists are both somewhat introverted, agreeable. con­
re to enrin­
scientious, emotionally stable, and open to experience (Figure 12.4).
nee. Female Female protagonists score higher than any other set on agreeableness, con­
to intrinsic
scientiousness, and openness, and they score in the positive range on stability.
In personality, male protagonists look like slightly muted or moderated versions

AgonistiC Structure in
206 • A BIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVE ON LITERATURE

and fear for a character.
0.8
omatically appropriate
distinct qualitative
purposes. "Surprise,·
response to a situation
ter. Consequently, in
which combines the
ther term was indue
Indifference is the Oip
that something m~
We predicted (a)
emotional responses
high scores on the
FIGURE 11.4 Personality traits ofprotagonists and antagonists. character; (c) that
character than anraIIII
antagonists) would
of female protagonists. Male and female antagonists are both relatively extra­
Factor analysis
verted. highly disagreeable. and low in stability and openness. On each of the
tors: (a) dislike,
five factors. the protagonists and antagonists pair off and stand in contrast to
acrer. and which
one another.
(b) sorrow, which
relation with aIIl1JlIII:IIII
Emotional Responses correlation with
Male and femakl
One ofour chief working hypotheses is that when readers respond to characters
atively high on
in novels, they respond in much the same way. emotionally, as they respond to
high on dislike'-"
people in everyday life. They like or dislike them, admire them or despise them,
above average on
fear them. feel sorry for them, or are amused by them. In writing fabricated
accounts of human behavior, novelists select and organize their material for the
purpose of generating such responses, and readers willingly cooperate with this 1.\

purpose. They participate vicariously in the experiences depicted and form per­
sonal opinions about the qualities of the characters. Authors and readers thus
collaborate in producing a simulated experience ofemotionally responsive evalu­ i
""
0,\

ative judgment (Bower and Morrow 1990; Grabes 2004; Mar and Oatley: 2008; ~
Oatley 2011).
We sought to identify emotions that are universal and that are thus likely to
be grounded in universal, evolved features of human psychology. The solution
was to use Paul Ekman's (2007) influential set of seven basic or universal emo­
tions: anger, fear, disgust, contempt, sadness, joy. and surprise. These terms were
adapted for the purpose of registering graded responses specifically to persons
or characters. Four of the seven terms were used unaltered: anger, disgust. con­
FIGURE IS-S
tempt, and sadness. Fear was divided into two distinct items: fear ofa character

"RATURf
Agonistic Structure in Canonical British Novels of the Nineteenth Century • 207

and fear for a character. "Joy" or "enjoyment" was adapted both to make it idi­
omatically appropriate as a response to a person and also to have it register some
distinct qualitative differences. Two terms, liking and admiration, served these
purposes. "Surprise," like "joy," seems more appropriate as a descriptor for a
response to a situation than as a descriptor for a response to a person or charac­
ter. Consequently, in place of the word surprise, we used the word amusement,
which combines the idea of surprise with an idea of positive emotion. One fur­
:!lags
Female ""tags
ther term was included in the list of possible emotional responses: indifference.
3" 0·52 Indifference is the flip side of "interest," the otherwise undifferentiated sense
. -1,19

-0.04
that something matters, that it is important and worthy of attention.
We predicted (a) that protagonists would receive high scores on the positive
-0·15
-0."4 emotional responses liking and admiration; (b) that antagonists would receive
gonists. high scores on the negative emotions anger, disgust, contempt, and fear of the
character; (c) that protagonists would score higher on sadness and fear for the
character than antagonists; and (d) that major characters (protagonists and
: bOth relatively extra­ antagonists) would score lower on indifference than minor characters.
nness. On each of the
Factor analysis produced three clearly defined emotional response fac­
:l stand in Contrast to tors: (a) dislike, which includes anger, disgust, contempt, and fear of the char­
acter, and which also includes negative correlations with admiration and liking;
(b) sorrow, which includes sadness and fear for the character and a negative cor­
relation with amusement; and (c) interest, which consists chiefly of a negative
correlation with indifference.
espond to characters Male and female protagonists both scored relatively low on dislike and rel­
" as they respond to
atively high on sorrow (Figure 12.5). Male and female antagonists scored very
em or despise them,
high on dislike-higher than any other set-low on sorrow, and somewhat
. writing fabricated
above average on interest. Female protagonists scored high on interest, but male
leir material for the
:Ooperate With this
I.)
cted and form per-
s and readers thus
~ responsive evalu­
and Oatley 2008; ~ 0.,
are thus likely to
'gy. The solution
1'"
r universal emo"
[hese terms Were
cally to persons
:r, disgust, con­
U' o/'a character
FIGURl! 12.5 Emotional responses to protagonists and antagonists.

~ .. -.-----~----

208 • A BIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVE ON LITERATURE
AgonistiC Structure in

protagonists scored below average on interest. They scored lower even than good Psychologists presufll
minor males, although not lower than the other minor characters. cures of people, those
The relatively low score received by male protagonists on interest ran con­ ined people rather tbaa
trary to our expectation that protagonists, both male and female, would score high levels of agree~
lower on indifference than any other character set. We explain this finding attributes actually
by appealing to the psychology of cooperation. Male protagonists in our data correlation between
set are introverted and agreeable, and they do not seek to dominate others ers. If the features
socially. They are mild, pleasant, reliable, and intellectually curious. They are are determined by
not very assertive and thus do not excite much competitive antagonism. They icy, motives, and cri~
exemplify normative values of cooperative behavior. By integrating them­ actions, which are
selves so thoroughly into the group, suppressing or masking their desire for
dominance, they diminish the level of attention that other members of the
group give to them.

Conclusion
Agonistic Polarization
The characters in these novels display an integrated array of agonistically polar­
ized attributes, and readers respond to those attributes in emotionally polarized
ways. The antagonists are preoccupied with wealth, prestige, and power­
egoistic striving wholly segregated from social affiliations. Male antagonists are
indifferent to the personal qualities in their marital partners. Female antago­
nists choose partners solely on the basis of wealth and status. Antagonists are
both emotionally isolated and also incurious. Protagonists cultivate friendships,
seek romantic love, and pursue cultural interests. They are emotionally warm,
conscientious, and broad-minded. The polarized emotional responses of read­
ers correlate strongly with this integrated array of attributes. Readers respond
with aversion and disapproval to antagonists and with admiration and sympa­
thy to protagonists. We can reasonably conclude that, in these novels, agonistic
structure-the polarized opposition ofmoral and personal traits in characters­ In our view,
forms a central organizing principle. nalization of the
period before a
theories that can
Determinate Meaning
Under the influence of deconstructive skepticism, literary theorists have otten
affirmed that meanings are inherently indeterminate because they are inescap­
ably caught up in semiotic slippages that produce irreconcilable implications. As grams of cumuWill
D. A. Miller (1988) put it: "Whenever a text makes confident claims to cogni­
tion, these will soon be rendered undecidable" (x-xi). Our findings lead us to a
different conclusion.

RE
AgonistiC Structure in Canonical British Novels ofthe Nineteenth Century • 209

ower even than good Psychologists presuppose that when multiple respondents agree about fea­
-acters.
tures ofpeople, those features actually exist. The subjects in this study are imag­
on interest ran con­ ined people rather than actual people, but the principle is the same. We found
female, would SCore high levels of agreement on the attributes of characters and thus assume those
·xpJain this finding attributes actually exist in the characters. Moreover, we found a high degree of
agonists in Our data correlation between attributed features and the emotional responses of read­
o dominate others ers. If the features readers identify in characters actually exist, those features
y curious. They are are determined by authors. Authors stipulate a character's sex, age, personal­
: antagonism. They ity. motives. and criteria for selecting mates. They also stipulate the character's
integrating them­ actions, which are based on motives and the personality dispositions that orient
og their desire for characters to motives. Our data indicate that readers largely agree in recogniz­
:r members of the ing and identifying character attributes. Ifreaders' emotional responses to char­
acters correlate strongly with the characters' attributes, and if readers tend to
respond in emotionally similar ways to those attributes, we can reasonably infer
that authors have a high degree of control in determining readers' emotional
responses.
Can anyone set of deSCriptive and analytic terms (or their dose synonyms)
~nistically polar­ be used to define meaning in a given text; be assigned priority over other, com­
:ionally polarized peting terms; and be presented in such a way that the weight of empirical evi­
~, and power­ dence confirms its validity overwhelmingly? The suppositions in most current
!e antagonists are literary theories tend to run strongly in the other direction. Case books on liter­
. Female antago­ ary texts now typically contain essays representing various theoretical schools,
Antagonists are most otten deconstruction. psychoanalysis. feminism, and Marxism and/or
vate friendships, New Historicism. That kind ofpluralism suggests an underlying epistemological
otionally warm, relativism. Using scrongversions ofKuhn's theory of"paradigms," literary theo­
.ponses of read­ rists have often affirmed that every structure of meaning changes systemically
leaders respond in accordance with the interpretive framework being used. In the most extreme
ion and sympa­ version of this idea, meaning is always determined preemptively-essentially
10VelS, agonistic
created-by an "interpretive community" (Fish 1980).
in characters_ In our view. pluralism is not a coherent theoretical position. It is a ratio­
nalization of the epistemic disorder that characterizes most disciplines in the
period before a paradigm has formed. A paradigm in science is a structure of
theories that can provide the basis for a reasoned consensus among researchers
committed to scientific criteria of epistemic validity. Reasoned consensus arises
ists have otten when a structure of theories is broad in scope, logically coherent, and concor­
yare inescap­ dant with empirical evidence. Paradigms are frameworks for continuing pro­
lplications. As grams of cumulative empirical research. In our view, the evolutionary human
jms to cogni­ sciences now proVide an adequate basis for rational consensus. The evolutionary
~ lead us to a understanding of the adapted mind has dearly become a framework for a con­
tinuing program ofempirical research.

210 • A BIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVE ON LITERATURE Agonistic Structure in

Each of the theoretical schools currently active in literary criticism consists
ofpropositions about matters susceptible to empirical confirmation or falsifica­
tion: the nature of the human mind, the laws of social organization, language.
sex, and gender. Some ofthese propositions are true, some partly true, and some
false. The evolutionary understanding of human nature offers a vantage point
from which to make reasoned assessments about what is true and false in the
claims of the speculative theoretical schools. The evolutionary human sciences
are grounded in evolutionary biology, itself firmly established as a scientific par­
adigm concordant with knowledge in the other sciences. Evolutionary biology
has a prima facie epistemic validity that can be claimed by none of the compet­

2.
ing theoretical schools in literary study. Whatever is empirically sound and con­ into a community.
ceptually rich in the speculations ofother theoretical schools can be assimilated Agonistic
to the evolutionary paradigm. ology in which a plO'
set in sharp contrast
For the first time in intellectual history, we have the basis for a rational inter­
.pretive consensus about the meaning of literary works. Within the framework
of ideas provided by the evolutionary human sciences, meaning can become
such ideological COI='
the 19th centuty. F ­
determinate from the lowest to the highest level of cognitive response: from the polarized vision of -----:.
perceptual level to the level of analytic summary to the level at which the largest system of male do~
implications of these two lower levels are explained and linked with concepts in itself. Patriarchy is
across the whole field ofthe human sciences. (On these three levels of cognitive
response, see Bordwell [2008,43-53].)
We are not, ofcourse, claiming that all writers are evolutionists. Historically,
that is not even possible. We claim only that writers use the common idiom,
that the common idiom contains determinate meanings, that all determinate
The agonistic
of human sexual i
posing protagonisric
social interaction.

one another, but ~
meanings can ultimately be explained within the framework of evolutionary is that "gender" c ­
biology, and that evolutionary biology is a scientifically valid framework that culture. The other
encompasses and either subsumes or supplants all other competing theoretical of life characterized
systems in the human sciences.

Sexual Politics in the Novels
For several decades now, no feature in personal and social identity has received
more critical attention than sex and gender. Much ofthis criticism has taken as its impact on motives.
central theme struggles for power based on sex. Our data indicate that struggles female dispositions
for power based on sex are less important than the conflict between dominance moral universe. 1he
and cooperation. Despite differences of sex, male and female protagonists are identity from the
much more similar to each other than either are to male or female antagonists. concept identifies
Male and female antagonists, also, are much more similar to each other than agonistically p 0 3 .
either are to male or female protagonists. In the features that distinguish charac­ Both the cuImal
ters, being a protagonist or antagonist matters more than being male or female. sexual identity ~

Agonistic Structure in Canonical British Novels of the Nineteenth Century • 211

-y criticism consiSb
Our data suggest that in these novels conflict between the sexes is subordi­
:mation or falsifica­
nated to their shared and complementary interests. In the agonistic structure
nizarion, language.
of plot and theme. male and female protagonists are allies. They cooperate in
I'tly true, and some
resisting the predatory threats of antagonists, and they join together to exem­
:rs a vantage point
plify the values that elicit readers' admiration and sympathy. Both male and
Ie and false in the
female antagonists are massively preoccupied with material gain and social rank.
:-y human sciences
That preoccupation stands in stark contrast to the more balanced and developed
as a scientific par_
world of the protagonists-a world that includes sexual interest, romance, the
tlutionary biology
care offamily and friends, and the life of the mind. By isolating and stigmatizing
ne ofthe compet_
dominance behavior, the novels affirm the shared values that bind its members
Iy sound and con­ into a community.
.an be assimilated
Agonistic structure appears in many imaginative contexts. It shapes any ide­
ology in which a protagonistic group characterized by prosocial dispositions is
-r a rational inter­
set in sharp contrast to an alien group that personifies a will to domination. One
n the framework
such ideological context appears in feminist commentaries on British novels of
ing can become
the 19th century. Feminist criticism characteristically displays an agonistically
lponse: from the
polarized vision of human sexual identity. Within that vision, "patriarchy," the
vhich the largest
system of male domination, embodies the desire for social dominance as an end
:i with concepts
in itself. Patriarchy is thus a paradigmatic ally antagonistic force. The counter­
vels ofcognitive
posing protagonistic force consists of a specifically female ethos of affiliadve
social interaction.
1:5. Historically,
The agonistic structure offeminist theory incorporates two distinct concepts
ommon idiom.
of human sexual identity. These two concepts are not logically consistent with
ill determinate
one another, but they serve complementary imaginative functions. One concept
If evolutionary
is that "gender" consists exclusively of roles imposed arbitrarily by society and
~ework that
culture. The other concept is that males and females are radically separate forms
ing theoretical
of life characterized by independent and incompatible systems of affect, cogni­
tion, and value. The first concept is "constructivist," and the second, "essential­
ist" (Martin 1994; Dietz 2003: Schore 2003; Vandermassen 2005: Gaard 2011).
In the constructivist concept of sexual identity, the anatomical. physiological,
and neurological differences between males and females, if they are not actually
r has received produced by culture, consist of merely physical features that have no significant
:as taken as its
impact on motives. emotions, or behavior. In the essentialist concept, male and
:hat struggles
female dispositions are themselves primary and irreducible constituents of the
ndominance
moral universe. The constructivist concept of sexual identity dislodges sexual
tagonists are
identity from the causal constraints of human life history, and the essentialist
antagonists.
concept identifies human sex differences as autonomous moral forces within an
1 other than
agonistically polarized field of action.
:uish charac­
Both the cultural constructivist and the essentialist conceptions of human
eorfemale.
sexual identity make contact with important aspects of human sexual reality.

212 • A BIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVE ON LITERATURE

Sociosexual roles vary greatly from culture to culture, but each sex also has genet­ in power, wealth, and
ically transmitted dispositions that transcend cultural differences and constrain we need to be sure ~
cultural formations. The longer, Darwinian perspective on human life history not just about the ~
captures the elements of truth in both these observations and integrates those
elements into a comprehensive and consistent understanding of human sexual The Adaptive Fu~
identity. The complex functional structures that distinguish males and females
at the present time are features that, on average, contributed most effectively to One of the most h.........
the reproductive success of their ancestors. The sexes are not separate and auton­
omous systems of motivation and affect. Males and females have co-evolved, in
reciprocally causal ways under the constraining force of partially shared and tive functions, for
partially conflicting reproductive interests. Human males and females are repro­ (Dissanayake 2000;
ductively interdependent. Human sexual relations require humans to negoti­ (Boyd 2009), enh!·· •
ate conflicts between reciprocal benefits and competing interests, and in that sexual display (MilIa'
respect, human sexual relations are like all other affiliative human social rela­ environment (Scalise
tions, including those ofparents and children. for future problem
Human life history entails species-typical differences in mating preferences mind on adaptivdy
for males and females. Those differences are reflected in the preferences in the 2001; Salmon and
males and females in our data set. Plots are based on motives and desires: sex (Wilson 1998; Di I
bulks large among the motives that drive plots, and biologically based mating 2012c).
preferences infuse passion and interest into motives. These observations have One chiefa l t 3
important implications for the interpretation of sex and gender in the novels. is that literature and .
A critic who registers the way evolved sex differences shape stories and infuse produced by sn .
them with passion and interest is unlikely to speak of the novels in quite the 1997, 2007). The
same way as a critic who believes that sex roles are determined solely by social The ethos reflected
convention. So also, in discussing the sexual politicS in novels, a basic difference tarian ethos of h~
opens up between critics who see sex as a powerful, primary force and critics who potentially do~
see it chiefly as a medium for the circulation of sociopolitical energy. In an obvi­ ian ethos fulfills
ous way, all sex is political. That is, aU sex is bound up with social power relations. in the novels engap;.
But sex is not merely a product of social power relations. No cultural or literary our study would
theory that overlooks the deep adaptive history ofhuman mating preferences is one adaptive SOCJal . . . .
likely to capture the real force of sexual passion in novels, and without getting In Hierarchy
the sexual passion right, one cannot get the politics right either. Boehm (1999) otI.a:s.
Sex is interesting in itself, but we find a still deeper interest in the interaction
between sex and agonistic status. Female characters prefer extrinsic attributes in ior. During an eadiIKI
their mates, and male characters prefer phYSical attractiveness. Well and good­ theorists had repudilli
just what, from an evolutionary perspective, one would expect. But that is not
the whole story, or even the main story. The main story concerns the opposition
between good and bad characters, both male and female. Among the good char­
acters, esteem and gratitude count for something, and romantic love is possible.
The bad characters are interested in neither love nor sex. They are interested only oriented norms.

Agonistic Structure in Canonical British Novels ofthe Nineteenth Century • 213

sex also has genet­ in power, wealth, and prestige. In discussing sex and sexual politics in the novels,
Ices and constrain we need to be sure we are talking about the whole emotional world ofthe novels,
llInan life history not just about the preoccupations with power that distinguish the antagonists.
3 integrates those
of human sexual
naJes and females The Adaptive Function ofAgonistic Structure
lOst effectively to One ofthe most hody debated issues in evolutionary studies in the humanities is
Jarate and auton­ whether the arts fulfill any adaptive function at all (Boyd 2005; Carro1l2008a,
:ve co-evolved, in 119-128, 2008b, 349-368). Various theorists have proposed possible adap­
:ially shared and tive functions. for instance, reinforcing the sense of a common social identity
:males are repro­ (Dissanayake 2000; Boyd 2009), fostering creativity and cognitive flexibiliry
mans to negon­ (Boyd 2009), enhancing pattern recognition (Boyd 2009), serving as a form of
~S, and in that sexual display (Miller 2000; Dutton 2009), prOViding information about the
man social reJa­ environment (Scalise Sugiyama 2001a), offering game-plan scenarios to prepare
for future problem solVing (Scalise Sugiyama 2005; Swirski 2006), focusing the
ting preferences mind on adaptively relevant problems (Dissanayake 2000; Tooby and Cosmides
:ferences in the 2001; Salmon and Symons 2004), and making emotional sense of experience
md desires; sex (Wilson 1998; Dissanayake 2000; Carro1l2008a, 2008b; Dutton 2009; Carroll
f based mating 2012c).
leI'Vations have One chief alternative to the idea that the arts prOVide some adaptive function
- in the novels. is that literature and the other arts are like the color ofmuscle tissue or the sound
ties and infuse produced by sneezing-a functionless side effect of adaptive processes (Pinker
:Is in quite the 1997, 2007). The data on agonistic structure point to a different conclusion.
iOldy by social The ethos reflected in the agonistic structure of the novels replicates the egali­
-ask difference tarian ethos of hunter-gatherers, who stigmatize and suppress status seeking in
.nd critics who potentially dominant individuals. By supporting group solidarity, the egalitar­
gy. In an obvi­ ian ethos fulfills an adaptive function for hunter-gatherers. Ifagonistic structure
lwer relations. in the novels engages the same social dispositions that animate hunter-gatherers,
Iral or literary our study would lend support to the hypothesis that literature can fulfill at least
preferences is one adaptive social function.
thoUt getting In Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution o/Egalitarian Behavior. Christopher
Boehm (1999) offers a cogent explanation for the way interacting impulses of
le interaction dominance and affiliation have shaped the evolution of human political behav­
. attributes in ior. During an earlier phase of the evolutionary human sciences, SOciobiological
I and good­ theorists had repudiated the idea of"altruistic" behavior and had restricted pro­
It that is not social dispositions to nepotism and to the exchange ofreciprocal benefits. In con­
e opposition trast, Boehm (1999) argues that at some point in their evolutionary history-at
egoodchat­ the latest, 100,000 years ago-humans developed a special capacity, dependent
e is possible. on their symbolic and cultural capabilities, for enforcing altruistic or group­
crested only oriented norms. By enforcing these norms, humans succeed in controlling "free

214 • A BIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVE ON LITERATURE

riders" or "cheaters," and they thus make it possible for genuinely altruistic genes take place (Mithen
to survive within a social group. The selection for altruistic dispositions-and Harpending 2009).
dispositions for enforcing altruistic cultural norms-would involve a process of In highly strari'41
gene-culture co-evolution that would snowball in its effect of altering human human sociery
nature itself. likely, then, that
We can reason backward from our findings on agonistic structure to for­ radves emerged in
mulate hypotheses about functions fictional narratives might have fulfilled in and specifically
ancestral environments. By identifying one of the ways novels actually work for embody the ethos
us now, we can produce evidence relevant to hypotheses about rhe evolutionary Agonistic :
origin and adaptive function of the arts. Agonistic structure is a central prin­ to participate
ciple in the organization of characters in the novels. Taking into account not novels can be
just the representation of characters, but also the emotional responses of read­
ers, we can identify agonistic structure as a simulated experience of emotionally
responsive social interaction. That experience has a dearly defined moral dimen­ in narrative is a
sion. Agonistic structure precisely mirrors the kind ofegalitarian social dynamic means, one could
documented by Boehm (1999) in hunter-gatherers-our closest contemporary dve function.
proxy to ancestral humans. As Boehm (1999, 2012) and others (Wilson and
Wilson 2007; Gintis and Van Schaik 2012; Haidt 2012; Richerson and Henrich
2012) have argued, the dispositions that produce an egalitarian sodal dynamic
are deeply embedded in the evolved and adapted character of human nature.
Humans have an innate desire for power and an innate dislike of being domi­
nated. Egalitarianism as a political strategy arises as a compromise between the
desire to dominate and the dislike ofbeing dominated. By pooling their power to
exercise collective social coercion, individuals in groups can repress dominance
behavior in other individuals. The result is autonomy for individuals. No one
gets all the power he or she would like, but then, no one has to accept submission
to other dominant individuals. Boehm (1999) describes in detail the pervasive
collective tactics for repressing dominance within social groups organized at the
levels of bands and tribes.
An egalitarian social dynamic is the most important basic structural feature
that distinguishes human social organization from the social organization of
chimpanzees. In chimpanzee society, sodal organization is regulated exdusively
by dominance-that is, power. In human society, social organization is regu­
lated by interactions between impulses of dominance and impulses for suppress­
ing dominance. State societies with elaborate systems ofhierarchy emerged only Inpropo~

very recently in the evolutionary past. about 6000 years ago, after the agricul­
tural revolution made possible concentrations ofresources and, therefore, power. erature. ~te
Before the advent of despotism, the egalitarian disposition for suppressing suspect that
dominance had, at a minimum. 100,000 years in which to become entrenched only one amo~
in human nature-more than sufficient time for significant adaptive change to we reasonably

Agonistic Structure in Canonical British Novels ofthe Nineteenth Century • 215

ely altruistic genes take place (Mithen 1996; Klein 2002; Wade 2006: MeHars 2007; Cochran and
:lispositions-and Harpending 2009).
lvolve a process of In highly stratified societies, dominance assumes a new ascendancy, but no
If altering human human society dispenses with the need for communitarian association. It seems
likely, then, that morally polarized forms of agonistic structure in fictional nar­
structure to for­ ratives emerged in tandem with specifically human adaptations for cooperation
. have fulfilled in and specifically human adaptations for creating imaginative constructs that
actually work for embody the ethos of the tribe.
the evolutionary Agonistic structure in these novels seems to serve as a medium for readers
is a central prin­ to participate vicariously in an egalitarian social ethos. If that is the case, the
:nto account not novels can be described as prosthetic extensions of social interactions that in
~sponses of read­ nonliterate cultures require face-to-face interaction. If suppressing dominance
:e ofemotionally in face-to-face interaction fulfills an adaptive function, and ifagonistic structure
::d moral dimen­ in narrative is a cultural technology that extends that interaction by imaginative
"1 social dynamic means, one could reasonably conclude that agonistic structure fulfills an adap­
it contemporary tive function.
TS (Wilson and

Dn and Henrich
social dynamic The Scope of Our Claims
human nature. On the basis of the data on this particular set of novels, we have drawn con­
of being domi­ clusions about the determinacy of meaning, sexual politics, and adaptive func­
ise between the tion. How far can we generalize from these conclusions to all literature? In every
~their power to period and every culture? Logically, it is possible that no other literary texts any­
-ess dominance where in the world contain determinate meanings, display differences between
iduals. No one protagonists and antagonists more prominent than differences between male
cpr submission and female characters, or fulfill any adaptive function at alL Hypothetically
1 the pervasive possible, but not very likely. If our arguments hold good for this body of texts,
:-ganized at the they demonstrate that determinate meaning is at least possible, that in at least
one body ofclassic narratives, agonistic role assignment-being a protagonist or
rctural feature antagonist-looms larger than gender role assignment, and that the organiza­
::ganization of tion of characters in at least one important body of fictional narratives reflects
:ed exclusively evolved social dispositions that in ancestral populations fulfilled adaptive func­
:adon is regu­ tions. It seems unlikely that in these three important respects this body ofnovels
; for suppress­ is wholly anomalous .
.emerged only In proposing that agonistic structure in these novels fulfills an adaptive social
1: rhe agricul­
function, we do not imagine we have isolated the sole adaptive function ofall lit­
~efore. power. erature. ~ite the contrary. Alongwith other evolutionary theorists, we strongly
~ suppressing
suspect that literature and its oral antecedents fulfill other functions. Even ifit is
c entrenched • only one among other possible adaptive functions for narrative and drama, could
:ve change to we reasonably conclude that agonistic structure is a human universal-a formal

216 • A BIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVE ON LITERATURE

structure that would appear in the narrative and dramatic productions in all cul­
tures, at all periods, everywhere in the world? We have argued that the social
dynamics animating these novels derive from ancient, basic features of human "style": diction, s~
nature. Such features would, in all likelihood, appear in some fictional narra­ In practical realil.J.tI
tives in most or all cultures. If morally polarized agonistic structure is in fact a protocol. At least ODe
human universal, we would be interested to know how it varies in form in differ­ problems might n . . . . .
ent cultural ecologies. Marriage-the "publicly recognized right ofsexual access one other of us \~
to a woman deemed eligible for childbearing"-is a human universal, but varies involved in the prodaal
in form from culture to culture (Brown 1991, 136). We might expect agonistic
structure, like marriage, to vary in form. These questions would make good top­ ofscience fiction-a
ics of research for other studies. Until those studies are conducted, though, the ity" and what is only
topics are only a matter for theoretical speculation. For this current study, we can Ifanysuchsci~
positively affirm only the conclusions we think our data allow us to draw. the personal, sub· -
are crucial elementS
for someone, some
Limitations in Our AnalytiC Model person. Literary
In its most complete forms, Darwinist literary criticism would construct con­ the value and signilil:tl
tinuous explanatory sequences linking "inclusive fitness" -the "ultimate" causal
principle in evolution-to particular features in an evolved and adapted human
nature and to particular structures and effects in specific works of art. A compre­
hensively adequate interpretive account ofa given work ofart would take in, syn­
optically, its phenomenal effects (tone, style, theme, formal organization); locate
it in a cultural context; explain that cultural context as a particular organization open up new po~
of the elements of human nature within a specific set of environmental condi­ more complete
tions (including cultural traditions); identify an implied author and an implied
reader; examine the responses of actual readers (for instance, other literary crit­
ics); describe the sociocultural, political, and psychological functions the work References
fulfills; locate those functions in relation to the evolved needs ofhuman nature; Abrams, Meyer H..
and link the work comparatively with other artistic works using a taxonomy of
themes, formal elements, affective elements, and functions derived from a com­
prehensive model ofhuman nature.
In the current study, how far have we succeeded in approximating to this
ideal of a complete critical account of the texts we discuss? We can identify spe­
cific areas in which we fall short of it. We did not aim at a universal, exhaustive
explanation of the novels. We focused on only one specific large-scale element
in the organization of characters: agonistic structure differentiated by sex. We
did not construct a complete taxonomy of formal elements. More particularly,
we did not incorporate ways of operationalizing some of the concepts that form
the subject matter of narratology-for instance, the distinction between syu­
Bordwell, David.
zhet and fobula or distinctions among different types of narrators. Insofar as

Agonistic Structure in Canonical British Novels ofthe Nineteenth Century • 217

:luctions in all cuI­ we are concerned with quantifying features in individual texts, the main gap in
cd that the social our research design is probably the absence of any means for registering verbal
eatures of human "style": diction. syntax. rhythm, metaphors, motifs. and figures of speech.
Ie fictional narra­ In practical reality, there are limitations to what can be done with any given
ucture is in fact a protocoL At least one of us (Gottschall) concedes that certain kinds ofliterary
in form in differ­ problems might never be fully amenable to a quantitative methodology. At least
It ofsexual access one other of us (Carroll) believes that all mental phenomena, including those
iversal. but varies involved in the production and reception of novels. consist of states ofthe brain
expect agonistic and are hypothetically susceptible to quantification. But here we enter the realm
I make good top­ ofscience fiction-a genre that deliberately erases the boundaries between "real­
:ted, though, the ity" and what is only "hypothetically" possible.
;:nt study, we can Ifany such science fiction scenario couId be realized. it still would not render
:sto draw. the personal, subjective aspect ofliterary study obsolete. "Meaning" and "effect"
are crucial elements ofliterary phenomenology, and meaning is always meaning
for someone, some particular person; effect is always an effect on some particular
person. Literary scholars explain their subjects. or try to, but they also register
construct con­ the value and significance of their subjects. Identifying large-scale patterns of
Iltimate" causal meaning in the novels need not reduce our appreciation ofthe value and signifi­
adapted human cance ofthe novels. ~ite the contrary. The better we understand how the novels
~ art. A compre­ work, the more keenly we can appreciate their effects. True enough, when schol­
Lld take in. syn­ ars succeed in narrowing the range ofpossibly valid conclusions, they reduce the
hation); locate sense ofvaguely infinite potential in the world ofliterary response, but they also
tr organization open up new possibilities for actual discovery-for deeper levels of explanation,
unental condi­ more complete understanding.
.nd an implied
er literary crit­
:ions the work References
luman nature;
Abrams, Meyer H. 1997. The transformation of English studies: 1930-1995.
l taxonomy of
Dttdalus:Journalofthe American Academy ofArts and Sciences 126: 105-131.
:I from a com­
Barenbaum. Nicole B., and David G. Winter. 2008. History of modern personal­
ity theory and research. In Oliver P. John, Richard w:. Robins, and Lawrence
lating to this
A. Pervin, eds., Handbook of personality: Theory and research. 3rd ed., 3-28.
identify spe­ New York: Guilford.
d exhaustive Boehm, Christopher. 1999. Hierarchy in theforest: The evolution ofegalitarian behav­
iCale element ior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
d by sex. We - - . 2012. Moral origins: The evolution of virtue, altruism, and shame.
particularly, New York: Basic Books.
Its that form Boghossian, Paul. 2006. Fear of knowledge: Against relativism and constructivism.
letWeen syu­ Oxford: Oxford UniverSity Press.
5. Insofar as Bordwell. David. 2008. Poetics ofcinema. New York: Routledge.

218 • A BIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVE ON LITERATURE Agonistic Structure

Bower, Gordon H., and Daniel G. Morrow. 1990. Mental models in narrative compre­
hension. Science 247: 44-48.
Boyd, Brian. 2005. Evolutionary theories of art. In Jonathan Gottschall and David
Sloan Wilson, eds., The literary animal: Evolution and the nature ofnarrative, 147­
176. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
- - . 2009. On the origin ofstories: Evolution, cognition, andfiction. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Boyd, Brian, Joseph Carroll, and Jonathan Gottschall, eds. 2010. Evolution, literature,
andfilm: A reader. New York: Columbia University Press.
Brown, Donald E. 1991. Human universals. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Buss, David M. 2000. The dangerous passion: Why jealousy is as necessary as love and
sex. New York: Free Press.
--.2003. The evolution ofdesire: Strategies ofhuman mating. New York: Basic Books.
Carroll, Joseph. 2004. Literary Darwinism: Evolution, human nature, and literature.
New York: Routledge.
- - . 2008a. An evolutionary paradigm for literary study. Style 42: 103-135.
- - . 2008b. Rejoinder to the responses. Style 42: 308-411.
- - . 2011a. Human life history and gene-culture co-evolution: An emerging para­
digm. Evolutionary Review: Art, Science, Culture 2: 23-37.
- - . 2011b. Reading human nature: Literary Darwinism in theory and practice.
Albany: State Universiry ofNew York Press.
- - . 2012a. An evolutionary approach to King Lear. In John Knapp, ed., Critical
insights: Thefamily, 83-103. Ipswich, MA: EBSCO.
- - . 20 12b. Meaning and effect in fiction: An evolutionary model ofinterpretation
illustrated with a reading of"Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge." Style 26: 297-316.
- - . 2012c. The truth about fiction: BiolOgical realiry and imaginary lives. Style
46: 129-160.
- - . 2013a. Correcting for The Corrections: A Darwinian critique ofa Foucauldian
novel. Style 47: 87-118.
- - . 2013b. Violence in literature: An evolutionary perspective. In Todd
K. Shackelford and Ranald D. Hansen, eds., Evolution of violence, 33-52.
New York: Springer.
--.2015. Evolved human sociality and literature. In Jonathan H. Turner, Richard
Machalek, and Alexandra Maryanski, eds., Handbook on evolution and soci­
ety: Toward an evolutionary social science, 572-608. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Carroll, Joseph, Jonathan Gottschall, John A. Johnson, and Daniel Kruger.
2012. Graphing Jane Austen: The evolutionary basis of literary meaning.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Clasen, Mathias F. 2010. Vampire apocalypse: A biocultural critique of Richard
Matheson's I am legend. Philosophy and Literature 34: 313-328.
--.2012. Attention, predation, counterintuition: Why Dracula won't die. Style
43: 396-416.

JRE
Agonistic Structure in Canonical British Novels ofthe Nineteenth Century • 219

els in narrative compre-
--.2014. Evil monsters in horror fiction: An evolutionary perspective on form
and function. In Sharon Packer and Jady Pennington, eds., A History ifEvil in
Gottschall and David
Popular Culture: What Hannibal Lecter, Stephen King, and Vampires Reveal
ttureifnarrative, 147­
About America, vol. 2. 39-47. Santa Barbara. California: ABC-CLIO/Praeger.
Cochran, Gregory. and Henry Harpending. 2009. The JO,OOO year explosion: How
iiifiction. Cambridge.
civilization accelerated human evolution. New York: Basic Books.
Costa. Paul T .•Jr., and Robert R. McCrae. 1997. Personaliry trait structure as a human
I.Evolution, literature,
universal. American Psychologist 52: 509-516.
Crews, Frederick. 2008. Apriorism for empiricists. Style 42: 155-160.
,Ie University Press.
Deresiewicz, William. 2009. Adaptation: On literary Darwinism. Nation, June
,necessary as love and
8,26-31.
Dietz, Mary G. 2003. Current controversies in feminist theory. Annual Review of
ew York: Basic Books.
Political Sdence 6: 399-431.
ature, and literature.
Dissanayake, Ellen. 2000. Artand intimacy: How the arts began. Seattle: University of
Washington Press.
42: 103-135.
Duncan, Charles. 2010. Darkly Darwinian parables: Ian McEwan and The Comfort of
Strangers. Evolutionary Review: Art, Science, Culture 1: 120-124.
: An emerging para­
Dutton, Denis. 2009. The art instinct: Beauty, pleasure, and human evolution.
New York: Bloomsbury Press.
":henry and practice.
Ekman, Paul. 2007. Emotions revealed: Recognizingfoces andftetings to improve com­
munication and emotional lift. New York: Owl Books.
:napp, ed., Critical
Feagin, Susan L. 1997. Imagining emotions and appreciating fiction. In Mette
Hjort and Sue Laver, eds., Emotion and the arts, 50-62. New York: Oxford
=:l ofinrerpretation
University Press.
'Style 26: 297-316.
Fish, Stanley Eugene. 1980.15 there a text in this class? The authority ifinterpretive com­
ginary lives. Style
munities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Fromm, Harold. 1997. My science wars. The Hudson Review 49: 599-609.
ofa Foucauldian
Gaard, Greta. 2011. Ecofeminism revisited: Rejecting essentialism and re-placing spe­
cies in a material feminist environmentalism. Feminist Formations 23: 26-53.
:crive. In Todd
Gangestad, Steven W. 2007. Reproductive strategies and tactics. In Robin 1. M.
'!liolence, 33-52.
Dunbar and Louise Barrett, eds., Oxfordhandbook ofevolutionary psychology, 321­
332. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Turner, Richard
Geary, David C. 2010. Male, ftmale: The evolution of human sex differences.
':ution and sod­
Washington. DC: American Psychological Association.
.Paradigm.
Gintis. Herbert, and Carel P. Van Schaik. 2012. Zoon politicon: The evolution­
}aniel Kruger.
ary roots of human SOciopolitical systems. In Peter J. Richerson and Morten
rary meaning.
H. Christiansen, eds., Cultural evolution. 25-44. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Goodheart, Eugene. 2007. Darwinian misadventures in the humanities. New
.Ie of Richard
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
- - . 2009. Do we need literary Darwinism? Style 42: 181-185.
'On't die. Style
Gottschall, Jonathan. 2008. The rape if Troy: Evolution, violence, and the world of
Homer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

220 • A BIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVE ON LITERATURE Agonistic Struc~

Gottschall, Jonathan, and Marcus Nordlund. 2006. Romantic love: A literary univer­
sal? Philosophy and Literature 30: 450-470.
Grabes. Herbert. 2004. Turning words on the page into "real" people. Style
38: 221-235.
Graff, Gerald. 2007. Professingliterature: An institutional history. Chicago; University
of Chicago Press.
Gross, Paul R., and N. Levitt. 1994. Higher superstition: The academic left and its quar­
rels with science. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Gross, Paul R.• Norman Levitt, and Martin W. Lewis, eds. 1996. Theflightjom science
and reason. New York: The New York Academy ofSciences.
Haidt.Jonathan. 2012. The righteous mind: Why goodpeople are divided bypolitics and gion, and s, .
religion. New York: Pantheon Books. Muehlenbein,
John, Oliver P., Alois AngJeitner. and Fritz Ostendorf. 1988. The lexical approach to life history
personality: A historical review of trait taxonomic research. European Journal of life history
Personality 2: 171-203. 153-168.
John, Oliver P., and Sanjay Srivastava. 1999. The Big Five trait taxonomy: History.
measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In Lawrence A. Pervin and Oliver
P. John, eds., Handbook oJpersonality: Theory and research, 2nd ed., 102-138.
New York: Guilford.
Johnson, John A., and Fritz Ostendorf 1993. Clarification of the five-factor model
with the Abridged Big Five Dimensional Circumplex.JournalofPersonality and
Social Psychology 65: 563-576.
Jonsson, Emelie. 2012. "Man is the measure": Forster's evolutionary conundrum. Style
46: 161-176.
Kaplan, Hillard, Michael Gurven, and Jeffrey Winking. 2009. An evolution­
ary theory of human life span: Embodied capital and the human adap­
tive complex. In Vern L. Bengston, Daphna Gans, Norella M. Pulney, and
Merril Silverstein, eds., Handbook of theories of aging, 2nd ed., 39-60.
New York: Springer.
Klein. Richard G.. with Blake Edgar. 2002. The dawn of human culture.
New York: Wiley.
Koenge. Noretta. 1998. A house built on sand: Exposing postmodernist myths about
science. New York: Oxford University Press.
MacDonald. Kevin 1997. Life history theory and human reproducti~e behavior.
Human Nature 8: 327-359.
Mar, Raymond A.• and Keith Oarley. 2008. The function of fiction is the abstrac­
tion and simulation of social experience. Perspectives on Psychological Science
3: 173-192.
Martin, Jane Roland. 1994. Methodological essentialism, false difference, and other
dangerous traps. Signs 19: 630-657.
McAdams, Dan P. 2009. The person: An introduction to the science ofpersonality psy­
chology. New York: Wiley.

Agonistic Structure in Canonical British Novels ofthe Nineteenth Century • 221

A literary univer- McEwan. Ian. 2005. Literature. science. and human nature. In Jonathan Gottschall
and David Sloan Wilson. eds., The literary animal: Evolution and the nature ofnar­
LI" people. Style rative. 5-19. Evanston. IL: Northwestern UniverSity Press.
MeUars, Paul, ed. 2007. Rethinking the human revolution: New behavioural and bio­
icago: University lOgical perspectives on the origin and dispersal cif modern humans. Cambridge,
UK: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
left and its qual'­ Miller, D. A. 1988. The novel and the police. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.
Miller. Geoffrey F. 2000. The mating mind: How sexual choice shaped the evolution if
'.ightflom science human nature. New York: Doubleday.
Mithen, Steven J. 1996. The prehistory ifthe mind: A searchfor the origins ofart, reli­
J bypoliticsand gion, andscience. London: Thames and Hudson.
Muehlenbein, Michael P., and Mark V. Flinn. 201L Patterns and processes ofhuman
::a1 approach to life history evolution. In Thomas Flatt and Andreas Heyland, cds., Mechanisms of
~ Journal cif life history evolution: The genetics andphysiOlogy oflife history traits and trade-offs,
153~168. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
IOmy: History, Nettle, DanieL 2007. Personality: What makes you the way you are. Oxford: Oxford
in and Oliver University Press.
cd, 102-138. Nordlund, Marcus. 2007. Shakespeare and the nature oflove: Literature, culture, evolu­
tion. Evanston. IL: Northwestern University Press.
-&etor model Oatley. Keith. 2011. Such stuff as dreams: The psychology offiction. Chichester.
'!:TStmality and UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Oatley. Keith, Raymond A. Mar, and M. Djikik. 2012. The psychology of fic­
.ndrum. Style tion: Present and future. In 1. Jacn and J. Simon, eds., The cognition ofliterature.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
1 evolution_ Parsons, Keith M. 2003. The science wars: Debatingscientificknowledge andtechnology.
unan adap­ Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
!>uJney, and Pinker, Steven. 1997. How the mind works. New York: Norton.
:d.• 39-60. 2007. Toward a consilient study of literature. Philosophy and Literature
31: 162-178.
tin culture. Plutchik. Robert. 2003. Emotions and life: Perspectives ftom psychology, biology, and
evolution. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
'lJths about Richerson, Peter, andJoe Henrich. 2012. Tribal sodal instincts and the cultural evolu­
tion of institutions to solve collective action problems. Cliodynamics: TheJournal
: behavior. ifTheoreticaland Mathematical History 3. irows_diodynamics_12453. Retrieved
from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/98112lt8
Ie abstrac­ Salmon, Catherine, and Don Symons. 2004. Slash fiction and human mating psychol­
;a/ Science ogy.Journal4Sex Research 41: 94~ 100.
Saucier, Gerard, and Fritz Ostendorf 1999. Hierarchical subcomponents of the Big
and other Five personality factors: A cross-language replication. Journal ifPersonality and
Social Psychology 76: 613-627.
w1ity psy- Saunders, Judith P. 2007. Male reproductive strategies in Sherwood Anderson's "The
Untold Lie." Philosophy and Literature 31: 311-322.

222 • A BIOCUlTURAL PERSPECTIVE ON LITERATURE

- - . 2009. Reading Edith Wharton through a Darwinian lens: Evolutionary bio­
logical issues in herjiction. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
EX
2012. Female mate-guarding in Lawrence's "Wintry peacock~: An evolution­
ary perspective. 39: 69-83.
Scalise Sugiyama, Michelle. 2001a. Food, foragers, and folklore: The role of narrative
13
in human subsistence. Evolution and Human Behavior 22: 221-240.
- - . 2001b. New science, old myth: An evolutionary critique ofthe Oedipal para­
digm. Mosaic 34: 121-136.
- - . 2005. Reverse-engineering narrative: Evidence of special design. In Jonathan
Gottschall and David Sloan Wilson, eds., The literary animal: Evolution and the
nature ofnarrative, 177-196. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Schore, Allan N. 2003. Affect dysregulation & disorders ofthe self New York: Norton.
Smee. Sebastian. 2009. Natural-born thrillers. Australian Literary Review, May 6, 17.
Smith, Barbara Herrnstein. 2006. Scandalous knowledge: Science, truth and the
human. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Snow. Charles P. 1993. The two cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sokal. Alan D., and Jean Bricmont.1998. Fashionable nonsense: Postmodern intellectu­
als'abuse ofscience. New York: Picador.
Spolsky, Ellen. 2009. The centrality of the exceptional in literary study. Style
42: 285-289.
Swirski. Peter. 2006. Ofliterature and knowledge: Explorations in narrative thought
experiments, evolution, andgame theory. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
2010. When biological evolution and social revolution clash: Skinner's behav­
iorist utopia. Evolutionary Review: Art, Science, Culture 1: 18-23.
Tooby, John, and Leda Cosmides. 2001. Does beauty build adapted minds? Toward
an evolutionary theory of aesthetics. fiction and the arts. Substance: A Review of
Theory and Literary Criticism 30: 6-27.
Vandermassen, Griet. 2005. Who's afraid ofCharles Darwin? Debatingfeminism and
evolutionary theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Wade, Nicholas. 2006. Bifere the dawn: Recovering the lost history of our ancestors.
New York: Penguin.
Weinberg, Steven. 2001. Facing up: Science and its cultural adversaries. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Wilson, David Sloan, and Edward O. Wilson. 2007. Rethinking the theoretic.d foun­
dations of sociobiology.~rterg Review ofBiology 82: 327-348.
Wilson, Edward O. 1998. Consilience: The unity ofknowledge. New York: Knop£
Winkelman, Michael A. 2009. Sighs and tears: Biological signals and John Donne's
"whining poetry." Philosophy and Literature 33: 329-344.
References (103)
Abrams, Meyer H.. Bordwell, David.
Abrams, Meyer H. 1997. The transformation of English studies: 1930-1995. Dttdalus:Journalofthe American Academy ofArts and Sciences 126: 105-131.
Barenbaum. Nicole B., and David G. Winter. 2008. History of modern personal ity theory and research. In Oliver P. John, Richard w:. Robins, and Lawrence A. Pervin, eds., Handbook ofpersonality: Theory and research. 3rd ed., 3-28. New York: Guilford.
Boehm, Christopher. 1999. Hierarchy in the forest: The evolution ofegalitarian behav ior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
--. 2012. Moral origins: The evolution of virtue, altruism, and shame. New York: Basic Books.
Boghossian, Paul. 2006. Fear of knowledge: Against relativism and constructivism. Oxford: Oxford UniverSity Press.
Bordwell. David. 2008. Poetics ofcinema. New York: Routledge.
• A BIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVE ON LITERATURE Bower, Gordon H., and Daniel G. Morrow. 1990. Mental models in narrative compre hension. Science 247: 44-48.
Boyd, Brian. 2005. Evolutionary theories of art. In Jonathan Gottschall and David Sloan Wilson, eds., The literary animal: Evolution and the nature ofnarrative, 147 176. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
--. 2009. On the origin ofstories: Evolution, cognition, andfiction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Boyd, Brian, Joseph Carroll, and Jonathan Gottschall, eds. 2010. Evolution, literature, andfilm: A reader. New York: Columbia University Press.
Brown, Donald E. 1991. Human universals. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Buss, David M. 2000. The dangerous passion: Why jealousy is as necessary as love and sex. New York: Free Press.
--.2003. The evolution ofdesire: Strategies ofhuman mating. New York: Basic Books.
Carroll, Joseph. 2004. Literary Darwinism: Evolution, human nature, and literature. New York: Routledge.
--. 2008a. An evolutionary paradigm for literary study. Style 42: 103-135.
--. 2008b. Rejoinder to the responses. Style 42: 308-411.
--. 2011a. Human life history and gene-culture co-evolution: An emerging para digm. Evolutionary Review: Art, Science, Culture 2: 23-37.
--. 2011b. Reading human nature: Literary Darwinism in theory and practice. Albany: State Universiry ofNew York Press.
--. 2012a. An evolutionary approach to King Lear. In John Knapp, ed., Critical insights: Thefamily, 83-103. Ipswich, MA: EBSCO.
--. 20 12b. Meaning and effect in fiction: An evolutionary model ofinterpretation illustrated with a reading of"Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge." Style 26: 297-316.
--. 2012c. The truth about fiction: BiolOgical realiry and imaginary lives. Style 46: 129-160.
--. 2013a. Correcting for The Corrections: A Darwinian critique ofa Foucauldian novel. Style 47: 87-118.
--. 2013b. Violence in literature: An evolutionary perspective. In Todd K. Shackelford and Ranald D. Hansen, eds., Evolution of violence, 33-52. New York: Springer.
--.2015. Evolved human sociality and literature. In Jonathan H. Turner, Richard Machalek, and Alexandra Maryanski, eds., Handbook on evolution and soci ety: Toward an evolutionary social science, 572-608. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Carroll, Joseph, Jonathan Gottschall, John A. Johnson, and Daniel Kruger. 2012. Graphing Jane Austen: The evolutionary basis of literary meaning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Clasen, Mathias F. 2010. Vampire apocalypse: A biocultural critique of Richard Matheson's I am legend. Philosophy and Literature 34: 313-328.
--.2012. Attention, predation, counterintuition: Why Dracula won't die. Style 43: 396-416. Agonistic Structure RE ls in narrative compre- Gottschall and David tureifnarrative, 147 iifiction. Cambridge.
I.Evolution, literature, Ie University Press. ,necessary as love and wYork: Basic Books. ture, and literature. 42: 103-135.
An emerging para ":henry and practice. :napp, ed., Critical =:l ofinrerpretation 'Style 26: 297-316. ginary lives. Style ofa Foucauldian :crive. In Todd '!liolence, 33-52.
Turner, Richard ':ution and sod .Paradigm.
--.2014. Evil monsters in horror fiction: An evolutionary perspective on form and function. In Sharon Packer and Jady Pennington, eds., A History ifEvil in Popular Culture: What Hannibal Lecter, Stephen King, and Vampires Reveal About America, vol. 2. 39-47. Santa Barbara. California: ABC-CLIO/Praeger.
Cochran, Gregory. and Henry Harpending. 2009. The JO,OOO year explosion: How civilization accelerated human evolution. New York: Basic Books.
Costa. Paul T .•Jr., and Robert R. McCrae. 1997. Personaliry trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist 52: 509-516.
Crews, Frederick. 2008. Apriorism for empiricists. Style 42: 155-160.
Deresiewicz, William. 2009. Adaptation: On literary Darwinism. Nation, June 8,26-31.
Dietz, Mary G. 2003. Current controversies in feminist theory. Annual Review of Political Sdence 6: 399-431.
Dissanayake, Ellen. 2000. Artand intimacy: How the arts began. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Duncan, Charles. 2010. Darkly Darwinian parables: Ian McEwan and The Comfort of Strangers. Evolutionary Review: Art, Science, Culture 1: 120-124.
Dutton, Denis. 2009. The art instinct: Beauty, pleasure, and human evolution. New York: Bloomsbury Press.
Ekman, Paul. 2007. Emotions revealed: Recognizingfoces and ftetings to improve com munication and emotional lift. New York: Owl Books.
Feagin, Susan L. 1997. Imagining emotions and appreciating fiction. In Mette Hjort and Sue Laver, eds., Emotion and the arts, 50-62. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fish, Stanley Eugene. 1980.15 there a text in this class? The authority ifinterpretive com munities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Fromm, Harold. 1997. My science wars. The Hudson Review 49: 599-609.
Gaard, Greta. 2011. Ecofeminism revisited: Rejecting essentialism and re-placing spe cies in a material feminist environmentalism. Feminist Formations 23: 26-53.
Gangestad, Steven W. 2007. Reproductive strategies and tactics. In Robin 1. M. Dunbar and Louise Barrett, eds., Oxfordhandbook ofevolutionary psychology, 321 332. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Geary, David C. 2010. Male, ftmale: The evolution of human sex differences. Washington. DC: American Psychological Association .
Gintis. Herbert, and Carel P. Van Schaik. 2012. Zoon politicon: The evolution ary roots of human SOciopolitical systems. In Peter J. Richerson and Morten H. Christiansen, eds., Cultural evolution. 25-44. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Goodheart, Eugene. 2007. Darwinian misadventures in the humanities. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
--. 2009. Do we need literary Darwinism? Style 42: 181-185.
Gottschall, Jonathan. 2008. The rape if Troy: Evolution, violence, and the world of Homer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• A BIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVE ON LITERATURE Gottschall, Jonathan, and Marcus Nordlund. 2006. Romantic love: A literary univer sal? Philosophy and Literature 30: 450-470.
Grabes. Herbert. 2004. Turning words on the page into "real" people. Style 38: 221-235.
Graff, Gerald. 2007. Professingliterature: An institutional history. Chicago; University of Chicago Press.
Gross, Paul R., and N. Levitt. 1994. Higher superstition: The academic left and its quar rels with science. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Gross, Paul R .• Norman Levitt, and Martin W. Lewis, eds. 1996. Theflightjom science and reason. New York: The New York Academy ofSciences.
Haidt.Jonathan. 2012. The righteous mind: Why goodpeople are divided bypolitics and religion. New York: Pantheon Books.
John, Oliver P., Alois AngJeitner. and Fritz Ostendorf. 1988. The lexical approach to personality: A historical review of trait taxonomic research. European Journal of Personality 2: 171-203.
John, Oliver P., and Sanjay Srivastava. 1999. The Big Five trait taxonomy: History. measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In Lawrence A. Pervin and Oliver P. John, eds., Handbook oJpersonality: Theory and research, 2nd ed., 102-138. New York: Guilford.
Johnson, John A., and Fritz Ostendorf 1993. Clarification of the five-factor model with the Abridged Big Five Dimensional Circumplex.JournalofPersonality and Social Psychology 65: 563-576.
Jonsson, Emelie. 2012. "Man is the measure": Forster's evolutionary conundrum. Style 46: 161-176.
Kaplan, Hillard, Michael Gurven, and Jeffrey Winking. 2009. An evolution ary theory of human life span: Embodied capital and the human adap tive complex. In Vern L. Bengston, Daphna Gans, Norella M. Pulney, and Merril Silverstein, eds., Handbook of theories of aging, 2nd ed., 39-60. New York: Springer.
Klein. Richard G.. with Blake Edgar. 2002. The dawn of human culture. New York: Wiley.
Koenge. Noretta. 1998. A house built on sand: Exposing postmodernist myths about science. New York: Oxford University Press.
MacDonald. Kevin 1997. Life history theory and human reproducti~e behavior. Human Nature 8: 327-359.
Mar, Raymond A .• and Keith Oarley. 2008. The function of fiction is the abstrac tion and simulation of social experience. Perspectives on Psychological Science 3: 173-192.
Martin, Jane Roland. 1994. Methodological essentialism, false difference, and other dangerous traps. Signs 19: 630-657.
McAdams, Dan P. 2009. The person: An introduction to the science ofpersonality psy chology. New York: Wiley. Agonistic Struc~ gion, and s, .
Muehlenbein, life history life history 153-168. 1ity psy- Agonistic Structure in Canonical British Novels ofthe Nineteenth Century • 221
McEwan. Ian. 2005. Literature. science. and human nature. In Jonathan Gottschall and David Sloan Wilson. eds., The literary animal: Evolution and the nature ofnar rative. 5-19. IL: Northwestern UniverSity Press.
MeUars, Paul, ed. 2007. Rethinking the human revolution: New behavioural and bio lOgical perspectives on the origin and dispersal cif modern humans. Cambridge, UK: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Miller, D. A. 1988. The novel and the police. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.
Miller.
Geoffrey F. 2000. The mating mind: How sexual choice shaped the evolution if human nature. New York: Doubleday.
Mithen, Steven J. 1996. The prehistory ifthe mind: A searchfor the origins ofart, reli gion, andscience. London: Thames and Hudson.
Muehlenbein, Michael P., and Mark V. Flinn. 201L Patterns and processes ofhuman life history evolution. In Thomas Flatt and Andreas Heyland, cds., Mechanisms of life history evolution: The genetics andphysiOlogy oflife history traits and trade-offs, 153~168. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nettle, DanieL 2007. Personality: What makes you the way you are. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nordlund, Marcus. 2007. Shakespeare and the nature oflove: Literature, culture, evolu tion. Evanston. IL: Northwestern University Press.
Oatley. Keith. 2011. Such stuff as dreams: The psychology offiction. Chichester. UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Oatley. Keith, Raymond A. Mar, and M. Djikik. 2012. The psychology of fic tion: Present and future. In 1. Jacn and J. Simon, eds., The cognition ofliterature. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Parsons, Keith M. 2003. The science wars: Debatingscientificknowledge andtechnology. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Pinker, Steven. 1997. How the mind works. New York: Norton. 2007. Toward a consilient study of literature. Philosophy and Literature 31: 162-178.
Plutchik. Robert. 2003. Emotions and life: Perspectives ftom psychology, biology, and evolution. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Richerson, Peter, andJoe Henrich. 2012. Tribal sodal instincts and the cultural evolu tion of institutions to solve collective action problems. Cliodynamics: TheJournal ifTheoreticaland Mathematical History 3. irows _ diodynamics _12453. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/98112lt8
Salmon, Catherine, and Don Symons. 2004. Slash fiction and human mating psychol ogy.Journal4Sex Research 41: 94~100.
Saucier, Gerard, and Fritz Ostendorf 1999. Hierarchical subcomponents of the Big Five personality factors: A cross-language replication. Journal ifPersonality and Social Psychology 76: 613-627.
Saunders, Judith P. 2007. Male reproductive strategies in Sherwood Anderson's "The Untold Lie." Philosophy and Literature 31: 311-322.
• A BIOCUlTURAL PERSPECTIVE ON LITERATURE --. 2009. Reading Edith Wharton through a Darwinian lens: Evolutionary bio logical issues in herjiction. Jefferson, NC: McFarland. 2012. Female mate-guarding in Lawrence's "Wintry peacock~: An evolution ary perspective. 39: 69-83.
Scalise Sugiyama, Michelle. 2001a. Food, foragers, and folklore: The role of narrative in human subsistence. Evolution and Human Behavior 22: 221-240.
--. 2001b. New science, old myth: An evolutionary critique ofthe Oedipal para digm. Mosaic 34: 121-136.
--. 2005. Reverse-engineering narrative: Evidence of special design. In Jonathan Gottschall and David Sloan Wilson, eds., The literary animal: Evolution and the nature ofnarrative, 177-196. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Schore, Allan N. 2003. Affect dysregulation & disorders ofthe self New York: Norton.
Smee. Sebastian. 2009. Natural-born thrillers. Australian Literary Review, May 6, 17. Smith, Barbara Herrnstein. 2006. Scandalous knowledge: Science, truth and the human. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Snow. Charles P. 1993. The two cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sokal. Alan D., and Jean Bricmont.1998. Fashionable nonsense: Postmodern intellectu als'abuse ofscience. New York: Picador.
Spolsky, Ellen. 2009. The centrality of the exceptional in literary study. Style 42: 285-289.
Swirski. Peter. 2006. Ofliterature and knowledge: Explorations in narrative thought experiments, evolution, andgame theory. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. 2010. When biological evolution and social revolution clash: Skinner's behav iorist utopia. Evolutionary Review: Art, Science, Culture 1: 18-23.
Tooby, John, and Leda Cosmides. 2001. Does beauty build adapted minds? Toward an evolutionary theory of aesthetics. fiction and the arts. Substance: A Review of Theory and Literary Criticism 30: 6-27.
Vandermassen, Griet. 2005. Who's afraid ofCharles Darwin? Debatingfeminism and evolutionary theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Wade, Nicholas. 2006. Bifere the dawn: Recovering the lost history ofour ancestors. New York: Penguin.
Weinberg, Steven. 2001. Facing up: Science and its cultural adversaries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wilson, David Sloan, and Edward O. Wilson. 2007. Rethinking the theoretic.d foun dations ofsociobiology.~rterg Review ofBiology 82: 327-348.
Wilson, Edward O. 1998. Consilience: The unity ofknowledge. New York: Knop£ Winkelman, Michael A. 2009. Sighs and tears: Biological signals and John Donne's "whining poetry." Philosophy and Literature 33: 329-344.
EX
FAQs
AI
What role does agonistic structure play in character organization in literature?
add
The study finds that agonistic structure forms a central organizing principle among characters, influencing their roles as protagonists and antagonists. Emotional responses from readers correlate significantly with these character attributes, suggesting a deeply rooted narrative structure.
How do male and female protagonists differ in motives and attributes?
add
Data show male protagonists score higher in constructive effort, while female protagonists excel in romantic motives. This distinction highlights the evolutionary influences on character development and reader engagement.
What empirical methodology was used to assess character attributes in novels?
add
Respondents rated 435 characters from 134 novels based on a questionnaire analyzing motives, personality, and emotional responses, resulting in 1,470 total ratings. This method facilitated the quantitative assessment of the agonistic structure across significant literary works.
How are emotional responses linked to character attributes in literature?
add
Findings indicate readers display polarized emotional responses correlating with characters' attributes, such as admiration for protagonists and aversion to antagonists. This alignment suggests authors possess significant control over how characters are perceived emotionally.
What implications does this research have for the intersection of literature and social sciences?
add
The research bridges literary criticism and empirical social science, proposing that literary meanings can be quantitatively analyzed. By aligning narrative structures with evolutionary psychology, it opens avenues for interdisciplinary study of human behavior and literature.
January 31, 2025
John Johnson
Pennsylvania State University, Faculty Member
John A. Johnson, Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the Pennsylvania State University, joined the faculty in 1981, immediately after earning his Ph.D. from the Johns Hopkins University. He spent the 1990-91 year as visiting professor and Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung Research Fellow at the University of Bielefeld, Germany. He has published over three dozen journal articles and book chapters on the personality and evolutionary psychology of moral and educational development, career choice, and work performance. Dr. Johnson is a recognized expert on computerized psychological measurement. Over half a million persons have completed his on-line personality test, which received an award from MSNBC. He recently co-edited a book published by the American Psychological Association, Advanced Methods for Conducting Online Behavioral Research.

At the DuBois Campus, Dr. Johnson has taught General Psychology, Introduction to Personality Psychology, Theory of Personality, Psychology of Gender, Basic Research Methods in Psychology, Quantitative Methods for Humanists, Quantitative Methods in the Liberal Arts, Mental Health, Psychology of Adjustment, Introduction to Well-Being and Positive Psychology, Abnormal Psychology, College Survival Skills for Academic and Career Planning, Introduction to Developmental Psychology, Introduction to Human Development and Family Studies, Industrial Psychology, Human Relations in Organizations, and Technical Writing. He has also conducted several honors sections and seminars and supervised both independent study courses and internships in psychology. As a visiting instructor at the University Park Campus, Dr. Johnson has taught Industrial Psychology, Advanced Personality Research Methods, and a graduate seminar on Ideological Groups in Psychology. He has served on master’s and doctoral committees for both the Department of Psychology and Department of Counseling and Rehabilitative Education.
Dr. Johnson’s energies since joining Penn State in 1981 have been directed primarily toward increasing the quality of undergraduate education. He has been especially interested in improving his students’ critical thinking and in tailoring classroom experiences toward different learning styles. He has introduced a number of teaching innovations over the years, including student debates about controversial issues, journal-writing, musical performances in class, projects designed to appeal to students with different learning styles, and, most recently, student collaborative work on the Internet. Dr. Johnson was recognized by his students with the DuBois Campus Professor of the Year award in 1984. He received the Provost's Collaborative and Curricular Innovations Special Recognition Program Award in 1997, was awarded a first place STAR Project Award by the Jack P. Royer Center for Learning and Academic Technologies in 1998, and was designated a Penn State Teaching Fellow for Excellence in Teaching by the Penn State Alumni Society.
Papers
104
Followers
128,123
View all papers from
John Johnson
arrow_forward
Related papers
Postmodernism and Literature
stephen ogene
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Postmodernism and Its Critics
Ryan Orko
As an intellectual movement postmodernism was born as a challenge to several modernist themes that were first articulated during the Enlightenment. These include scientific positivism, the inevitability of human progress, and the potential of human reason to address any essential truth of physical and social conditions and thereby make them amenable to rational control (Boyne and Rattansi 1990). The primary tenets of the postmodern movement include: (1) an elevation of text and language as the fundamental phenomena of existence, (2) the application of literary analysis to all phenomena, (3) a questioning of reality and representation, (4) a critique of metanarratives, (5) an argument against method and evaluation, (6) a focus upon power relations and hegemony, (7) and a general critique of Western institutions and knowledge (Kuznar 2008:78). For his part, Lawrence Kuznar labels postmodern anyone whose thinking includes most or all of these elements. Importantly, the term postmodernism refers to a broad range of artists, academic critics, philosophers, and social scientists that Christopher Butler (2003:2) has only half-jokingly alluded to as like “a loosely constituted and quarrelsome political party.” The anthropologist Melford Spiro defines postmodernism thusly: The postmodernist critique of science consists of two interrelated arguments, epistemological and ideological. Both are based on subjectivity. First, because of the subjectivity of the human object, anthropology, according to the epistemological argument cannot be a science; and in any event the subjectivity of the human subject precludes the possibility of science discovering objective truth. Second, since objectivity is an illusion, science according to the ideological argument, subverts oppressed groups, females, ethnics, third-world peoples. [Spiro 1996: 759] Postmodernism has its origins as an eclectic social movement originating in aesthetics, architecture and philosophy (Bishop 1996). In architecture and art, fields which are distinguished as the oldest claimants to the name, postmodernism originated in the reaction against abstraction in painting and the International Style in architecture (Callinicos 1990: 101). However, postmodern thinking arguably began in the nineteenth century with Nietzsche’s assertions regarding truth, language, and society, which opened the door for all later postmodern and late modern critiques about the foundations of knowledge (Kuznar 2008: 78). Nietzsche asserted that truth was simply: a mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms – in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are. [Nietzsche 1954: 46-47] According to Kuznar, postmodernists trace this skepticism about truth and the resulting relativism it engenders from Nietzsche to Max Weber and Sigmund Freud, and finally to Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault and other contemporary postmodernists (2008:78).
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Post modernism
Rahul Narayanan
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Poststructuralism
Judith Simon
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Postmodern Disintegration in the History of Epistemological Mode of Understanding of Literature
Dr. Md. Lutful Arafat
Journal of Fareast International University [JFIU]
Journal of Fareast International University, 2024
Philosophy in the postmodern age is more cosmopolitan than ever, been, and interpreting literature in its many cultural, psychological, and historical settings is, in culmination, disintegrated and complicated. Moreover, language today is used in writing to show not only personal feelings, but increasingly, literary language reflects human feelings, traditions, customs, and cultural symbols, creating a multifaceted story. Cultural conventions, genres, and mythology are more important and shape these narratives. This study examines literary interpretation's splitting tendency by concentrating on theories in literature and literary discourses' discordance. This study examines how this fragmentation impacts our capacity to reconcile literature's diverse ideas and perspectives. Literature in the postmodern age swings to reflect cultural traditions and explores human psychology. The study has found that literary interpretation tends towards disintegration, but there are also efforts to retain integrity and agreement throughout history. Postmodern theories in the literary arena require mollification among perspectives. Within and inside a single framework, a vantage position is necessary to justify their ranges and positions for congruity.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
The Nature of Literary Study After the Rise of Contemporary Literary Theory
Dian Natalia
International Journal of Humanity Studies, 2018
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Some Cultural Forces Driving Literary Modernism
Morteza Jafari
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Post-structuralism as Historiographical Paradigm
Alan Corlew
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Chapter 4: Literary Theory's Languages: The Deconstruction of Sense vs. the Deconstruction of Reference
Joshua Kates
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Literary Criticism and its Evolution
Urvi Sharma
2015
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Related topics
Psychology
Agonistic Behaviour
Explore
Papers
Topics
Features
Mentions
Analytics
PDF Packages
Advanced Search
Search Alerts
Journals
Academia.edu Journals
My submissions
Reviewer Hub
Why publish with us
Testimonials
Company
About
Careers
Press
Content Policy
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104