Course: Literature 112 – Introduction to Drama
60 pages
Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

Course: Literature 112 – Introduction to Drama


Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus
60 pages


  • leçon - matière potentielle : sources
  • leçon - matière potentielle : trouble
  • cours - matière potentielle : theme
  • exposé
  • leçon - matière potentielle : from a playwright
  • expression écrite
Matt Usner Harold Washington College Introduction to Drama: Truth This course introduces students to the rich history of Western dramatic literature, beginning with its origins in classical Greece and ending with its diverse contemporary forms. Table of Contents The contents of this module are as follows: • Theme • Potential teaching problems • Learning objectives • Texts • Syllabus • Activities and assignments • Teaching techniques for selected texts • Suggested discussion and essay questions • Links to selected secondary materials • Supplemental reading sources • Expanded reading list Theme The theme of this course is: “What is truth?” Because the definition of truth is as complex and
  • century gender roles
  • roles throughout the twentieth century
  • modern drama
  • oedipus
  • theme
  • play
  • century
  • drama
  • students



Publié par
Nombre de lectures 29
Langue English


Starker Lectures 2000
Utilizing Resources In Complex Environments
Oregon State University
College of Forestry Table of Contents Foreword
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Natural resources are a crucial
part of our world. This year’s
Starker Lectures theme,
“Utilizing Resources in
Dedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Complex Environments,” offers
a unique attempt to look at
complex resource issues. Our
The Tangled Skeins of Nature
speakers come from a variety
and Nurture in Human Evolution
of backgrounds and offer
Paul Ehrlich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
diverse and thoughtful views.
This lecture series
requires a major effort on theSam McGee Meets Club Med:
part of the Starker LectureNew Challenges for National Forests in Alaska
Committee. I thank TomWinifred Kessler . . . . . . . . . . .20
Adams, John Bliss, Phil
Humphreys, Jeff McDonnell,
Utilizing Resources in Complex and Sandie Arbogast for the2
Environments: Assessing Impacts of dedication and creativity that
Hydropower Development—The Gabcˇíkovo- turned disparate ideas into a
Nagymaros Danube Project, Hungary versus coherent theme and an out-
Slovakia at the International Court of standing group of speakers.
Justice Manuscripts were edited
Howard Wheater . . . . . . . . . .35 by Rosanna Mattingly, PhD,
Portland, OR, and designed
by Sandie Arbogast, Forestry
Science in Service to Society: Utilizing Scientific Communications Group.
Resources in Complex Social Environments We recognize the encour-
Christine Dean and agement and commitment of
Peter Farnum with College of Forestry adminis-
Mark Plummer . . . . . . . . . . . .48 trators, students, and friends
who support the lectures.
compiled by B. Shelby and S. ArbogastDedication
Thurman James Starker, joined his father, T. J., in
known to all as T. J., was born acquiring and managing
Oregon forest land, alwaysin Kansas and spent his child-
with an eye for careful man-hood in Burlington, Iowa. He
moved with his family to agement, sound reforesta-
tion, and conservation forPortland in 1907 and began
multiple benefits and values.working in and studying
forestry. T. J. graduated in He worked with private
the first class of foresters at industry and university,
state, and federal forestryOregon Agricultural College
agencies to improve reforesta-(OAC), now Oregon State
University, in 1910. He then tion and management, and
studied two years for an MS developed taxation systems
that improve forest in forestry at the
T. J. Starker University of Michigan and Bruce continued the family
returned to Oregon to work tradition of active communi-
ty service in many ways,for the USDA Forest Service. 3
including participating inSubsequent employment with
the forest-products industry civic activities and regional
and a variety of summer jobs forestry work and contribut-
ing to the Oregon Forestwhile he was teaching forestry
at OAC/Oregon State College Practices Act.
(OSC), gave T. J. broad and Forestry in Starker
Forests has changed withthorough experience in all
advances in knowledge, tech-aspects of forestry.
In 1936, T. J. began pur- nology, and public environ-
chasing second-growth mental issues. But the con-
stant value of tending the landDouglas-fir land, the begin-
remains unchanged. The com-nings of Starker Forests.
Through his work experiences munity spirit and sound pro-
gressive forestry of T. J. andand teaching forest manage-
Bruce Starker continue today.ment, T. J. had a major influ-
ence on sound forestry and
Bruce Starker community development in
Bruce Starker studied
forestry at OSC, earning a
bachelor’s degree in 1940 and
an MS in 1941. After service
with the Coast Guard, BrucePaul Ehrlich
The Tangled Skeins of
Nature and Nurture in
Human Evolution*
Paul R. Ehrlich, PhD
Bing Professor of Population Studies, Department
of Biological Sciences, Stanford University,
Palo Alto, California; noted author and lecturer
*Adapted from Human Natures: Genes, Cultures, and the Human Prospect by Paul R.
Ehrlich. Copyright ©2000 Paul R. Ehrlich. Posted to this website by permission of
Island Press/Shearwater Books. This article is excerpted from Chapter 1 (pp. 3–14)
and appeared previously in The Chronicle of Higher Education, September 22, 2000. by Paul R. Ehrlich is
available from numerous booksellers, including,,, and www.barnesandnoble.comThe Tangled Skeins of Nature and Nurture in Human Evolution
A study of evolution does much more thanWhen we think about our behavior as individu-
show how we are connected to our roots orals, “Why?” is a question almost always on the
explain why people rule Earth—it explains whytips of our tongues. Sometimes that question is
it would be wise to limit our intake of beefabout perceived similarities: why is almost
Wellington, stop judging people by their skineveryone religious; why do we all seem to
color, concern ourselves about global warming,crave love; why do most of us like to eat meat?
and reconsider giving our children antibiotics atBut our differences often seem equally or more
the first sign of a sore throat. Evolution alsofascinating: why did Sally get married although
provides a framework for answering some ofher sister Sue did not, why did they win and
the most interesting questions about ourselveswe lose, why is their nation poor and ours
and our What were the fates of our childhood
When someone mentions evolution andfriends? What kinds of careers did they have;
behavior in the same breath, most peopledid they marry; how many children did they
think immediately of the power of genes,have? Our everyday lives are filled with why’s
parts of spiral-shaped molecules of a chemi-about differences and similarities in behavior,
cal called DNA. Small wonder, consideringoften unspoken, but always there. Why did one 5
the marvelous advances in molecular genet-of my closest colleagues drink himself to
ics in recent decades. New subdisciplinesdeath, whereas I, who love wine much more
such as evolutionary medicine and evolution-than he did, am managing to keep my liver in
ary psychology have arisen as scientistspretty good shape? Why, of two very bright
have come to recognize the importance ofapplicants admitted to our department at
evolution in explaining contemporary humanStanford University for graduate work, does
beings, the network of life that supports us,one turn out pedestrian science and another
and our possible fates. And the mass mediahave a spectacular career doing innovative
have been loaded with stories about real orresearch? Why are our natures often so differ-
imagined links between every conceivableent, and why are they so frequently the same?
sort of behavior and our genes.The background needed to begin to answer
Biological evolution—evolution that caus-all these whys lies within the domain of human
es changes in our genetic endowment—hasbiological and cultural evolution, in the gradual
unquestionably helped shape human natures,alterations in genetic and cultural information
including human behaviors, in many ways. Butpossessed by humanity. It’s easy to think that
numerous commentators expect our geneticevolution is just a process that sometime in the
endowment to accomplish feats of which it isdistant past produced the physical characteris-
incapable. People don’t have enough genes totics of our species but is now pretty much a
program all the behaviors some evolutionarymatter of purely academic, and local school
psychologists, for example, believe that genesboard, interest. Yet evolution is a powerful,
control. Human beings have something on theongoing force that not only has shaped the
order of 100,000 genes, and human brains haveattributes and behaviors shared by all human
more than one trillion nerve cells, with aboutbeings but also has given every single individ-
100–1,000 trillion connections (synapses)ual a different nature.Paul Ehrlich
between them. That’s at least one billion alarm call to warn a relative of approaching
synapses per gene, even if each and every danger. Evidence does indicate that this behav-
gene did nothing but control the production of ior is rooted in their genes; indeed, it probably
synapses (and it doesn’t). Given that ratio, it evolved because relatives have more identical
would be quite a trick for genes typically to genes than do unrelated individuals. But some
control more than the most general aspects of would trace the “altruistic” behavior of a busi-
human behavior. Statements such as ness executive sending a check to an agency
“Understanding the genetic roots of personali- helping famine victims in Africa, or of a devout
ty will help you ‘find yourself’ and relate better German Lutheran aiding Jews during the
to others” are, at today’s level of knowledge, Holocaust, to a genetic tendency as well. In this
frankly nonsensical. view, we act either to help relatives or in the
The notion that we are slaves to our genes expectation of reciprocity—in either case pro-
is often combined with reliance on the idea that moting the replication of “our” genes. But
all problems can be solved by dissecting them experimental evidence indicates that not all
into ever smaller components—the sort of human altruistic behavior is self-seeking—that
reductionist approach that has been successful human beings, unlike squirrels, are not heredi-6
in much of science but is sometimes totally tarily programmed only to be selfish.
unscientific. It’s like the idea that knowing the Another false assumption of hereditary pro-
color of every microscopic dot that makes up a gramming lies behind the belief that evolution
picture of your mother can explain why you has resulted in human groups of different quali-
love her. Scientific problems have to be ty. Many people still claim (or secretly believe),
approached at the appropriate level of organiza- for example, that blacks are less intelligent than
tion if there is to be a hope of solving them. whites and women less “logical” than men, even
That combination of assumptions—that though those claims are groundless. Belief in
genes are destiny at a micro level and that genetic determinism has even led some
reductionism leads to full understanding—is observers to suggest a return to the bad old
now yielding distorted views of human behav- days of eugenics, of manipulating evolution to
ior. People think that coded into our DNA are produce ostensibly more skilled people.
“instructions” that control the details of individ- Advocating programs for the biological
ual and group behavior: that genetics domi- “improvement of humanity”—which in the past
nates, heredity makes us what we are, and what has meant encouraging the breeding of suppos-
we are is changeable only over many genera- edly naturally superior individuals—takes us
tions as the genetic endowment of human popu- back at least to the days of Plato, more than
lations evolves. Such assertions presume, as two millennia ago, and it involves a grasp of
I’ve just suggested, that evolution has produced genetics little more sophisticated than his.
a level of genetic control of human behavior Uniquely in our species, changes in culture
that is against virtually all available evidence. have been fully as important in producing our
For instance, ground squirrels have evolved a natures as have changes in the hereditary infor-
form of “altruistic” behavior—they often give an mation passed on by our ancestors. Culture isThe Tangled Skeins of Nature and Nurture in Human Evolution
might be required to substantially redress thatthe nongenetic information (socially transmit-
imbalance in evolutionary rates, but it is clearted behaviors, beliefs, institutions, arts, and so
to me that such an effort, if successful, couldon) shared and exchanged among us. Indeed,
greatly brighten the human prospect.our evolution since the invention of agriculture,
Science has already given us pretty goodabout 10,000 years ago, has been overwhelm-
clues about the reasons for the evolution ofingly cultural because, as we shall see, cultural
some aspects of our natures; many otherevolution can be much more rapid than genetic
aspects remain mysterious despite a small armyevolution. There is an unhappy predilection,
of very bright people seeking reasons. Still oth-especially in the United States, not only to over-
ers (such as why I ordered duck in the restau-rate the effect of genetic evolution on our cur-
rant last night rather than lamb) may remainrent behavior but also to underrate that of cul-
unanswerable—for human beings have a formtural evolution. The power of culture to shape
of free will. But even to think reasonably abouthuman activities can be seen immediately in the
our natures and our prospects, some back-diversity of languages around the world.
ground in basic evolutionary theory is essential.Although, clearly, the ability to speak languages
If Grace is smarter than Pedro because of heris a result of a great deal of genetic evolution, 7
genes, why did evolution provide her with “bet-the specific languages we speak are just as
ter” genes? If Pedro is actually smarter thanclearly products of cultural evolution.
Grace but has been incorrectly evaluated by anFurthermore, genetic evolution and cultural
intelligence test designed for people of anotherevolution are not independent. There are impor-
culture, how did those cultural differencestant “coevolutionary” interactions between
evolve? If I was able to choose the duck for din-them. To take just one example, our farming
ner because I have free will, what exactly doespractices (an aspect of our culture) change our
that mean? How did I and other human beingsphysical environment in ways that alter the evo-
evolve that capacity to make choices withoutlution of our blood cells.
being complete captives of our histories? CouldNot only is the evolution of our collective
I have exercised my free will to eat a cockroachnongenetic information critical to creating our
curry had we been in a restaurant that served itnatures, but also the rate of that evolution
(as some in Southeast Asia do)? Almost certain-varies greatly among different aspects of human
ly not—the very idea nauseates me, probablyculture. That, in turn, has profound conse-
because of an interaction between biologicalquences for our behavior and our environ-
and cultural evolution.ments. A major contemporary human problem,
Every attribute of every organism is, offor instance, is that the rate of cultural evolu-
course, the product of an interaction betweention in science and technology has been
its genetic code and its environment. Yes, theextraordinarily high in contrast with the snail’s
number of heads an individual human beingpace of change in the social attitudes and politi-
possesses is specified in the genes and is thecal institutions that might channel the uses of
same in a vast diversity of environments. Andtechnology in more beneficial directions. No
the language or languages a child speaks (butone knows exactly what sorts of societal effortPaul Ehrlich
not her capacity to acquire language) is deter- book titled Living With Our Genes, which indi-
mined by her environment. But without the cates the tone even among many scientists:
appropriate internal environment in the moth- “The emerging science of molecular biology
er’s body for fetal development, there would be has made startling discoveries that show
no head (or infant) at all; and without genetical- beyond a doubt that genes are the single most
ly programmed physical structures in the lar- important factor that distinguishes one person
ynx and in the developing brain, there would be from another. We come in large part ready-
no capacity to acquire and speak language. made from the factory. We accept that we
Beyond enabling us to make such statements in look like our parents and other blood rela-
certain cases, however, the relative contribu- tives; we have a harder time with the idea we
tions of heredity and environment to various act like them.”
human attributes are difficult to specify. They In fact, the failure of many people to
clearly vary from attribute to attribute. So recognize the fundamental error in such state-
although it is informative to state that human ments (and those in other articles and books
nature is the product of genes interacting with based on genetic determinism, such as
environments (both internal and external), we Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray’s8
usually can say little with precision about the famous The Bell Curve) is itself an environmen-
processes that lead to interesting behaviors in tal phenomenon—a product of the cultural
adult human beings. We can’t partition the milieu in which many of us have grown up.
responsibility for aggression, altruism, or Genes do not shout commands to us about
charisma between DNA and upbringing. In our behavior. At the very most, they whisper
many such cases, trying to separate the contri- suggestions, and the nature of those whispers
butions of nature and nurture to an attribute is is shaped by our internal environments (those
rather like trying to separate the contribu- within and between our cells) during early
tions of length and width to the area of a rec- development and later, and usually also by the
tangle, which at first glance also seems easy. external environments in which we mature and
When you think about it carefully, though, it find ourselves as adults.
proves impossible. How do scientists know that we are not
Diverse notions of inherited superiority or simply genetically programmed automata?
inferiority and of characteristic innate group First, biological evolution has produced what
behaviors have long pervaded human soci- is arguably the most astonishingly adaptable
eties: beliefs about the divine right of kings; device that has ever existed—the human nerv-
“natural” attributes that made some people ous system. It’s a system that can use one
good material for slaves or slave masters; organ, the brain, to plan a marriage or a mur-
innate superiority of light-skinned people over der, command muscles to control the flight of
dark-skinned people; genetic tendencies of a thrown rock or a space shuttle, detect the
Jews to be moneylenders, of Christians to be difference between a 1945 Mouton and a 1961
sexually inhibited, and of Asians to be more Latour, learn Swahili or Spanish, and interpret
hardworking than Hispanics; and so on. a pattern of colored light on a flat television
Consider the following quote from a recent screen as a three-dimensional world containingThe Tangled Skeins of Nature and Nurture in Human Evolution
environments of a developing person doesn’treal people. It tries to do whatever task the
produce a brain that can call forth only oneenvironment seems to demand, and it usually
type of, say, mating behavior—it produces asucceeds—and because many of those
brain that can engage in any of a bewilderingdemands are novel, there is no way that the
variety of behaviors, depending on circum-brain could be preprogrammed to deal with
stances. We see the same principle elsewherethem, even if there were genes enough to do
in our development; for instance, human legsthe programming. It would be incomprehensi-
are not genetically programmed to move onlyble for evolution to program such a system
at a certain speed. The inherited “make-legs”with a vast number of inherited rules that
program normally produces legs that, fortu-would reduce its flexibility, constraining it so
nately, can operate at a wide range of speeds,that it could not deal with novel environments.
depending on circumstances. Variation amongIt would seem equally inexplicable if evolution
individuals in the genes they received frommade some subgroups of humanity less able
their parents produces some differences inthan others to react appropriately to changing
that range (in any normal terrestrial environ-circumstances. Men and people with white skin
ment, I never could have been a four-minutehave just as much need of being smart and flexi- 9
miler—on the moon, maybe). Environmentalble as do women and people with brown skin,
variation produces some differences, tooand there is every reason to believe that evolu-
(walking a lot every day and years of acclimati-tion has made white-skinned males fully as
zation enable me to climb relatively highcapable as brown-skinned women.
mountains that are beyond the range of someA second type of evidence that we’re not
younger people who are less acclimatized).controlled by innate programs is that normal
But no amount of training will permit anyinfants taken from one society and reared in
human being to leap tall buildings in a singleanother inevitably acquire the behaviors
bound, or even in two.(including language) and competences of the
Similarly, inherited differences among indi-society in which they are reared. If different
viduals can influence the range of mental abili-behaviors in different societies were largely
ties we possess. Struggle as I might, my mathgenetically programmed, that could not hap-
skills will never approach those of many pro-pen. That culture dominates in creating inter-
fessional mathematicians, and I suspect thatgroup differences is also indicated by the dis-
part of my incapacity can be traced to mytribution of genetic differences among human
genes. But environmental variation can shapebeings. The vast majority (an estimated 85
those abilities as well. I’m also lousy at learn-percent) is not between “races” or ethnic
ing languages (that may be related to my mathgroups but between individuals within groups.
incompetence). Yet when I found myself in aHuman natures, again, are products of similar
professional environment in which it would(but not identical) inherited endowments
have been helpful to converse in Spanish, per-interacting with different physical and cultural
sistent study allowed me to speak and compre-environments.
hend a fair amount of the language. But thereThus, the genetic “make-brain” program
are no genetic instructions or environmentalthat interacts with the internal and externalPaul Ehrlich
circumstances that will allow the development an average of 10 children, and Hutterite popu-
of a human brain that can do a million mathe- lation growth rates exceeded 4 percent per
matical calculations in a second. That is a tal- year. Interestingly, however, when social condi-
ent reserved for computers, which were, of tions changed, the growth rate dropped from
course, designed by human minds. an estimated 4.12 percent per year to 2.91 per-
Are there any behavioral instructions we cent. Cultural evolution won out against those
can be sure are engraved in human DNA? If selfish little genes.
there are, at least one should be the urge to Against this background of how human
have as many children as possible. We should beings can overwhelm genetic evolution with
have a powerful hereditary tendency to maxi- cultural evolution, it becomes evident that
mize our genetic contributions to future gener- great care must be taken in extrapolating the
ations, for that’s the tendency that makes evo- behavior of other animals to that of human
lution work. Yet almost no human beings beings. One cannot assume, for example, that
strictly obey this genetic “imperative”; environ- because marauding chimpanzees of one group
mental factors, especially cultural factors, sometimes kill members of another group,
have largely overridden it. Most people choose selection has programmed warfare into the10
to make smaller genetic contributions to the genes of human beings (or, for that matter, of
future—that is, have fewer children—than they chimps). And although both chimp and human
could, thus figuratively thwarting the sup- genetic endowments clearly can interact with
posed maximum reproduction “ambitions” of certain environments to produce individuals
their genes. capable of mayhem, they just as clearly can
If genes run us as machines for reproduc- interact with other environments to produce
ing themselves, how come they let us practice individuals who are not aggressive. Observing
contraception? We are the only animals that the behavior of nonhuman mammals—their
deliberately and with planning enjoy sex while mating habits, modes of communication, inter-
avoiding reproduction. We can and do “outwit” group conflicts, and so on—can reveal pat-
our genes—which are, of course, witless. In terns we display in common with them, but
this respect, our hereditary endowment made those patterns certainly will not tell us which
a big mistake by “choosing” to encourage complex behaviors are “programmed” inalter-
human reproduction not through a desire for ably into our genes. Genetic instructions are of
lots of children but through a desire for lots of great importance to our natures, but they are
sexual pleasure. not destiny.
There are environments (sociocultural There are obviously limits to how much
environments in this case) in which near-maxi- the environment ordinarily can affect individ-
mal human reproduction has apparently ual characteristics. No known environment, for
occurred. For example, the Hutterites, mem- example, could have allowed me to mature
bers of a Mennonite sect living on the plains of with normal color vision: like about 8 percent
western North America, are famous for their of males, I’m color-blind—the result of a gene
high rate of population growth. Around 1950, inherited from my mother. But the influence on
Hutterite women over the age of 45 had borne many human attributes of even small environ-