Bruce Bagemihl - Biological Exuberance

Taken together, these observations—of sexual diversity, and the strength imparted by such sexual variability—lead to an important conclusion. The concept of biodiversity should be extended to include not only the genetic variety, but also the systems of social organization found within a species or ecosystem. In other words, sexual and gender systems are an essential measure of biological vitality. The more diverse patterns of social/sexual organization that a species or biological system contains—including homosexuality, transgender, and nonreproductive heterosexuality—the stronger that system will be. Mating and courtship patterns are, after all, as much a part of the “complexity” of an ecosystem as the number of species it contains—and same-sex activity is an integral part of those mating and courtship systems in many animals. It stands to reason, then, that a rich mosaic of different social patterns should increase the vitality of a system, even when such patterns themselves are apparently “unproductive” or are found in only a fraction of the population.

In a rain forest that contains many hundreds of thousands of species of mammals, birds, insects, plants, and so on, the “purpose” of yet one more kind of beetle may be difficult to see—except when understood in terms of its contribution to the overall complexity and vitality of the environment. Similarly, the “function” of a particular social or sexual behavior such as homosexual courtship or heterosexual reverse mounting may seem minimal or even nonexistent at the level of a particular species or individual. But its contribution to the overall strength of the system is independent of such “utility” (or lack thereof) and is also independent of the proportion of the population that participates in it. Every individual, every behavior—whether productive or “counterproductive,” comprising 1 percent or 99 percent of the population—has a part to play. Its role is not in the tapestry of life, but as the tapestry of life: its existence is its “function.” Biological diversity is intrinsically valuable, and homosexuality/transgender is one reflection of that diversity.

There are many points of contact between biodiversity studies, chaos science, and the new evolutionary paradigms, but one of the most significant common threads running through these three disciplines is a recognition of the profound extravagance of natural systems. Chaos physicist Joseph Ford speaks of an “exciting variety, richness of choice, a cornucopia of opportunity,” in the patterning of physical systems, while fractals and “strange attractors” are described as “bizarre, infinitely tangled abstractions” with “prickly thorns… spirals and filaments curling outward and around… infinitely variegated.” 110Edward O. Wilson, one of the premier theoreticians on biodiversity, talks about “the engine of tropical exuberance,” in which “specialization is… pushed to bizarre, beautiful extremes” and where “in the fractal world, an entire ecosystem can exist in the plumage of a bird.” 111Ornithologists studying the complexity of birdsong marvel that “the diversity of modes of singing amongst birds is so great that it defies explanation” and are left “to puzzle over the resulting richness and variety that evolution has created.” 112Entomologists are awed by the “spectacular diversity of complex structures” in the most minute of forms, such as the sperm-reception sites of insect eggs or the “morphological exuberance,” “extravagance,” and “apparently superfluous complexity” of insect genitalia. 113Evolutionary theorists grapple with the enigma of “the luxuriant tail feathers of peacocks, the lion’s mane, and the flashy dewlaps and throat colorations of many lizards… just a few of the extravagant… features for which evolutionists have sought explanations ever since Darwin advanced his ideas.” 114

To formally recognize this “extravagance,” and also to consolidate some of the converging ideas in these disciplines, we propose the concept of Biological Exuberance, after the work of noted French author and philosopher Georges Bataille. 115Bataille has presented, in his theory of General Economy, a radical revision in the way we think about the flow of energy in both natural and cultural systems (or “economies”). According to his view, excess and exuberance are primary driving forces of biological systems, as much if not more so than scarcity (competition for resources) or functionality (the “usefulness” of a particular form or behavior). Bataille’s fundamental observation is that all organisms are provided with more energy than they need to stay alive—the source of this energy is, ultimately, the sun. This surplus of energy will first be used for the growth of the organism (or larger biological system), but when the system reaches its limits of growth, the excess energy must be spent, expressed in some other form, “used up,” or otherwise destroyed. The typical ways that such energy is “squandered,” Bataille observes, are through sexual reproduction, consumption by other organisms (eating), and death.

Life on this planet is above all characterized by what Bataille calls “the superabundance of biochemical energy” freely given to it by the sun. The challenge confronting life, then, is not scarcity, but excess—what to do with all this extra energy. Virtually all outpouring of activity, both (pro)creative and destructive—the development of baroque ornament and pattern (or its distillation into concentrated minimalism), the wanton consumption of animal and plant foods (or mass starvations in their absence), the extreme elaboration of social systems (encompassing both “complex” and “simple” forms), the florescence of new species and the extinction of others, the cycles of burgeoning and decaying biomass—all of these can be seen, ultimately, as mechanisms that “use up” or express this excess energy. According to this view, life should in fact be full of “wasteful,” “extravagant,” and “excessive” activities. Bataille also extends his theory to systems of human economy and social organization, including an examination of various attempts to “control” or channel this outpouring of exuberance, often by artificially creating scarcity. 116Phenomena as diverse as Aztec sacrifice and warfare, potlatch among Northwest Coast Indians, Buddhist monasticism in Tibet, and Soviet industrialization are all revealed to have unexpected properties and interconnections under this analysis.

This theory turns conventional ideas about the world on their head. In spite of its unorthodox perspective, though, it accords startlingly well with a number of observations that scientists have been making for many years (and not just the obvious ones, such as that solar energy is the driving force behind all life and movement on this planet). We have already seen that scientists in such diverse areas as chaos theory, biodiversity studies, and post-Darwinian evolution have been forced to confront the unmitigated extravagance of natural systems, in all their “splendor and squalor.” 117Yet researchers who do not necessarily consider themselves to be part of these “new” streams of thought have independently come to similar conclusions. This is particularly true with regard to the three “expenditures” that Bataille’s theory singles out—sexual reproduction, eating, and death.

For instance, biologists have repeatedly remarked that sexual reproduction is costly, draining, dangerous, and yes, even “wasteful.” This is true not only for individual animals—who are often reduced to emaciated shadows of their former selves by the end of the breeding season because of the tolls of reproduction—but for entire populations. The insect world, in particular, is famous for its extraordinary orgies of “mating” activity involving hundreds of thousands of individuals at a time, who often perish only a few hours or days after hatching—sometimes without ever mating. So striking is this “costliness” that scientists have questioned why sexual reproduction should exist at all—not all animals reproduce sexually, after all. This is often posed as the long-standing “problem” or “paradox” of sex. Sexual reproduction is generally considered to be more than twice as “expensive” (energetically as well as genetically) as asexual reproduction, because of the “inefficiency” of having each parent contribute only half of the offspring’s genetic material, the lack of a male contribution to raising that offspring in many species, as well as the associated risks and energy expenditures of courtship and mating behaviors. Yet exactly this sort of “wastefulness” is expected in a pattern of Biological Exuberance. 118