New Times,
New Thinking.

  1. Culture
20 January 2014

No, Jane Austen was not a game theorist

Using science to explain art is a good way to butcher both, and is intellectually bankrupt to boot.

By William Deresiewicz

This article first appeared on newrepublic.com

Proust was a neuroscientist. Jane Austen was a game theorist. Dickens was a gastroenterologist. That’s the latest gambit in the brave new world of “consilience,” the idea that we can overcome the split between “the two cultures” by bringing art and science into conceptual unity – which is to say, by setting humanistic thought upon a scientific foundation. Take a famous writer, preferably one with some marketing mojo, and argue that their work anticipates contemporary scientific insights. Proust knew things about memory that neuroscientists are only now discovering. Austen constructed her novels in a manner that is consistent with game theory. Bang, there’s your consilience.

Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month
Content from our partners
An old Rioja, a simple Claret,and a Burgundy far too nice to put in risotto
Antimicrobial Resistance: Why urgent action is needed
The role and purpose of social housing continues to evolve
Topics in this article :