My recent brief mention of Thomas Huxley (in connection with the Dinosaurs and Other Extinct Saurians: A Historical Perspective volume) reminded me to look anew at this Tet Zoo ver 1 post from 2006...
Here's a little known fact. Charles Robert Darwin (1809-1882), the most important biologist of all time, did not spend his entire life as an old man. I despise stereotypes, especially those that are totally erroneous, and whenever I see a picture of 'old man Darwin' I wonder: why is it that so many of our most important scientists are consistently portrayed as old men? Don't get me wrong, I have nothing in particular against old men (or beards), it's just that this tradition is annoying and misleading, and perpetuated by a society that seems to want scientists to be oddballs that operate on the fringes of society.
Darwin is the ultimate example of this sort of thing: ask people what Darwin looked like and (of those who know who Darwin is) I reckon 99% or more will describe an aged, bald-headed individual with a bushy beard, photographed in black and white and wearing a suit. Of course this is the way in which Darwin is virtually always depicted, in part because photography only became widespread in the 1850s (and by the 1860s Darwin was indeed balding and bearded), and perhaps in part because it's only by this stage of his life that he could be regarded as well known. But the obvious point worth making - and drumming home whenever it's appropriate - is that Darwin didn't spend his entire life as an old man of 70 years of age. It's correct that he was still actively involved in research at this age (in 1879 he finished a work on climbing plants, and in 1881 he published work on the ecological importance of earthworms), but it's neither accurate, fair nor appropriate to imagine him doing all of his important work at this stage in his life.
Quite the opposite: in fact most of the stuff that Darwin is best known for happened when he was disgustingly young (I'm in my thi - - fourth decade* and already feel angry and bitter about the absurd brevity of life). Darwin was on The Beagle between late December 1831 and October 1836. In 1832 he visited Patagonia and collected the remains of glyptodonts, megatheres and toxodonts. In 1833 he arrived at the Falkland Islands, where he met and 'collected' specimens of the now extinct Falkland Island fox or Warrah Dusicyon australis (image at left by John Keulemans), and in September 1835 The Beagle reached the Galapagos Islands. All of this happened when Darwin was between the ages of 22 and 27, with his narrative of the expedition being published in 1839, when he was just 30 (Desmond & James 1991). He was a young man when all of this happened.
* Many, many thanks to the good friends who reminded me how old I really am. I was young once.
We know that Darwin had been seriously entertaining ideas about transmutation, or evolution, since the mid 1830s. But he felt forced to publish his best known work, On the Origin of Species By Natural Selection (Darwin 1859), earlier than he would have liked because he learnt in 1858 that Alfred Russell Wallace (1823-1913) had essentially come up with the same ideas regarding natural selection. Origin was therefore published in 1859 (in fact it was published in November 1859, while Darwin was deliberately avoiding things by being on holiday at Ilkley Spa in Yorkshire), and at this time Darwin was 51. Still he had no beard: the image at left shows him at this age.
In fact Darwin didn't grow that beard until early 1866 when he was 56, and he may have done so in a deliberate effort to disguise himself. This must have been successful: Darwin became close friends with Joseph Hooker (1817-1911) after they met in 1839 (later, in 1846, Hooker became Darwin's right-hand-man as regards botanical issues), yet Hooker failed to recognise the now-bearded Darwin at a Royal Society meeting of April 1866.
So, it's no big deal, but I sooo wish that Darwin, and all those other great scientists, weren't stereotyped so much. Images of the young, pre-bearded Darwin do exist, and given that he was between the ages of 22 and 51 when all of the things he is famous for happened, I have to wonder why we don't see such images more often. We would all do our field some good if we stopped perpetuating stereotypes that have negative connotations. Think of this next time you think of Darwin.
PS - this old article, which I haven't updated, is not included in Tetrapod Zoology Book One, but many others of the 2006 articles are.
Refs - -
Darwin, C. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. John Murray, London.
Desmond, A. & James, M. 1991. Darwin. Penguin, London.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
As it happens, we were having a domestic natter about this only the other day (more interesting than discussing decorating, soft furnishings or whatever). This must be what happens when geeks marry :)
Darren:
You know, as much as I agree with the general point you're making in this article, I must confess that I find Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory amusing precisely because he's an oddball who operates on the fringes of society...
---
It is - still - the best Darwin biography out there, period.
Well Dartian, Sheldon is supposed to be amusing. I think we'd prefer it if the stereotype scientist outside comedy shows were not.
But when he was famous and old it was both the fashion to have beards and there was more photography. So it is a coincidence of fame, age, fashion, and technology.
Moom: yes, but see above. We don't HAVE to depict him this way when there are other, widely available, more chronologically relevant portraits.
Young Darwin looks kind of handsome and very nerdy. I wish they did use that portrait; although it is from farther back in time, he looks easier for modern young scientists to relate to.
Photography may be a reason for Darwin, but not for many others. For example, there are many photos of Einstein from the years when he worked on Relativity, but still he is best known as the Old Man with Funny Hair.
Luckily his Wikipedia article tries to avoid that stereotype.
stormen_per:
I didn't mention TBBT because I think it portrays scientists in a bad way; to the contrary, TBBT is actually quite respectful of science and scientists. That show is one of the most genuinely pro-scientific that I've seen. (Besides, Sheldon is really not that different from some real-life scientists I've met. Exaggerated, yes; qualitatively different, not so much.)
Consider Indiana Jones, Hollywood's attempt at creating a non-stereotypical scientist-y leading character. The movies are great entertainment, but their portrayal of 'science' is piss-poor at best. And one could make a reasonable case that all the Indiana Jones movies - except maybe the fourth one - are, in fact, explicitly anti-scientific. (Anyone who would experience IRL the supernatural things that Indy does in the movies would give up on science and turn to religion.)
Let me see -- old bearded man who is primarily a mental entity, outside the normal social and economic order...
What icon does that make me recall...
It'll come to me --- what could this image be reaching for, whose interest would it be in....
Oh, and Darren:
When he was at about the same age as you were when you originally wrote that, Julius Caesar read about the life of Alexander the Great. He is supposed to have wept when he learned that Alexander had already conquered the (known) world by the age of thirty-two...
@Dartian: not Caesar--Alexander the Great himself supposedly wept when there were no more worlds to conquer.
On the main topic: my favorite pre-beard image is the pencil sketch of Darwin as a modern-day grad student in Cambrige, complete with casual shirt and jeans. It was originally in Darlington's book on evolution, but I reprinted in on p. 86 of my 2007 Evolution book. Darwin's Beagle voyage might be considered equivalent to a modern field-based Ph.D. project. As Darlington notes, today Darwin wouldn't get in to grad school because of deficiencies in math and languages...
Although I totally understand the point Darren is making with this article I personally don't have many misgivings with the portrait of an older Darwin. In many cultures the image of an old man actually adds more credence to an idea, conveying a sense of experience and introspection normally not associated with younger people.
Finally, keep in mind one thing, old age is the longest stage in a person's life. You only spend roughly over a decade as a child, not even ten years as an adolescent, and only some twenty years at the prime of adulthood. After that lays the long twenty or thirty years of seniority before the final rest (in some long-lived individuals old age can actually be longer than all other three stages added up). This means the added bulk of a person's experiences on Earth nowadays will probably take place when white hairs already dot the hairdo.
It isn't only scientists. The composer Brahms is another who is usually shown as an old man with a beard, although his three piano sonatas (for instance) were all composed before he was 21.
Why we need more imagery of the Young Darwin:
http://thedispersalofdarwin.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/we-need-more-image…
Quotemined that for you.
I'd named Einstein as the exemplar of this phenomenon, but yes, it's unfortunate. I've actually heard kids remark, upon meeting a youngish scientist, that they'd thought all scientists were old.
The fringe of one society is the nucleus of another.
Darren, don't you think its time you grew a beard?
Hey all you oddballs, straighten up!
The younger Darwin image is a painting. The only photographs of Darwin that I've been able to find are of the elderly man. I think the general modern preference is use a photograph as opposed to an illustration to represent an individual.
Frankly, I think the notion of some sort of conspiracy or trend to portray scientists as bearded weirdos is nonsense. The bearded Darwin image is more memorable and interesting. It's iconic because it has the characteristics of an iconic image. Einstein riding a bicycle and sticking out his tongue are iconic too because they're memorable and evocative.
Kind of like this one:
http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/Darren-Naish-caricature-Mar-201…
I rather like the way Darwin is depicted in that wonderful movie, The Fall.
http://cdn.buzznet.com/assets/users16/muveebuzz/default/leo-bill-darwin…
It's not that surprising that the young Darwin is always painted, because the very first photograph of a person ever taken (by accident) was in 1839.
Speaking as a beardy, I resent the implication that I'm an oddball who operates on the fringes of society. Hair grows quite naturally on my face. I choose to leave it there, rather than stand in front of a mirror each morning, hacking it off with a naked blade. What sort of weirdo would choose to do a thing like that?
Besides, chicks love a beard.
I recently finished reading Darwin's voyage of the Beagle. I was so inspired and jealous, and realized... he was the same age as I am now when he started that trip!
I started grad school this semester, so I'm on my way to hopefully doing something important for science... it is so encouraging to have scientists depicted as young vibrant people.
I have seen that portrait of young Darwin about as much as I've seen the bearded photo. Maybe scientists are more likely to use it in lectures because they feel similarly?
Bankers don't help things; they prefer beards or other complicated features because it helps to make forgery more difficult. So old beardy Darwin gets on the ten pound note, while long-haired Elizabeth Fry is on the fiver, and Elgar rocks his moustache on the twenty.
But isn't the point that people (well, some people) want to see Darwin as a sort of scientific patriarch, gazing down benignly but critically on his "children"? So they favour images which remind them of Abraham or Plato and such.
Silly, obviously, but comprehensible, at least to an earlier generation.
@Donald Prothero: The story is that Caesar wept when he realized how much Alexander had achieved, and he himself (now as old as Alexander was at his death) had achieved so little.
Leo Bill's version from The Fall was already pointed out. (He has a pet monkey named Wallace whose ideas he keeps stealing!) There's also Paul Bettany's version from Creation (which I have yet to see).
The only other film I can think of offhand with Charles Darwin as a character is Young Einstein, but that's the old, bearded version. (But surely showing Albert Einstein as a young Tasmanian is compensation enough?)
I blame the equation of age with wisdom and authority (and wisdom and authority with men, and men identified with the presence of facial hair).
So, how old is Darwin in the painting at the top? Men go bald at different ages, and it looks to me as if Darwin's forehead is already pretty high in the painting!
--
(B.T.W.: I don't remember a source, but there was a bit of sociological research publicized a few years ago: undergraduates apparently think of lectures by bearded lecturers as vaguer than those by cleanshaven: as if perceived physical fuzziness suggests mental fuzziness! As a bearded academic, I was appalled.)
Young ginger Darwin really does look like Paul Bettany.
Maybe most portraits show Darwin with a beard because those mutton-chops look funny.
I'm trying to think of another movie with a scientist leading character. *off to TVTropes*
Well, there is Contact, the Ghostbusters (for certain values of science), the guy in The Time Machine, and the heroes of several b-movie disaster flicks. Science protagonists are not as uncommon on television though--and like everyone else on television they tend to be young and attractive.
Gah, how could I forget Spock? There's a sciencey protagonist (and one with an actual cultural impact, unlike most of the examples mentioned above)
I for one vote for anything that makes beards look bad-ass (and frankly, I envy Darwin his beard).
Wow!!!!
so many comments... i cant finish reading them all!!
I'm not going to add any contributions to this article... only one little detail that i must point out just for the record:
Why "Falklands" and not "Malvinas"??
I'm sorry... when Darwin visited theese islands there where just resently being occupied by the englishs... we (Argentina) already existed as an independent country for 20 years and England usurped those islands that where part of our territory...
well... sorry for my non-cientific contribution (and my english misspellings)
I know... here is my contribution... we call D. austalis "Zorrito malvinero"... there you have another name to quote!
Those pictures look shopped to me. Besides, everyone knows that no real scientist was ever young.
William:
That's right; both Alexander and Caesar supposedly wept, though for slightly different reasons (IIRC, Plutarch is the source of both of those claims).
Mike:
There is the 1972 movie The Darwin Adventure, starring Nicholas Clay as Darwin; it follows Darwin's life from the start of the Beagle voyage to the aftermath of the publication of the Origin. (I haven't seen the movie myself, alas, but from what I've heard, Captain Fitzroy - played by Ian Richardson - is its main 'villain'.)
Adam:
Spock isn't supposed to be human, though, so he probably shouldn't count in this discussion.
Willy: because the modern, recognised name is the Falkland Islands, and the people of the islands themselves are in favour of British rule, which has been in place legally since 1690. Argentinians really should worry about real political issues (such as the corruption endemic in your civil service) rather than a 200-year-old territory dispute. Distractions like this, similar to the gay marriage disputes in the US, keep people from noticing the more important issues in their everyday lives.
In any case, this is a discussion about facial hair, not facetious claims...
I'd say that one reason scientists are seen as old is the amount of time it takes for your ideas to become established and accepted. By the time someone thought to do a really good portrait of them, they were in their 70s. This problem has naturally solved itself with the advent of widespread home camera use, as well as author portraits in books. The modern image of a working scientist, I would say, is in their thirties, perhaps older for a male and younger for a female, athletic and fairly good-looking, if given to shyness and distraction. Of course, this is mostly because Hollywood likes pretty people, but that's no reason not to be glad of the image change.
Spock isn't supposed to be human, though, so he probably shouldn't count in this discussion.
Actually, bringing Spock into this discussion is relevant: the brilliant science officer doesn't have a beard, but his evil Mirror Universe counterpart does! ;-)
Luciano:
I'm not that well versed in the Star Trek universe; does Spock ever actually do any science?
Recent Tet Zoo articles have been attacked a lot by spam commenters (perhaps not obvious, as I delete them as soon as I notice) - I wonder if this a ScienceBlogs-wide thing, or is it just that I've written particularly attractive articles lately?
On the other hand, since Darwin is one of the most popular cultural symbols of the idea of evolution (and by extension of skepticism, rationalism, religious freethought, and even science itself) it's quite interesting that he would be best known by a feature that he was more-or-less forced to assume in an attempt to disguise himself from troublemakers.
Darren, you wrote in the original post:
Where does that idea come from? By 1866, Darwin was virtually a recluse who rarely left Down House - would he really have felt that he needed such an elaborate disguise? (Besides, that 'disguise' certainly doesn't seem to have fooled the contemporary caricature artists at Punch magazine and elsewhere.)
Quite a few biographical sources say that Darwin grew the beard "to prevent people from recognizing him": that quote comes from AboutDarwin.com, though I confess that I forget where I read it originally.
OK, thanks. The explanation that I have heard - though I, too, have forgotten the original source - was that Darwin just let his beard grow during one of his frequent bouts of illness, and that he liked his new looks so much that he didn't bother to shave it off anymore. (It is mainly because of Darwin's highly sedentary habits that I am sceptical of the suggestion that the need for a disguise was a primary concern for him; by that point in his life, Darwin's chronic ill-health made any and every trip away from home a major undertaking.)
Yeah, it's likely that his choosing to grow the beard was due to failing health as well. The full text from AboutDarwin.com is...
And - last word, perhaps - despite all the 'pro-beard' arguments given above, I still say that it is misleading to deliberately portray 'old man Darwin' all the time. I say again: the key work we typically have in mind was done years prior to this stage of his life, and 'old man Darwin' portraits/photos are far from the only ones available.
Yes, we should condemn the movie Young Einstein.
Remember Tasmanian Devil there (especially it's feeding signs)?
For plenty of nice illustrations of young, pre-beard Charles, I can thoroughly recommend Manning and Granstrom's 'What Mr Darwin Saw' which is a super introduction to evolutionary theory for enquiring small children.
A few of the pages are visible on Amazon Look-Inside. Commendably, it doesn't even put old beardy Darwin on the cover.
http://www.amazon.com/What-Darwin-Saw-Mick-Manning/dp/1845079701
There's also a dark-haired image of him at 33, with his son William, which for some reason is seldom used.
http://www.worldisround.com/articles/29426/photo68.html
Darren, spam on my humble blog has increased at least sevenfold in the last couple of months. Much of it seems to be Polish or Russian and a lot from "SEO" sites. I suspect that someone new has gone into the business big-time.
I'd like e-mail to be taxed or charged by ISPs at 1¢ per hundred. The normal user wouldn't notice it but the spammer would suddenly find their business unprofitable.
I realize that wouldn't do much for blog spam but suppose your ISP billed their ISP 1/10 cent for each comment submitted, and their ISP billed it to the account holder. Same effect--unless your account got hijacked and billed for someone else's spam. Hmmm. I'm sure someone else was using my e-mail address to send spam a few years ago.
The apparent dark hair in the photo linked by Monado (#47) is in striking contrast to the blond hair in the painting: moral is, I suppose, that trying to judge the color of an animal's pelage from a photo (particularly, perhaps, an old photo) is a mug's game.
--
Notably high forehead in the photo: Darwin evidently started going bald younger than many men.
Oddly enough, when I think of Charles Darwin, it's always of the young man in the first image you posted. That's when the exciting stuff happened. I almost never think of him as the old geezer with the beard.
Stop the press! The young Charles Darwin did have a beard! Temporarily, anyway. That information comes from his son, Francis Darwin, who wrote (c. 1884) in his preliminary draft of 'Reminiscences of My Father's Everyday Life' that:
The full text can be found on The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online site (specifically, here).
Obviously, this information entirely invalidates the point Darren was making... ;)
OK, I want to commission a survey of male biologists (or maybe just zoologists)with the following questions:
Q1) Which of these 2 pictures of Charles Darwin would you choose for the cover of a book about Darwin and why?
Q2) In what year were you born?
Q3) Do you have a beard?
Q4) (depending on answer to Q3): why/why not?
Q5) Do you think a beard can say something about someone's biological career?
"Darwin is the ultimate example of this sort of thing: ask people what Darwin looked like and (of those who know who Darwin is) I reckon 99% or more will describe an aged, bald-headed individual with a bushy beard, photographed in black and white and wearing a suit. "
To me, this doesn't suggest an oddball so much as a combination of Yahweh and Ralph Richardson from Time Bandits.
On another forum I use one of the pics of Darwin as an old man with a long beard and a hat. His stern look suits either as a contrast when I'm being what I can only desperately hope passes for witty or as reinforcement when I'm correcting someone who has had the temerity to be wrong on the internet.
I might try out that Darwin as a young man, though, just for variety.
I've looked at Darwin Year 2009 exhibits at length, and most of the time you could guarantee that at least two items were present: a copy of Darwin's room at Down and loads of bearded Darwins (or even a bust) looking at you. While historically inaccurate, the reasons for this are understandable. First of all, Darwin has become an icon, so to stray too much from the established image (as the bearded sage) would alienate visitors (museum marketeers tell me); secondly, Darwin's theory is still contentious among many, particularly within the lay audience many of these exhibits are aimed at. To associate Darwin's image with other established images of such associated traits as wisdom, age and erudition makes sense.
What is really puzzling is how apparently we deem ourselves (or museum people deem their audience) unable to cope with a more diversified picture of important historical figures: the same thing is going on with (just to name three random examples) Otto von Bismarck, Abraham Lincoln, or Queen Victoria.
What about the associated traits of evidence and parsimony?
I see the same issue is also being considered here. Which has a rather different take on it.
To be honest he's got a nice big bushy beard on the ten pound note so maybe that's where the stereotype comes from? :)
[Beagle diary] December 18, 1832, Tierra del Fuego:
"They received us with less distrust & brought with them their timid children. â They noticed York Minster (who accompanied us) in the same manner as Jemmy, & told him he ought to shave, & yet he has not 20 hairs in his face, whilst we all wear our untrimmed beards"
"WE"
I read this blog pretty often, based just on the titles that I find at ScienceBlogs, and I am consistently pleased with the writing quality that I find here.
[from Darren: I assume this is spam. Url deleted].