Story of A Scientist: A review of Richard Dawkins autobiography “An Appetite for Wonder”

I have read about two well-known British scholars who were extremely interested in society, in general and biology in their life: Herbert Spencer and Richard Dawkins. However, Herbert Spencer perished or became least relevant due to, inter alia, his ‘cerebral hygiene’ i.e. unwillingness to read others writings. But this is not a case with Dawkins. In his autobiography he has given some footnotes with useful references and further readings i.e. his web page. Isn't it strange to have footnotes in a biography? 

This book published in 2013, contains 15 chapters, all of them written in chronological order. In the beginning you would find a genealogical tree of Dawkins family: both maternal and paternal. Stories before his birth and of early childhood are also there in book, thanks to his mother’s dairy. In fact, in first few chapters he should have named his mother as co-author. There are chapters devoted to his early schooling, preparatory schooling, schooling, college days and oxford tutoring.

How Dawkins became a scientist?That is of evolutionary biology? This is question one would ask after reading the title, as I did. Not an easy and straight forward answer is there. He begins with family history, occupation, leaning and interest of ancestors. Some of them were military personnel, one great-great uncle denied existence of God and put man first, grandfather was wrote a book which was textbook in school, uncle encouraged him to make radio and his father was a botanist trained in tropical agriculture. All this things, except first one, may not have caused him to become a scientist but, last few, definitely made an environment which is required to be in intellectual field.

Dawkins spent his early childhood in Kenya where his father was serving the imperial rule. Where he played alongside lion cubs, but, as his mother notices in her diary, Dawkins was playing with toys and didn’t show interest in cubs. One early spark where Dawkins, at 6, realized his interest in science was when he entertained his little sister Sarah with stories of Mars and Venus and their distance from earth (P. 55). However, this is not the end of story. His parents sent him a school which had workshops. Their aim was to cultivate curiosity, improvisation techniques in their child. But this wasn’t achieved since the workshop did not have trainers. Instead Dawkins learned how to make gauge but not use of it.

It interesting to note that Dawkins parent went to his teacher and asked about further step in his career. He advised them to try for Oxford. Dawkins mentions several mentors who guided him at Oxford. Dawkins feels indebted to the ‘tutorial system’ at Oxford and regards it different from Cambridge. During those tutorials Dawkins would read a PhD thesis in each week and would write a report.

Although, Dawkins credits a lot to Oxford and the tutorial system in making of his scientist, but I cannot forgo his mother who taught his reading and writing before he was admitted in formal schooling. As a result, in school he was considered as ‘grown boy’ and was handed books of ‘grown boy’ which he could hardly understand. Similarly role of the teacher who advised his patents Oxford. Therefore, I believe it is a chain of several individuals who made one of the greatest contemporary scientists.

It’s also worth to note here that the conversation he had with his wife during research, he calls it as ‘mutual tutorial’. His own eagerness to find truth is a prerequisite to become scientist. And his honesty to mention the ‘blemish block’ which showed minor variation in one of his research makes him an ethical researcher. He doesn’t shy away from stating feud within academia. Dawkins ability to adjust the change and willingness to develop computer software is worth admiring. Despite being from non-social sciences, he learned linguistic and now established himself as a philosopher. These things tell us why he was offered a position of Asst. Professor, immediately after his presentation in a conference.

Finally publication of Selfish Genes established him as a scientist.

How he became Atheist?

Those who know Dawkins, most of them know him as an atheist.So it is worth to interrogate when he became an atheist, and why? In his childhood he, like other students, was asked to conform to Anglican Church through various school practices. Once upon time he became extremely religious, although his mother had told him, at 9, multiplicity of religions and contradiction within them. Although 9 is not the age to develop this kind of critical cognition. But at the age of 17, he turned an atheist. He writes:

“I was especially incensed by the hypocrisy of the ‘General Confession’ in which we mumbled in chorus that we were ‘miserable offenders’. (140)

But still he believed in unspecified creator. And later he himself criticized the idea of “unspecified creator” as she/he was not able to design itself. Further he also critiqued the ‘middle man’ (much like Jotirao Phule, Indian social reformer). Perhaps, most important reason to Dawkins become an atheist was that his friend persuaded him to Darwin and he found “Darwinian alternative to God creator”. Eventually he turned to militant atheist[2]. Another incidence is worth to be recounted here. Once he refused to kneel in chapel (mostly in school premises). He thought that the school authorities must be tolerant of his rebellious act. But eventually this was personally reported by a teacher to Dawkins’ parents. The teacher also asked Dawkins’ parents to change his mind. His father’s reply was: “it is not our business to control him in that sort of way, that kind of thing is your problem, and I’m afraid I must decline your request”. According to Dawkins, for parents this wasn’t important. I can conclude, the free ambience and rather non-religious ambience in the family, encouraged him to do away with religion. Rather it was his parents’ desired, implicitly and explicitly, that he should focus on creativity than religion.

Social Realities: 

Social scientist do look up at biographies as a source of social history. Dawkins story does offer some insights in some less debated consequences of World War II (WWII). On couple of moments his mother and he were survived by a notch (P. 59). The consequences of killing young married people in war also noted, implicitly (P. 71-80). A family with grandparents and granddaughter but without father / son is hard to live. I think this scenario manipulated the European society digest the idea of stepfather and stepmother than other Asia and Africa. Another consequence of WW II is a food austerity in the post war years.

The author shows sensitivity to social issues and wild life protection. For instance, while mentioning a child servant in his father’s house and killing of tigers by an ancestor, he displays remorse. 

He tells how children in dormitory tell stories of ghost. In another school, a boy claiming that his father has led down rail and he would let trains run over them. Another belief among those who lived in the boarding school: the house in which they lived would have same personality effect on them. He questions gullibility of children and also asks why parents did not cultivate critical thinking amongst children.

Dawkins does not hesitate from mentioning fagging system which existed in England. In this system the junior entrants had to work as slaves to their elder / senior roommates. They had to remind the senior of the minute of the minute things, like food time, etc. This practice can be equated with hazing in US military and ragging in Indian colleges.

Dawkins has highlighted ageism exist amongst bothers: the elder is often a craftsman and younger one is a helper (P. 115). And also consequence of having a gender based school and understanding that military training changes one from ‘boy’ to ‘man’, although the practice has just ceased from Dawkins time. The importance of military given by the then society is also showed: when a teacher excuses a boy from failure in Latin sine he had been on war. “War counts as Latin”, teacher replied.

The book is also a very good source for a child experience for psychologists for further explanation. Instances of children bullying their contemporaries, other joining them, tendency to join the powerful, painting books, and malevolent behavior, such as troubling teacher are good examples for researchers.

Lastly, the author highlights the minor but significant ageism that exists among brothers, even in the childhood; elder is a craftsman and younger is helper.

Readers’ Perspective:The first chapter, in which Dawkins traces his family tree, puts stress on your brain to remember who’s who he is talking about. Some characters have dual name. Mentioning other name would have been avoided to make the book reader friendly. However, this difficulty does not persist after first chapter where he rarely refers to his earlier generations. Other tendency of Dawkins’ is, being trained in biology, he often relates things to biology which makes reading little difficult for a general reader. Some experiments are given in the book, though not so hard, little effort on the part of reader can decipher them.

Somewhere its felt that Dawkins assumes his book will be read by only British and US readers. So, occasionally he provides further explanation for the US readers. At such time, the non-US and non-British readers may feel deprived.

Self-Reflection:Dawkins doesn’t accept things as written by his mother in her diary. For instance once, a bomb went through their home and curtains were ablaze. His mother notes that a knife from servants hand was snatched away by the blow. But Dawkins questions whether the servant who through away the knife in the shock. While reading the book, you don’t feel like he tried to hide something.

Take Away: This memoir/autobiography is only up to his publication of The Selfish Genes, i.e. half part of Dawkins’ life. The second part has been published in 2015 as Brief Candle in the Dark: My Life in Science. The book is worth reading for general reader, psychologist, teachers, and concerned parents and for those who aspire to make career.After reading book you may feel writing a diary and keeping a general record of yours and your beloved one, not for controlling them but to be reflective and record one’slife. This is a well advised book for those who wish to develop logical perspective towards life, if not atheistic.

[2] This ‘Militant Atheism’ should not be understood in literal term: advocacy of violence. A TED talk by Dawkins is available on You Tube for further clarification on Militant Atheism.