达尔文的“竞争”是维多利亚时代的性别共谋Darwin's 'Competition' as a Victorian Gender Complicity
很多人把达尔文的“适者生存”当成客观的自然定律，但 Rowan Hooper 的这本书揭露了一个事实：这套叙事在诞生之初就是一次大规模的表达武器化。1859年的英国处于殖民扩张、工业革命和极端父权制的巅峰，达尔文精准地捕捉到了当时统治阶级的认知入口——他们需要一套“竞争、掠夺、优胜劣汰”的理论来为自己的殖民暴行和阶级压迫提供生物学背书。
这本质上是一场元暴力（meta violence）的合谋。当自然界被定义为一场残酷的“存在性战争”时，男性中心叙事成功地将这种掠夺逻辑内化为文明的基石。在这种框架下，合作被贬低为“权宜之计”，而共生（symbiosis）被视为次要或异常。有趣的是，那些试图修正这个偏差、强调互联与协作的视角，往往来自女性科学家，如 Lynn Margulis 或 Rachel Carson。她们的发现起初遭遇的嘲笑与质疑，正是学术界在维护男性中心解释权的结构性暴力。
直到今天，我们依然在支付这套错误叙事的代价。我们把竞争当成唯一的最优解，在社会博弈中通过压制他者来确立自身的存在，却忘记了在细胞层面上，我们本身就是共生的产物。如果不能拆穿这层文化暴力的伪装，我们永远无法在公共空间建立真正公正的表达。
Most people treat 'survival of the fittest' as an objective natural law, but Rowan Hooper's book reveals a stark truth: this narrative was a massive weaponisation of expression from its inception. In 1859, Britain was at the peak of colonial expansion and extreme patriarchy. Darwin precisely tapped into the cognitive entry point of the ruling class—they needed a theory of 'competition and predation' to provide biological legitimacy for colonial atrocities and class oppression.
This is essentially a complicity rooted in meta-violence. By defining nature as a ruthless existential war, the masculine-centric narrative successfully internalised this predatory logic as the foundation of civilization. Within this framework, cooperation was downgraded to mere 'expediency,' and symbiosis was treated as marginal or anomalous. It is telling that the perspectives attempting to correct this imbalance—emphasising interconnection and collaboration—often came from women scientists like Lynn Margulis or Rachel Carson. The ridicule they initially faced was a form of structural violence used to protect the monopoly of the masculine-centric interpretation.
We are still paying the price for this fraudulent narrative today. We mistake competition for the only optimal expression, attempting to establish our existence by suppressing others in social games, forgetting that at the cellular level, we are products of symbiosis. Unless we dismantle the disguise of this cultural violence, we will never achieve truly just expressions in the public sphere.