I am not one of those feminists - I understand that there are some basic, general sex differences between the rough, confusing categories we attempt to delineate as "male" and "female". That said, I still have some major problems with evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology as disciplines. Scientists in these fields often completely disregard the influence of culture, worshiping instead at the altar of evolution and theorizing that literally everything we do has some root in caveman behavior. Interestingly enough these theories often tend to back up existing social norms with regards to gendered roles.
But I understand there are some interesting questions raised by studying human evolution, when the research is done properly, by scientists working under respected institutions, transmitting their findings via articles published in peer-reviewed journals.
But what happens when less intellectually rigorous types get a hold of some of the basic tenets of evolutionary psychology/biology? Well, all you have to do is pick up a New York Times or a Psychology Today to find out. The results of one study (often of questionable methodology) are presented as "proof" for why men are likely to cheat and women just need to shop and so forth.
And as if that wasn't bad enough, what happens when an advice columnist with a particular viewpoint gets a hold of some evo psych? Well, you get Dan Savage's latest column and podcast, both of which he devotes entirely to Christopher Ryan, co-author of the book "Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality." Oh, and not one but two blog posts as well. It's fairly unprecedented for Savage to devote so much time to one person's theories, but when he said that Ryan's book, "...is the single most important book about human sexuality since Alfred Kinsey unleashed Sexual Behavior In The Human Male on the American public in 1948," I just had to know who this guy is.
The results of my Internet sleuthing were interesting, but I'm refraining from that discussion until I read the book and even hopefully get a chance to pick Christopher Ryan's brain a bit, if he's amenable. He blogs regularly for Psychology Today as well as The Huffington Post. Based on Savage's references, as well as the other material available, Ryan believes that he has significant evidence that monogamy is unnatural in humans, and particularly for men. This is also something I believe, although I don't yet really think there is scientific evidence to prove it. I'm also not sure if it really matters. Sure, the question of how our sexual culture evolved is interesting, but given that we still live in a world where womens' sexuality is so highly stigmatized, I'd rather spend my energy fighting misogynistic cultural notions about sexuality rather than quibbling over whether we're more like chimpanzees or bonobos.
That aside, I am looking forward to reading the book. His central premise seems largely similar to that of Robert S. McElvaine's in "Eve's Seed: Biology, The Sexes, and the Course of History," in which he argues that the advent of agriculture was responsible for the desire to commodify and control female sexuality, leading to the patriarchal way of life we're all so familiar with.
Yet I'm still a bit skeptical over Savage's gushing praise. While I'm sure the book is interesting, the idea that monogamy isn't natural to men and women isn't a new idea, and I'm curious as to what in particular about this book lead Savage to get so excited while he tends to pass over a lot of other equally worthy books along the same subject matter - like Mary Roach's excellent "Bonk" which gave this jaded Human Sexuality minor some new info to stew on (did you know that vaginal lubrication is just blood plasma? I bet you didn't!).
More to come on this subject soon!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
The influence of culture is not disregarded at all, just go to SEP and read something about the cultural evolution.
ReplyDeletehttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolution-cultural/
"Given that we still live in a world where womens' sexuality is so highly stigmatized, I'd rather spend my energy fighting misogynistic cultural notions about sexuality rather than quibbling over whether we're more like chimpanzees or bonobos."
ReplyDeleteWell said! As it turns out, one of the most powerful arguments one can make against the tragic, senseless stigmatizing of female sexuality involves explaining a bit about chimp and bonobo sexuality and social organization, and why these things are relevant to human sexual evolution. This is part of what we tried to do in our book. Hope you enjoy it, and I'm looking forward to our chat.
CPR
Ryans claim that monogamy is unnatural in humans is surely a moot point in modern society. Surely there's a large number of biologically driven behavioural traits that may have once been considered normal that evolution has banished to history. For the most part We're no longer canibals and we dont subscribe to human sacrafice, nor do we long to return to those behaviours. As we evolve we change both who we were and who we are.
ReplyDeleteBut cannibalism and human sacrifice were primarily religious and spiritual issues, whereas marriage and mating are more social, personal, and economic issues. One doesn't eat a missionary every day, but one does have to share ones hut with the same person every day. If anything, cannibalism and human sacrifice are ephemeral cultural concepts, easily abandoned. But our culture is (at best) 5000 years old, give or take. Compare that to the 150,000 years or so of evolution from paleolithic to neolithic, and I'd have to argue that such things as preference of a mate are patterns not so easily "banished to history". Try to look towards human cultural universals for what will remain unchanged in our society as we evolve and change who we are.
ReplyDelete