The best case for consilience, at least as I see it, is the lack of coherent borderlines between levels of explanation. Specifically, if I were to describe why it is that I want water at the moment, I would most likely mention something about my lack of fluid intake over the past two hours. Or, I might defer to a more “ultimate” level explanation and state that, because my circulatory system is dependent on water, a water-seeking-and-imbibing set of processes has evolved which enables me to survive and, ultimately, reproduce. Now, if I were to offer the latter of the two explanations, I would probably be shunned at parties. However, neither of the two explanations is either more or less valid. Likewise, although there is a distinction between the two, the precise ways in which the ultimate level-phenomena are related to the proximate-level phenomena are complicated, and are still part of an ongoing body of research.
The aforementioned confusion between levels of explanation is what sets much of evolutionary psychology in opposition to a more context-dependent, developmental mode of understanding. At the academic level, a developmental, context-dependent perspective—which takes into account a combination of influences on a developing organism, from the genetic to the cultural—is a necessary theoretical model that has yielded important findings in disciplines as diverse as perception, language, and tool use. However, as important as this scientific and philosophical perspective is, various individuals whose motives are more political than empirical have exploited it for their own ends.
Let’s be clear, bad science is bad science—be it a developmental study or an evolutionarily-informed one. The point is that there are certain politically-motivated thinkers and writers who are hostile to the idea of deep time and its effects on our bodies and brains. We are all familiar with the creationist mentality when it comes to the evolutionary heritage of our bodies. However, there are some fairly bright people who, because of their commitments to a certain brand of “left-wing,” blank-slate, no-evolved-sex-or-population-difference mode of thought, are what some refer to as “creationists of the mind.” I would actually argue that some of these purveyors of a-biological thought are more than just mental creationists. Their linguistic assault on the distinction between “sex” and “gender” is a full frontal (pun not intended) blindness in the face of an obvious anatomical and physiological distinction between men and women. Yes, there are cases of hermaphroditism and of individuals who psychologically identify themselves more with a gender that does not match their biology. No doubt there are various hormonal and socialization-related factors that need to be taken into account in order to get a coherent understanding of these phenomena. However, these individuals notwithstanding, that there are two sexes—and that they exhibit average differences across various physical and psychological dimensions—is indisputable.
What is the function of the two sexes? Reproduction, of course! That does not mean that all of us should be reproducing, whether men or women. Nor does it mean that reproduction should be the focus of our social or personal lives. What it does mean, though, is that there is an “ultimate-level,” evolutionary explanation for our sex differences which is fundamentally grounded in reproduction. Women invest more in pregnancy and childcare than men. Albeit tautologically—though not without reason—, it is inevitable that women’s bodies will exhibit the evidence of their evolution for childcare (e.g., mammary glands and the uterus). Conversely, there are no anatomical structures which suggest that men carry and care for a child for nine months and nurse it for a year.
When tested and retested with a variety of measures, time after time, men more than women report that they are more interested in having a wide variety of sexual partners. Conversely, women more than men report that they are attracted to quality mates who are ambitious, financially-secure, and able and willing to be good fathers to their children. No doubt, social and cultural influences are inextricable from the various factors that give rise to average psychological sex differences. But these factors are frequently compatible and complimentary to the traditionally-labeled “biological” factors—e.g., genetics, neuroscience, evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology, etc.—that are tied to the much higher level of maternal-investment that women have to make relative to men. Occasionally, we can stop fighting the war! There is no necessary opposition between a sociocultural explanation and a biological one, whether at the proximate- or ultimate-level. However, the fact that the opposition is artificially erected on a regular basis suggests that politics often trumps reality.
Comments
Post a Comment