The "Nature versus Nurture" debate can be summed up as a battle to determine the cause of why we do the things we do. The "Nature" side believes our behaviors are the result of our genetics, which get passed down from generation to generation. The "Nurture" side believes we're born tabula rasa, or a "blank slate." Our experiences and environment shape our behaviors.
This debate, at least in scientific terms, dates back to the late 1800's. Francis Galton coined the term "nature versus nurture" when he made the claim intelligence is passed from parent to child (in a precursor to the study of genetics.) A few years prior, folks like John Locke were promoting the tabula rasa belief.
Throughout the early to mid-20th Century, the "nurture" side of the debate attracted more attention. Part of this came from moral outrage over the application of eugenics laws, which attempted to sterilize criminals, the mentally ill, those with developmental disorders, and others who were deemed "socially inadequate." This often included minorities. Some folks took this farther than others...
Another reason "Nurture" picked up steam was the development of the social sciences, especially psychology. In particular, Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung's respective ideas about psychoanalysis and early childhood influences and John Watson and B.F. Skinner's respective ideas about behaviorism and the power of rewards and punishments drove the belief that biology didn't much matter.
Finally, the growing ideology of feminism played a significant role in the shift towards "Nurture." The feminists discovered it was much easier to challenge the status quo if a case could be made that there were no real innate differences between men and women, and the obvious differences we observe between men and women was just a function of the social conditioning they receive from birth. Because gender was a social construct, it could be changed with just a few tweaks in how we raise kids.
Nature and Nurture in the Development of Gender Roles
That influence of feminism turned out to have a profound effect, mostly negative, on our modern society. Margaret Mead, a cultural anthropologist, is often cited as the founder of the idea that gender roles are a social construct. Mead, a staunch feminist, was heavily influenced by her mentor, Franz Boas, who saw science as a vehicle to push is own political agenda. He could simply present his research from a particular angle, or, in some cases, just make stuff up, then pass it off as "science." That "science" could then be used to promote his political agenda.
It's worth noting Boas was opposed to the kinds of eugenics ideas that eventually influenced the Nazis. In that sense, his deceptions were virtuous, but this "means justifies the ends" approach to science betrays the very purpose of science.
Mead's research involved studying three different cultures, the most significant of which was in Samoa. Her most significant finding claimed that gender roles were not biologically determined, but rather were socially constructed. Mead observed that Samoan girls and boys were allowed to engage in similar activities, such as swimming and fishing, and that there was no shame attached to premarital sex. She also noted that the Samoan culture did not have strict gender roles and that women carried out a lot of traditionally masculine activities. She claimed Samoan men exhibited a lot of feminine traits, like being submissive an openly expressing their emotions. Further, she claimed masculine men were shunned and kept at the periphery of the society.
Mead's research created a foundation for other researchers who made the assumption that her research was accurate (reliable and valid, in science terms.) The researchers who based their work on Mead's include:
- Erving Goffman, who developed the idea of "gender display" and argued that gender is something that individuals "do" rather than something that they "are."
- Judith Butler, who expanded on the idea of gender as a performance and argued that gender is constantly being produced and reproduced through social interactions.
- Nancy Chodorow, who used Mead's work to argue that gender differences are not just the result of socialization, but also of the different relationships that boys and girls have with their mothers.
- Anne Fausto-Sterling, who argued that the binary view of gender as male or female is overly simplistic and that there is actually a wide range of biological variation in human sex characteristics.
Mead's research also influenced prominent feminist writers, including:
- Judith Butler: A leading feminist scholar and philosopher, Butler draws heavily on Mead's work in her own theories about gender as a performance or social construct.
- Simone de Beauvoir: In her landmark book "The Second Sex," de Beauvoir argued that "one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman" and cited Mead's work as evidence of the social construction of gender.
- Gloria Steinem: An influential feminist activist and writer, Steinem has referenced Mead's research in her own writings and speeches on gender and sexuality.
- Bell Hooks: A feminist author and scholar, hooks has written extensively about the intersection of race, gender, and class, and has cited Mead's work in her discussions of gender as a social construct.
- Kate Millett: In her book "Sexual Politics," Millett drew on Mead's research to argue that gender roles are culturally constructed and reinforced through social institutions.
As you probably guessed, Mead's research turned out to be bullshit. Mead spent a few months in Samoa. During that time, she didn't actually interact with Samoan culture. Her entire research consisted of interviewing little girls using an interpreter. She didn't interview boys, adult women, or adult men. She didn't spend time with Samoans in their homes, at their places of work, or while they were doing any kind of recreation. She didn't study their government, their leaders, their teachers, their police, or any other people who could provide any real context for her interviews with little girls.
Other anthropologists who studied the Samoans from an objective point of view, like Derek Freeman, Paul Shankman, Martin Orans, Geoffrey Gorer, E. Richard Sorenson, Roy Wagner and Ernest Gellner have all studied Samoan culture and expertly dissected Mead's research.
It turns out Mead learned the lesson from her mentor, Boas: If you have an agenda you want to push, just make up some research.
All of those researchers and writers who based their work on Mead's work built their reputations on a foundation of mud. The idea that gender roles are a social construct, an idea known as social constructivism, is a big lie. Unfortunately, this belief is still pervasive in modern=day society, and is still being used to rationalize all kinds of blatantly sexist, anti-male policies.
What Does Actual Science Have to Say About Gender?
Real scientists doing real, unbiased research have made some absolutely fascinating discoveries thanks to the human Gnome project (mapping our genes), the advent of function MRI technology (abbreviated fMRI; technology that allows researchers to see brain activity in real time), and the study of epigenetics.
Epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in gene expression that occur without changes to the underlying DNA sequence. It refers to changes in gene activity that are not caused by changes to the DNA itself but rather by modifications to the DNA molecule or to the proteins with which it interacts. These modifications can be influenced by a variety of factors, such as environmental exposures, diet, stress, and other lifestyle factors, and they can affect how genes are expressed, or turned on or off, in different cells or tissues. Epigenetic changes can have a profound impact on a range of biological processes, including development, aging, and disease susceptibility, and they are increasingly being recognized as important factors in shaping human health and disease.
In terms of gender roles, epigenetics has suggested that social experiences and environmental factors can play a role in the expression of genes related to behavior and development. For example, some studies have found that exposure to stress or trauma can lead to epigenetic changes that affect the expression of genes related to anxiety and depression. Other studies have suggested that environmental factors such as diet, exercise, and exposure to toxins can also impact epigenetic changes and potentially influence gender-related behaviors and traits.
Basically, researchers are discovering that gender roles appear to be genetic in nature, and the environment can influence biology to modify that genetic expression. Our genes determine if we have a masculine or feminine persona, but the environment can shape how that masculinity or femininity is expressed within the confines of those genes.
This is essentially how sexual orientation works, too. We have a lot of evidence the sex you're attracted to is innate, but we have the ability to deviate from that based on the environment. Cough, cough, prison, cough.
Significantly, Mead's idea that "gender" is infinitely malleable and masculine people can learn to act feminine or vice versa without any consequence is flatly wrong. However, there is some variability in how masculinity and femininity can manifest in different environments, which tracks with what we observe in other cultures both today and in the past.
Why This Matters for The Ghost Dogs
We're a group of men interested in getting better at being men within the context of a brotherhood of men who hold each other accountable. What it means to "be a man" was aptly summed up with this excellent quote by Jack Donovan:
“When someone tells a man to be a man, they mean that there is a way to be a man. A man is not just a thing to be—it is also a way to be, a path to follow and a way to walk. Some try to make manhood mean everything. Others believe that it means nothing at all. Being good at being a man can’t mean everything, and it has always meant something”
― Jack Donovan, The Way of Men
The Meads and other social constructivists argue "being a man" can mean anything, which is clearly wrong. To be a man, we necessarily have to reject the premise that "being a man" can be whatever we want it to be.
Indeed, that's precisely what our anecdotal experiences have proven. We've identified what it means to be a man, then developed a way to learn to be a man that fulfills our goals. This is the reason we use The Call of the Wild as an allegory for the path to discovering and becoming a man - the path Buck takes to discover his primal wolf within is the same path we take to discover the primal manhood within us.
When we answer the call, it's a very specific call we're answering.
~Jason
***
No comments:
Post a Comment