... and ain't i a woman?: Biology as ideology

May 20, 1998
Issue 

and ain't i a woman?

Biology as ideology

"Why is it that wealthy old men seem to attract beautiful young women?", asks well-known Australian scientist and author Paul Davies. He answers: "something deeply biological is involved ... the battle of the sexes is just an extension of the war of the genes."

Drawing on research in the "new" discipline of "evolutionary psychology", Davies' latest (April 25) in his series of feature articles in the Sydney Morning Herald aims to convince us that all human sexual behaviour and relations can be explained in strict Darwinian terms.

Genes' "only imperative is to increase their chances of making it to the next generation", Davies says. So, "in the battle of the sexes, both men and women are subconsciously trying to maximise their reproductive success.

"Marriage and legal practices around the world reflect ... that a woman invests a lot of time and energy in having babies, so she needs a stable environment and long-term resources if her children are to reach reproductive age". In short, rich, faithful husbands are a genetic plus.

We do our genes' bidding subconsciously, says Davies. "Young women who marry older, high status men don't rationalise their choice in terms of genetic success. Instead, our genes colour how we feel about the opposite sex. Women genuinely find rich and influential men sexually attractive ... similarly for male choice ... the optimum body shape for female attractiveness is a 70% waist-to-hip ratio, which makes good child-bearing sense."

The scientific evidence for this genetic determinism is, Davies claims, extensive. "A stepchild is 65 times more likely to be murdered than a genetic child"; "men have evolved to be promiscuous" because "a man gains reproductive advantage by impregnating as many women as possible"; women acquiesce to polygamy because "arithmetically, a woman's genes are more likely to survive if she joins the harem of a rich potentate than if she marries a penniless serf"; ad nauseam.

Like all reactionary ideologues in the 1990s (or at least the slicker ones), Davies doffs his hat to the conclusive finding of the last century of scientific work that social structures, institutions and relations play the decisive role in determining human behaviour.

"Human beings are more than the sum of their genes ... our genetic urges normally remain inconspicuous behind a veneer of civilisation", he concedes. Nevertheless, these urges "erupt to the surface when opportunities arise. The widespread use of rape during warfare is an obvious example. So is the use of murder to achieve genetic advantage."

The now thoroughly documented reality that the distribution of economic and social power — to men over women, white over black, owners over wage labourers, First World over Third — profoundly influences the expectations, desires, ideas, behaviour and life experiences of all people in capitalist society is conveniently ignored.

Davies' crude biological determinism could be quickly dismissed as absurd except for the fact that his writings are just a small part of a growing body of such reactionary pseudo-science.

In the US and other advanced capitalist countries today, books documenting research which supposedly proves a natural intelligence "gap" between black and white people are on best seller lists; socio-biology is back on secondary school curricula; and Davies and his ilk are getting increasing exposure in the mass media (each of the three articles in Davies' Herald series, for example, was allocated a full page).

You don't need to believe in conspiracy theories to see how well such reactionary ideologies meet the needs of the ruling elite at present.

Last century, the "science" of craniology served the white masters well in justifying the highly profitable system of black slavery in the US — and maintaining it for decades after the Declaration of Independence declared that "all men are created equal".

Today, backlash ideologies seek to "prove" that polygamy, sexist body image stereotypes, the sexual double standard, rape and even murder are simply cases of humans "doing what comes naturally" (and are, in so far as they facilitate the survival of the fittest genes, "progressive" and justifiable). By doing so, they serve the interests of those who wish to turn back the clock of feminism to re-institutionalise the idea that women and men are "equal but different", with their own "natural" inclinations and social roles.

Of course, the "natural" role for a woman is first and foremost to procreate — to compete for the best husband and provider, bear him lots of children and sacrifice her own physical, psychological, social, sexual and economic independence to raising her progeny to become the next generation of genetic excellence.

Sound familiar? Indeed, there is nothing "new" about evolutionary psychology. It and its pseudo-scientific predecessors remain among the most enduring arguments for putting the "r" back in front of evolution.

By Lisa Macdonald

You need Green Left, and we need you!

Green Left is funded by contributions from readers and supporters. Help us reach our funding target.

Make a One-off Donation or choose from one of our Monthly Donation options.

Become a supporter to get the digital edition for $5 per month or the print edition for $10 per month. One-time payment options are available.

You can also call 1800 634 206 to make a donation or to become a supporter. Thank you.