Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 13:56:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joseph Flanagan III <flanagan-AT-odin.english.udel.edu>
Subject: Re: White men et al.


Actually, I don't mean this as an attack on WF, and I don't believe he
subscribes to racist evolutionary thinking. But I think there is a real
danger in using genetics to determine either present behavior or past
events--it really becomes an example of circular reasoning, as I think the
example of "island races" illustrates. It naturalizes human behaviour in a
way I think is dubious. Take, for example, arguments concerning the
evolutionary explanation for promiscious male sexuality. We have all
heard, I am sure, the argument that men are "naturally" more promiscious
than women because it is in their advantage to spread their "seed" in as
many places as possible and thus maximize their changes of passing on
their genes (worse form of this logic says there is a genetic component to
rape, to wit, men not powerful enough to compete with other men force
themselves on women).  However, as far as I know, it is far from clear
that 1) a one-time sexual affair is more likely to result in pregnancy
than one that takes place over an extended period of time and 2) a child
in primitive conditions is more likely to reach maturity in a one-sex
family than a two-sex one (i.e if men weren't around to protect women,
would an infant have a better or worse chance to reach an age to
reproduce--or, in the case of rape, would a mother devote equal care to
child--or even not kill it at birth?). This is not to say that bourgeous
nuclear family is in our genes. But one could make an "evolutionary"
argument that says men will stay committed to one partner because it
maximizes the chances for successful (multiple)  pregnancies and the
sexual maturation of its offspring. Same with tribes (and, again, I'm
uncertain, but wouldn't most tribes living within close proximity resemble
one another?) As far as I know, there is no necessary better advantage in
killing off members of another tribe because they threaten your resources
than COOPERATING with that tribe in order to learn new or better
techniques to increase those resources--better hunting techniques,
agricultural practices, etc. Most "popular" evolutionary explanations have
an in-built bias in them that assumes contemporary aggressive male
behavior is the natural end-point of evolution.  But that is a projection
into the past to explain contempory or modern behaviour.  Evolutionary
explanations, however, can't work like logical argumentation (you can't
trace the origin by simply moving backwards), nor are they teleological.
(But, again, I'm neither a biologist or geneticist, so I am curious what
others have to say). Joe




     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---