Evolutionary Psychology vs. Feminism
Evolutionary psychology has become something of la mode de jour. It is being used to explain away anything and everything in psychology and sociology. As you might expect with something so new, being applied to areas it can’t possibly hope to explain, the vast majority of the claims made are dubious at best.
However, evolutionary psychology is not at fault. The use of evolutionary psychology is where the problem lies.
Evolutionary psychology is not an exact science and it can never hope to be. Much of it is speculative and the evidence/research is patchy due to it being mega-difficult to gather behavioural data from dead people. That said, it is not inherently worthless or automatically incorrect.
The principal itself is not one that many would find controversial: in the same way natural selection has shaped us physically, it has also shaped us psychologically. Traits best suited to survival have become prevalent (and unknowable, detrimental traits have presumably died out or appear less frequently). This premise will generally go unopposed when it is applied to topics such as ‘why we find babies cute,’ or ‘why altruism exists,’ or ‘why do we favour short-term thinking.’ No objections. These are things that we are usually quite happy to accept as a product of our evolution.
The main area where evolutionary psychology faces criticism is when it is wheeled in to fight a gender battle. My feminist friends and acquaintances refuse to accept that they are inherently bad at certain tasks, inherently good at others (“But it was a compliment!” doesn’t wash), and their place in society is pre-determined by their neurons. My feminist friends are, of course, completely correct for the following reasons:
1) No serious evolutionary study claims to have any evidence to support any such grand, clear cut, proclamations. Those that make the claims evidently don’t understand the limitations of the field and/or are extrapolating in a way which suits their agenda.
2) Evolution hasn’t stopped. We left the Savanna some time ago. To assume ancient origins for all of our behaviour is to ignore our ability to adapt.
3) The Nature vs. Nurture debate is far from settled. The proportions to which genetics, societal pressures, and learned behaviour influence how we think and act is still very much open for discussion.
4) Women having one natural skill set and men having another, completely different, skill set isn’t actually beneficial for survival. As has been demonstrated in times of war, women are more than capable of completing the same tasks as men when called upon. Surely such hard times were more the norm when we were running around naked?
5) The studies are not fool-proof. As already mentioned, the nature of the field makes gathering data very difficult, and arriving at a point where deciding something is inherently human is tricky enough. Then going on to say that something is either male or female is near impossible.
I could go on, but I won’t. The argument does not even need to get to this point. When evolutionary psychology is being used to justify sexist attitudes it means ignoring all other factors in determining what makes an individual tick. We are not slaves to our instincts, nor are our instincts uniformed. It could be argued that violence is an inherently human trait – it appears sufficiently regularly – and yet most civilised people don’t going around hitting everyone that angers them. We are definitely pre-disposed to enjoy shagging, which has a clear evolutionary benefit, and yet we don’t necessarily take every sexual opportunity that presents itself. Even if some traits were more prevalent in women (although there’s no evidence to suggest this is the case) why wouldn’t our gift of rational thought trump that, as it does with other biases?
It is important to remember that we are animals. Acknowledging our roots is an important part of understanding history, religion, and the societies we have created. Evolutionary psychology could eventually be an important tool for understanding our past, but it does not necessarily dictate how we should be living in the present or bare any relevance to how we should proceed in the future.
NB. I am no authority in the field of psychology or neuroscience, just interested. I could be talking shite.
An Agenda for 2011
2010 saw a major reworking or the political landscape in Britain. The new terrain is causing all sides to tread carefully as they struggle to find firm footing amongst all of the uncertainty. As would be expected, the large, lumbering beasts that have dominated parliament for so long have found adapting to be the most difficult. This was always going to be the case, and was anticipated by the coalition, who immediately brought about changes to the Parliamentary Dissolution rules as a protective measure.
Conversely, the opposition to the status quo has found its feet quickest. A revitalised youth movement saw the creation of scores of anti-cuts groups in every corner of the country as well as the much-publicised student demonstrations and occupations.
The opposition has found itself with the upper hand, forcing coalition u-turns on several areas of policy. Slowly, sections of the public are remembering what a democracy should look like. Issues of equality and wealth distribution are becoming real public concerns.
Having rediscovered ourselves in 2010, it is important that the great British public continues to keep pressure on the coalition in 2011. This is the agenda to ensure real change in the year ahead:
Continued visible opposition
Eventually the press aren’t going to care. Some bigger scandal will consume them and they will stop covering protests and campaigns in favour of fresh ratings-winning stories. Just because we are disappearing from the headlines doesn’t mean we have to disappear from view all together. Our opposition must continue country-wide. To be seen we need to be in the streets and engaging with communities. Just because the media have stopped caring doesn’t mean everybody else has. This leads nicely to my next point:
Increased public involvement
We cannot be effective without public support. As I blogged recently, while demonstrations have often received widespread support, there are sections of the public that are unsupportive for various reasons. One major reason is that the demonstrations appear to be very middle class and many people don’t relate to the people involved. This needs to be countered by involving local people more in local issues and explaining to them –without jargon – exactly what this means to them and how they can help. Our movement values community at its core and so needs to be a movement of whole communities instead of individuals. The more people from different backgrounds involved, the more others like them may join us. Less Whitehall, more village hall.
Smart use of the media
When we have been featured in the mainstream media the results have been mixed. The appearance of Jody McIntyre on the BBC was a major win because he was calm, articulate, and knew his stuff. Conversely the whole fire extinguisher incident damaged us right out of the gate. Likewise, Clare Solomon’s defensive Newsnight appearance after the incident did not play well. When we appear in the media we need to be as calm and articulate as Jody as well as whiter than white; we do not need to give the media further ammunition. Starting on the back foot in an interview makes it very hard for us to recover and the interview is ultimately more damaging than beneficial if we are deemed to have ‘lost’ the argument.
Effective, targeted, direct action
Direct action needs to poignant and purposeful rather than just eye catching. With few resources and activist we need to be working smarter. There’s only so far you will get by gluing your hands to a window.
Change in rhetoric
By far the most important point. If we are to improve our standing within communities, to get the family next door involved, to improve our media presence, and all the rest then we really need a change in rhetoric. There is still far too much talk of being a “lefty” (or socialist, or Marxist, or anarchist, or environmentalist, or post-consumerist, or any other labels I see being used) and not enough talking about the issues as well rounded human beings. Many people involved consider themselves to be somewhat intellectual and take pride in these unfashionable badges. It’s time to remove the badges. They are unfashionable for a reason.
New Labour was born out of acknowledging that the public and the media have an aversion to anything left-wing except the policies. You can win favour talking about socialist policies until you brand them as socialist. We need to be careful how we frame our arguments and how we style ourselves.
The coalition government have requisitioned the use of the word “fairness.” That was smart. “Fairness” plays well. I say, rather than letting them have it we need to reclaim the word. This can be done very easily as the policies they are advocating are not fair in the slightest.
“It’s not fair that a bus driver pays for a middle class child to get a degree.” Sounds like a reasonable argument and is phrased in a way people can relate to it. We need to be countering in kind, using their own rhetoric, only telling the truth:
“It’s not fair that the richest people in society aren’t paying the same level of tax as that bus driver.”
“It’s not fair that those at the top think they are immune to the law.”
“It’s not fair that ordinary working people are losing their jobs due to rich people’s mistakes.”
“It’s not fair that banks won’t lend to small businesses while paying out massive bonuses.”
We can reclaim the discourse. We need to be communicating in this way. No dry economic policy required. We need to stop trying to sound smart and simply sound real. We’re not fringe political nutters. We’re just like that family next door and we’re worried. Real people with real concerns.
Why They Hate the Protesters, Why They Hate the Greens.
For the past few weeks I have been wrestling with my conscience. Have I abandoned my roots? Have I completely forgotten where I come from? Am I still that working class lad from a northern, industrial town? I still feel the same.
My worries stem from the frequency with which I have had to defend the student protests to my friends and acquaintances back up home. Have I really become that out of touch? What are your objections? Why aren’t you behind the students – they’re doing this for you?!
I have had plenty of time to reflect and I really do understand the problems my friends are having in accepting the student movement.
We all shudder when we hear the likes of Cameron and Clegg talking about the poor. “What the hell would they know about it?” We sneer. Trust-fund millionaires trying to pretend they understand or care about our plight. We are rightfully hostile.
What I hadn’t considered fully – and what the middle classes don’t realise – is that they are subjected to the same treatment. Regardless of whether or not the students are in the right, the people I’ve spoken to dislike them immensely. They don’t pick faults with the arguments at hand; instead they focus on the individuals. Some choice comments:
“Half of the ‘hooray Henrys/Its Ronnie not Veronicas’ in that crowd will be fucking Tories once they grow out (of) there (sic) socialist/Michal Moore/Noam Chomsky phase.”
“I’m sort of a self-loathing student. The majority are pretty down to earth but there are so many Nathan Barleys.”
“I’m obviously generalising here, but all the students that were true cunts that I encountered at uni were loudmouths with moppy hair some form of jack wills hoody, maybe with a bodywarmer on. “
The language maybe coded and ad hominem but the implication is quite clear. ‘They too are privileged; they don’t look like us, sound like us and definitely do not represent us.’
A parody entitled “BRITAIN BACKS MIDDLE CLASS CHILDREN WHO WANT THE MOON ON A STICK” from the Daily Mash summed up feelings quite nicely.
When I take a look around at the people I know involved in the protests I struggle to disagree. From visiting the UCL occupation I garnered quite quickly that I was surrounded by a bunch of middle class kids. Listening to conversations from drunk 17-year-olds about whether they are going to opt for Oxford or Cambridge pretty much sealed it. Add to it the fact that the son of the mega-rich Dave Gilmour was one of the more prominent figures at Thursday’s demonstration and, frankly, I’m wasting my time arguing with my northern brethren: The protests HAVE been led by the middle classes.
So what? What if the protests aren’t made up of working class kids, does it really matter? Yes, yes it does. It matter immensely. These demonstrations rely on public support. A recent article by an excellent Green Party blogger managed to get it entirely wrong. He crowed success at receiving approval from a well-to-do lady on the train. As heartening as any support can be, that’s not the key demographic we’re missing. We are missing the support of the very people we want to help.
This, I feel, is not just a problem of student protests. I would go further and say that it is a problem of the progressive politics movement as a whole. There is a reason why the Green Party’s policies receive massive public approval (23.66% of the vote on voteforpolicies.org.uk) then fail to perform in General Elections (Just 1% of the vote nationally, half that of the BNP). We are failing to get our message across. We are inaccessible to the public.
We do have the best policies, and the protesters are in the right, but until our message is one that is representative of the people we will remain marginal, despised, and irrelevant.
Why Support the Students?
For all the cynics who have criticised the student protests, who don’t understand why this restructuring of education is disastrous, who do swallow the simplistic argument that “students should pay for their education…” I won’t even get involved with debating the minutia of the policy being proposed.
The issue of education funding is a massive one; however, the issue at hand is even greater still. It was alluded to when John Denham called on the coalition to vote with their conscience later today. The issue at hand is fundamental to the foundation of democracy and our society as a whole.
This restructuring of education, putting all the funding onto the students, was not in any party manifesto prior to the general election in May. The Liberal Democrats made promises to oppose any rising of the fees, to oppose cuts to public spending as a whole, and to campaign for the introduction of proportional representation. They have now turned their back on each and every one of their promises. The Conservatives, who campaigned on the issue of “eliminating waste,” are cutting faster and deeper than advertised.
Those marching through the streets of London, clashing with police as I type, are not just marching against fees increases, they are marching to let the political class know that when you break your promises there will be consequences.
For too long politicians have just taken the electorate for granted. The disingenuousness and out-right lies are being told without even a hint of shame or fear. If general elections are to mean a thing then politicians need to follow through with the policies and principals laid out in their manifestos. They need to deliver the policy that the electorate voted for. By going back on their promises at the very first opportunity shows the contempt and lack of respect that these politicians have towards the people that put them in office.
When the Lib Dems agreed to vote FOR higher fees, to vote FOR vast public sector cuts, and to let the PR amendment fail without a single Lib Dem backing it, they thought no one would notice their complete u-turn on three of their key policies.
The shamelessness and careless abandon with which these actions have been carried out has begged the question; “so what are you going to do about it?” The demonstrations up and down the country are our answers to that most contemptible of questions.
This isn’t about fees. This is about sending a message: we are watching, we are taking notice, and turning your back on us is not acceptable.
The students are protecting the democratic system of the UK and it is for that reason they deserve our support.
Hitting Home
I come from a small industrial town in the north east of England surrounded by farms and old pit villages. I had a fairly typical upbringing; I played football, had a paper round, and went to the local comprehensive. The most remarkable thing about me is how utterly unremarkable I am. The epitome of average.
Today, as I write, I’m back in the north-east for a few days. A ‘holiday,’ if you can call it that. My return to the land of terrace houses is a social one. Not only would I like to see some more of my 4 month old nephew, but also my increasingly-frail granny fell and broke a rib this week so I needed to pay her a visit in hospital, and an old friend recently discovered his mother has an aggressive form of leukaemia for which she’s currently having chemotherapy.
While I’m enjoying London’s bright lights, beers, and madness sometimes real life does make an appearance.
As a member of the Green Party I am already well aware of the devastating impact of the Tory spending cuts. I have read enough on the subject to know that they are damaging to the country both socially and economically. However, these worries had always been abstract concepts. Coming home brings all of these worries out of the abstract and makes them a reality.
Upon getting home I stuck the kettle on and launched into the usual mono-syllabic conservation with my mother.
“Hi son, how was your journey?”
“Fine… your job safe?”
“Well…”
My mum is a manager in the NHS, you see. One of those middle managers who add no value to the service whatsoever and eat up all our taxes by creating red tape. Evil creatures… except she’s not. She manages a sexual assault unit which allows victims of sexual violence to receive medical attention and testing, counselling, and police interviews in a sympathetic, anonymous environment (as opposed to using a police interview room making the victim feel like a criminal).
My mum’s contribution to society is worthwhile. She coordinates efforts between the NHS, police, and voluntary sector, has to deal with horrific crimes, and all for a salary that is already below the national average.
With Tory cuts to police funding (25% across the board) my mum’s job, and the centre as a whole, could be in jeopardy. With NHS restructuring, once again, my mum’s job, and the centre, could be in jeopardy. This is not the “eliminating waste” that the Tories promised pre-election. These are cuts that could potentially wipe out a service that makes a real difference to people’s lives.
After my tea (milk, no sugar – just in case I visit any of you) I dragged my granddad over my brother’s place. Granddad hasn’t been feeling all that sociable with my grandma in hospital but I thought it might take his mind off things, so we went over and I got to play with my nephew some more. The kid is great. He makes no noise whatsoever. He dribbles a bit too much for my taste but as far as babies go, not bad at all.
Here’s a photo of my nephew with his great-granddad for you all to coo over.
My visit lasted no longer than half an hour. My brother had to go back to work that evening. In the day he works as an electrician but with the lack of work currently in the north-east of England he’s had to take on a second job in the evening working in a kebab shop in order to provide adequately for his family (fast food and booze are recession-proof in my part of the world). The lack of cash isn’t because they spend a great deal. They have no Sky TV, he doesn’t smoke, rarely drinks, no expensive hobbies, they rent so there’s no massive mortgage either. Quite simply, the guy is living from morning until night to provide for his family.
With the government’s proposed cuts, unemployment in the area is set to rise, and to make matters worse he will receive less support in benefits as the Tories clamp down on the sponging, workshy, scum like my brother, his wife, and their layabout babies.
I was quite lucky. I managed to escape the north-east, the poor wages, and the higher unemployment that comes with it. I got my degree and managed to make myself more employable. As a single parent raising 3 kids there was no way my mum could have paid for me to go to university – especially not in London where I ended up. I was only able to go to university because the state paid my fees and provided me with a significant loan. Even then I still needed to work part-time in order to survive.
When I look to the future that others from my area will face I feel a sense of dread. The opportunities that were there for me are drying up fast. With less funding and fewer university places available even the most talented of the working class students are going to struggle to better themselves. These cuts discriminate against the poorest – the people that need government aid more than anyone else. The Tories aren’t eliminating waste so much as they are eliminating opportunities. They are restructuring society to favour the well-off and leaving the majority of us to go it alone.
The most unusual part about this is that cutting funding for education and university places is counterproductive. As a single guy with no dependants, earning above the national average, I pay a disproportionate amount in taxes every month. Surely it is beneficial to the economy to help people like me go to university and pickup whatever graduate jobs are available than it is for me to be a job seeker, lose those taxes, and have that gap in talent. It’s a wonder that the government is able to get away with it.
Yet they do! These cuts in government spending are justified by scaremongering and unfair representations in the media. All benefit recipients are just lazy! All NHS managers are a waste of money! There are too many students at uni doing worthless media studies degrees! The hyperbole and the stereotyping is all part of the war the Tories have waged against the people that elected them. They are trying to sell us a system whereby they can keep taxes low for themselves and their rich, corporate lobby friends, and cut the services that we all depend-upon. Yes, the books do need to be balanced eventually but a budget based on 80% cuts to 20% taxation is not a fair deal, and the time scale for the cuts is nothing short of an attack on the public sector and all those who work in it and depend upon it.
My mate’s mum can’t afford for standards in the NHS to slip. Likewise, if my grandparents need treatment again they can’t afford to go private – and neither should they have to – they worked their whole lives and are entitled to a decent standard of healthcare when they need it most.
The Tories and their new Lib Dem mates don’t care about public services because they don’t rely on them. It’s my family and yours that stand to bear the brunt of these cuts. It’s you, and I, and those worse off than us that will be hit hardest. The Tories in their ivory tower, and the corporate elite at the likes of Vodafone (who have a £6 billion unpaid tax bill), can sleep at night knowing their families are fine.
I no longer have that luxury and neither do you. We kid ourselves that these cuts won’t affect us directly, they will affect other people. That is simply not the case. The only people that are safe are the same people trying to bully us into accepting these cuts as inevitable.
