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.