Gender differences in mate selection.

Men and women have very different perspectives on sexual variety with men having a greater desire for multiple partners. Research has also shown that men are more jealous of promiscuity in women. These dominating preferences are logically explained by gender based strategies for reproductive success also found among most mammals. Since a woman can have only a limited number of children given the resources required for each she has a particular interest in the bonding of the male whether by marriage or other means. The male on the other hand has a large capacity for reproduction that continues for many more years compared to the female. Reproductive success from an evolutionary perspective is best achieved by the male through the sexual encounter with many females. Is that the explanation of the greater sexual promiscuity in males as compared to females, and the attempt to control sexual promiscuity through polygamy?

Mate selection may reflect these broader evolutionary differences between males and females. In a major study conducted in 31 countries Buss (1989) investigated the preferred characteristics in opposite sex mates (see also Buss, 1990, 1995, and 2001). The gender differences discussed above found support in these studies. Females typically had a greater interest in the financial prospects of potential mates, whereas males had a greater appreciation for physical attractiveness that reflected good health and fertility. Later research found that the preferences of women and men followed these differences in reproductive strategies (Buss, 1990). While both sexes value attractive appearance that signal fertility (being youthful) men were more interested in physical attractiveness, whereas women were more interested in providers that had financial prospects. Support for these gender differences can also be found in a study on partner advertisements where men preferred younger women whereas women appreciated more the financial support likely in a relationship (Kenrick & Keefe, 1992). Since men are fertile for longer periods than women the male preference is seen as a sociobiological strategy to connect with younger women still capable of having children.

It is not surprising that both sexes also valued love and dependable traits along with intelligent and understanding partners. However, to summarize if mating behavior is biologically based we should observe similarities across human cultures. Human sexuality has been a special interest of sociobiologists who have observed that male dominance is ubiquitous. Men and women have different perspectives on sexuality related to their biological function (Alcock, 1998). The bonding desire by the female is an essential condition to support her offspring and ensure survival. Typically women can only look after one newborn at a time and as noted have limited potential in the number of children. Reproductive success for men however is linked to having many partners and thereby ensuring the survival of his genetic line. The best male strategy from a sociobiological perspective is to have as many partners as possible and therefore many offspring. Behavioral differences between cultures are just variations of the same biological themes that emphasize survival and reproductive success.

Gender differences derived from the underlying motivation for reproductive success also produce differences in the preferred age of partners (Kenrick & Keefe, 1992). As men get older they increasingly partner with younger females, again explained by the longer fertility period in older men whereas the prime of fertility for females is much younger. This age preference for younger females may be a phylogenetic strategy on the part of males to choose partners who are capable of reproduction. In discussing the evolved strategies we are not claiming any consciousness on the part of either gender, but referring to the underlying architecture of the mind that determine reproductive behavior.

Nevertheless, not all researchers on gender differences agree with sociobiological explanations. Eagley and Wood (1999) believe that culture is responsible for these gender patterns that is derived from women ubiquitously playing a historical role of submission. The fancy for younger women by men is explained by more hedonistic pleasure seeking than evolutionary principles in this perspective.

However, these differences in preferences are universal suggesting a biological architecture that may be adjusted by culture. Further it is well to keep in mind that even though evolutionary psychology is interested in the psychobiological foundation of behavior it does not exclude a moderating role of culture. The genetic foundations of behavior for reproductive behavior might be shaped by environments through learning and cultural heritage.

3.3.2 Is ethnocentrism and racism a broader manifestation of inclusive fitness for reproductive success?

It is a fundamental argument of evolutionary psychology that all psychological functioning has to be evaluated from its relationship to reproductive fitness including attitudes that lead to preferences for ingroups supported by ethnocentric or racist beliefs. The evidence for an evolutionary explanation regarding ethnocentrism has been made by Reynolds, Falger and Vine (1987). According to their research ethnocentrism reflect the underlying grammar or architecture of the human mind developed in response to evolutionary pressures. The processes that functioned to ensure reproductive success were retained during evolution, and those that were dysfunctional were discarded. Thus we are likely to have positive attitudes toward groups of people that contribute to ensuring that our genes and those related to us survive and prosper (“inclusive fitness”). With our plastic minds we can also define inclusive fitness in varying ways using belief systems as well as ethnic considerations. That genetics play a role in the architecture of our minds can be observed by the presence of various unlearned phobias. For example, observation of small children show they react with avoidance to snakes, but have no hardwired fear of sticking fingers into electrical sockets a much more recent invention in human lives.

Nazism and its various proponents argued for a perverted form of social Darwinism to justify genocide and war. Toward the end of the war Hitler had little interest in the survival of Germany since from his perspective the best elements of the German nation had already lost their lives on the battle field. Recent times have seen shocking manifestations of the willingness to kill in the name of ideology, particularly by militant Muslim ideologues. However, in case people in the West feel that civilization has made such action less likely in their countries the recent massacre in Norway is a wakeup call. The perpetrator a native Norwegian (a man by the name of Anders Behring Breivik) exploded a bomb in front of government headquarters in downtown Oslo, and then proceeded to a nearby island where young people were enjoying summer camp and methodologically murdered close to 76 people mostly children. To all appearances he was not mentally ill producing a 1500 page statement of justification on the Internet in defense of his actions that he called atrocious but necessary. He speaks with pride of his Viking heritage and was motivated by his refusal to accept what he perceived as an increased Muslim presence in Norway.

Whereas in the past inclusive fitness might be defined by the extended family or tribe, the parameters have changed with the evolution of culture. Hitler started with defining inclusive fitness as being strictly German, then as the fortunes of war caused a reevaluation moved to pan-Germanic qualifications, and eventually in desperation to all whites who looked “Aryan”. It is interesting to observe the varying parameters of inclusive fitness of modern medievalists of all persuasions that have millenarian inspirations. For Breivik the inclusiveness parameter are members of European culture.

Like Osama bin Laden, Breivik defined inclusive fitness broadly based on ideology in his case that of pan-Europeanism, whereas for the Jihadist inclusiveness is based on mediaeval interpretations of Islam. Breivik is not a racist, and does not think race is that important as his model societies are Japan and South Korea. However, like Osama Bin Laden, Breivik is focused on medieval times, and sees himself as a Christian Knight in the service of his culture. Nevertheless while his focus is on the intrusion of Islam, it is probably the broader immigrant picture that he sees as threatening the “inclusive fitness” of Norwegian society. The capital Oslo now has 28 percent of the population that is foreign born (Sandbu, Ward, & Wigglesworth, 2011). Likewise Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts dreamt of an Islamic Caliphate that existed presumably centuries ago, and perceives the threat to inclusive fitness as produced by modern societies and the progress of globalization in the Islamic world. Extremist Islamic ideologies have much in common with European totalitarian traditions, especially the idea that after terrible trials (concentration camps, war, Jihad, the Gulag, sin and chaos) we find paradisiacal deliverance. Whether religious or political the common thread is the belief that society or culture is in tension, and all it takes is a mighty blow and the walls will fall (Stephens, 2011).

3.4 Culture matters!

The evolutionary basis of higher cognitive processes does not exclude a role for the cultural shaping of personality. Although the structure of personality traits may be universal, the expression may well depend on socialization and cultural emphasis (Roberts, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2003). Therefore it is necessary to make a distinction between the origin of personality as a biological based adaptation to the environment, and the specific effects of culture that produce varying emphases and functional advantages of certain traits. Pervin (1989) proposed a hierarchical model with personality based behavior producing motivation that is universal at the first stage such as responding to the need for safety. These evolved personality based motive dispositions are in turn the basis for personal strivings, related to personal concerns and projects, and most basically to specific responses or action units. For example, motivation that evolved for intimacy leads a person to seek a relationship with a specific person, that desire leads to practical goals of arranging for dates and meetings or improving appearance, these practical steps in turn lead to specific actions like obtaining phone numbers and dieting.

The universality of traits does not in any way reduce the significance of either culture or individual variability that is the outcome of specific environments and individual strivings. Culture makes specific statements about the value of different dispositions. In Japanese society the cultural emphasis on courtesy or the spirit of the samurai produce different personality outcomes than the informality of relationships in the West. The development of specific characteristics and adaptations to the physical or social environment depend therefore largely on the cultural heritage as passed through generations. The very meaning of behavior is culturally dependent, and the specific actions that a person engages in, in pursuit of universal affective goals will depend on that cultural meaning.

A very interesting study on the interaction of biology with culture was reported by Caspari (2011). This study estimated the age of populations from the Paleolithic period by examining fossil teeth. The results showed that nearly everyone died very young in early human populations allowing little time for grandparents to emerge and teach fundamental cultural skills. However, adult survivorship soared late among upper Paleolithic Europeans, a finding not explained by biology. For example even though these populations groups lived under very harsh conditions the older to young ratio increased more than double that of the middle Paleolithic humans. Caspari argues that this was produced by the interaction of grandparents living long enough to transmit cultural knowledge, and by increasing survival rates humans were able to increase the diversity and usefulness of cultural tools and symbols. Longevity fostered intergenerational accumulation and transfer of vital information, and the social networks that in turn contributed further to longevity. According to Caspari survivorship increased dramatically in the upper Paleolithic period as a product of cultural change and that longevity opened up the possibility for the creation of culture that defines modern humans.

3.5 Socio-cultural evolution: A little history.

Utilizing the analogy of genetic evolution to explain cultural development has occupied thinkers over the past couple of centuries. Early thinkers believed in stage theories that viewed societies as starting out in primitive conditions, and gradually over time becoming more civilized. The evolutionary theories of Comte, Spencer and Morgan developed independently from Darwin’s theory of evolution, showing that the intellectual ground was prepared for theories of socio-cultural evolution. All societies exist with natural environments that define the limits of natural resources and present constraints like weather and climate conditions. Change occurs as these societies adapt to their environments by trying to develop and select cultural traits that are functional to survival and reproductive fitness. Some thinkers like Hegel argued that social development was inevitable and followed a path from primitive to civilized social structures. The definition of societies considered civilized however seemed to resemble industrialized Europe. This rigid evolutionary perspective in turn justified the development of colonial empires, and the so-called “white man’s burden” to bring civilization to “primitive” peoples. Early theories of socio-cultural evolution were used to justify the political and economic domination of Europeans over other peoples.

With the industrial revolution capitalism produced continual evolution in the means of production, and social thinking reflected these developments. All theories of change (whether Marxist, sociocultural, or social cycle) agreed that humanity had entered a fixed path of social progress. History shows that all major social events are causally tied to preceding periods and also to future happenings. For Comte, Spencer and other early thinkers, socio-cultural evolution was a scientific field of the study of social development that was influenced more and more by the theory of evolution. Societies like the biological organisms could also develop according to discernible and deterministic laws, and natural selection and inheritance played significant roles in social change. Scientists studying socioculture viewed biological evolution as an attractive model for the solution of similar problems regarding the origin of social behavior. Society evolved toward more positive stages through cognition, rationality and logic. Spencer in particular thought society was evolving toward increasing freedom for the individual.

Morgan saw social evolution as progressing from savagery through barbarism to civilization. Specifically he viewed technological progress as being the force behind social progress and change. This view was accepted by Marx and Engels since it supported their conviction that materialistic forces of technology and economy were decisive determinants in the evolution of society. In Marxism socio-cultural evolution was determined by the internal contradictions in society manifested through early stages of tribal and feudal society but ending in socialism. These thinkers all had in common the idea that societies could be described as more or less primitive or civilized, and that all societies progress through these stages in the same sequence (Wikipedia, 2011, accessed August, 3).

These theories basically described a singular path of sociocultural evolution with very sweeping assumptions about the forward movement of culture. The views represented by Spencer, and Morgan, were later largely dismissed as being speculative and not consistent with ethnographic data. Stages of evolution theories were criticized as being illusionary as the concept of primitiveness did not reflect accurately evolution or the amount of culture present in early cultures. For example non-literate societies may leave no historical records and still have evolved culture. This critical argument seems to this writer to be a little flimsy since language, particularly symbolic language, is intimately bound to sociocultural evolution. However, the criticism that social evolution has been used to justify the dominance of elites in society and the world is grounded on a more solid evidentiary basis. What is called classic socio-evolutionary theory is mostly rejected today for reasons that they were the product of ethnocentric thinking, and assumed that all cultures follow the same path on the road to civilization, and further equated civilization with material culture as found in societies benefitting from technological progress. Social Darwinism was a precursor of later racist ideas and practice and particularly became a basis for Nazi worldviews.

Date: 2015-01-11; view: 780