Is gender equality an important contributor to other social development?
Is gender equality associated with more well-being? Less violence?
I have created a data base with 116 units – 31 European countries, 35 other countries (a representative global sample) and 50 US states. The base includes several gender equality indexes including the Gender gap index, income level (GDP per capita) and income inequality numbers (Gini index), as well as several potential “effect” variables like violent death, suicide, well-being and fertility.
Here is a preliminary result.
This first analysis is focused on Europe and USA, where the data are best. The possible “effect” areas like violence and health are selected based on what data exist.
A preliminary result is shown below. A thicker arrow means a stronger correlation.
All connections are positive, except the US fertility connection (at the bottom), which is negative.
These connections are partly “known” in the sense that some of them have been argued and documented in limited samples. Yet these country and state level statistics are new.
The results indicate that gender equality has a stronger general positive effect on social development than so far acknowledged. The results show that on the country/state level, in Europe and the US, gender equality is associated with lower violence (violent death), with more gender-balanced suicide, with greater well-being, and – in Europe- with higher fertility. Gender equality is strongly positively associated with fertility in Europe, but mildly to moderately negatively associated in the US.
Men’s share of unpaid domestic work, only measured for Europe so far, is very strongly correlated with different gender equality measures, and is therefore seen as part of the cause variable, in this figure.
Most of these associations seem to persist also when exposed to some basic control variables, like income level (GDP per capita) )and income equality (Gini index).
If these results are right, gender equality is a more active agent of welfare and health development, than it is credited for. It is an important underlying factor reducing violence and increasing well-being and health.
A more comprehensive report is on its way. Remember, you saw it first here!
Is gender a form of value, a form of capital? This paper, written in 1984, is not just a critique of superficial and essentialist ideas of gender, but also an attempt to understand gender from the specific viewpoint of value and commodity analysis. Instead of asking what follows from gender and how gender is performed, it asks what causes gender, what is the “stage script”, the way the performances are structured. Today, I might have written it differently, yet it has kept a critical edge that makes it interesting today also. The paper was published in Harriet Holter ed 1984: Patriarchy in a Welfare Society, University Press, Oslo 1984.
Erving Goffman (1922-82) var en av de store sosiologene i det tyvende århundret, ved siden av Robert Merton, og noen få andre, slik jeg ser det. Derfor siterer jeg ham, om maskulinitet og skam, på toppen av hjemmesiden.
Noen mener at Goffman var evig mistroisk, og dessuten nokså markkrypersk og uteoretisk. Han prøvde seg som kjønnsteoretiker på 1970-tallet (bl.a. “The arrangement between the sexes”), men det ble ikke en fanesak, hverken for sosiologene eller for feministene, å lese ham. Han prøvde seg som samfunnsteoretiker (“Frame Analysis”) men fikk en god del kald skulder fra fagfellesskapet. Det var greit så lenge han holdt seg til “sitt” område, litt dramaturgisk sosialpsykologisk bidrag fra sosiologiens verden. Da han forsøkte seg på mer syntetiserende teori, fikk han mindre støtte.
Jeg kjøpte og leste flere av Goffmans bøker på 70-tallet, og kopierte en del av hans artikler, men dessverre har mye av dette blitt borte underveis, fordi det har blitt lånt ut, uten at jeg fikk det igjen. Jeg får bare håpe at andre ble tilsvarende interessert.
Goffman er fortsatt interessant og relevant bl.a. fordi han var en anti-strukturalist før sin tid. Hans tenkemåte er riktignok typologiserende, men den har sin styrke i “dramaturgien”, dette at han tolker roller i et dramatisk lys, en sans for plot, narrativ, “se hva som skjer”. Og skal man forstå Goffmans bidrag må man lese med, ikke mot, man må forstå at han også selv skriver innen denne litt mistroiske dramaturgien. Det å knipe ham på litt uryddige typologier eller manglende sans for mikro, meso og makro-nivåer og strukturenes betydning, slik han ofte ble kritisert på 70- og 80-tallet, blir for smålig og utvendig. Det er er mer å lære, men man må gå innvendig til verks.
Derfor holder det heller ikke å bruke uttrykket for det viktigste teoribidraget han skapte, “rammeanalyse”, som et alt-mulig-begrep som skal fange enhver prosess eller enhver diskurs. “Ramme”, hva er det? Det hjelper ikke å kalle det “kritisk” rammeanalyse,. Vi er alle innrammet. Vi er alle dømt til å bli tolket av den andre, som de Beauvoir, Sartre og mange andre skrev om. Det å vise ansikt er ikke bare en etisk handling (Levinas) men også noe som kan medføre ytterligere innramming. Sosiale kontekster skaper sine praktiske logikker (Bourdieu). Sosiale strukturer, klasser osv holder aktører i systemer som opprettholder makt og hierarki. Dette er kjernen i Goffmans analyse.
Goffman er ikke den beste guiden for å forstå hva slags samfunnsstrukturer som skaper slike negative rammer eller tolkninger, i denne brede betydningen – men han er meget skjerpet i forhold til å forstå hva som skjer innen slik samhandling. Ofte i samme retning som Torstein Veblen, som sent på 1800-tallet skrev om bruken av kvinner som “tegn” i borgerskapet i den avanserte kapitalismen i Amerika.
Goffman beskrev begivenhetene innen feltet moderne sosial ulikhet mer overbevisende, enn strukturene som skapte ulikhetene. Han blir vanligvis ansett som psykologisk orientert sosiolog (sosialpsykologi) men kan også tolkes som en småskala-økonomi, orientert ut fra bredere sosial resiprositetsøkonomi (Gouldner). Hans analyser har viktige likheter med senere poststrukturalistisk teori. Han hevder ofte, i tendens, at aktørsystemet virker godt nok som det er. Det er ikke nødvendig å teoretisere bakenforliggende “strukturelle” forhold. Noen kan hevde at, med Goffmans porsjon av mistro, og vekt på en markedaktør-aktig sosial figur som handler på grunnlag av nytte eller gevinst, i et spill om status – så trenger man ikke “bakenforliggende strukturer” for å holde etablissemanget på plass. Det forklarer seg selv, gjennom aktørsystemet. Et interessant eksempel på hvordan Goffman etterhvert knyttet mer an til institusjoner og strukturer, er nettopp hans kjønnsanalyse, også som eksempel på hans arbeidsmetode, etterhvert som hans dagligdagse skam- og pinlighets-orienterte første runde av empirisk sosiologi (Stigma, osv) møtte motstand.
“Alle menn rødmer”? Hvordan ble det mottatt? – Det vakte motstand, reaksjon, og eneste grunn til at Goffman vant gjennom, så og si, var at han ble “reddet” av praktikerne, inkludert psykologer som så at begrepsdannelsen var nyttig, i tillegg til liberale fagfeller i sosiologi. Uten dem hadde han neppe blitt publisert.
I den relativt lite faglig påaktete boken Gender Advertisments (1976), tolker Goffman reklamebilder i lys av teori om kjønnslikestilling. Teorien er enkelt utformet – menn dominerer. Det er mest bilder, mindre tekst, og boken ble utgitt i A4-format. Goffman beskriver hvordan reklamen, ved å vise folk med bestemte utseender og kroppsposisjoner, relativ høyde, positurer, gester, og andre virkemidler, gjenskapte en underordningsposisjon for kvinner og en overordningsposisjon for menn. Han bruker innrammingsanalysen metodisk videreutviklende, ut fra en bestemt begrenset kilde, fotografiske reklamebilder, til å si noe om en bestemt strukturell kontekst, reklameindustri, og dens innvirkning på samfunn og kultur. Innramming ble beskrevet mest i termer av substantiver og type ramme-virkemiddel, men teksten er skrevet først og fremst ut fra en underliggende tanke, slik jeg tolker den, dette var hans underliggende teoretiske ambisjon – med trykk på verbet, plasseringen, det å bli (inn)rammet.
Når mannen står over henne, i bildet, eller opptrer beskyttende, i forhold til det ytre rom, og fremheves som person med kvinnen som bakgrunnen, (osv.) i bildene fra amerikanske reklamer på 70-tallet – så er det fordi han har blitt plassert der, det er (i poststrukturalistiske termer) en narrativ, og det er denne sekvensen av plassering som særlig interesserte den “senere” Goffman som forsker, etter at han hadde mottatt og fordøyd kritikk for sine tidlige bidrag. Han har blitt interessert i strukturen og prosessen, samtidig som han holder seg til selve resultatet, bildet av aktørene.
Goffman’s tolkning kan på overflaten virke stillestående, noe som delvis skyldes typen materiale og kontekst han beskriver. Han er ikke verdens beste historiske sosiolog eller prosessanalytiker, men jeg regner ham likevel som en “verb-orientert” forsker, snarere enn en typologisk eller “substantiv-orientert” forsker. Mer “mummitroll” enn “hemul”, ut fra en nordisk skildring, nord for det Connell kritiserer som nordlig teori (Southern Theory, 2007) . Skillelinjene i teoriutvikling beskrives i min avhandling om sosial formanalyse (1997), der jeg kritiserer “abstraktisme” og overdreven tro på substantiver, kategorier eller typer, utviklet ut fra vår tids samfunnsform.
Selv om Goffmans forståelse av prosesser på samfunnsnivå og hans analyse av bredere historisk endring var begrensete, var han på sitt beste nettopp når han opererte i landskapet mellom historie og sosiologi, i framhevingen av aktørsystemets egenvekt, innen en vitenskapelig horisont som dengang var dominert av typologer og strukturalister. Han var empirisk orientert, og observerte hva folk sa og gjorde, særlig for å oppnå sosial status. Han vektet sin analyse ut fra det pinlige og skamfulle i moderne sosialt liv, og gikk videre, derfra. Hans tenkning var en utfordring for det middel-konservative maktens sentrum i datidens Amerika. Det at han kanskje mistroisk rygget litt tilbake idet han italesatte og begrepsfestet dramaturgien, kan ikke brukes mot ham – han var en innsiktsfull og modig teoretiker.
Goffman ble delvis lest mot sin hensikt, som om han mente at alt sosialt liv handler om makt, stigmatisering og innramming. Foucault, som levde noe lengre enn Goffman, ble tolket på samme måte. Disiplineringen gjalt alltid og overalt. Foucault fikk anledning til å imøtegå denne tilsvarende forflatende tolkning av hans teori – Goffmans rammeanayse og Foucalts disiplineringssystem handler mye om det samme.
Det stemmer ikke, sa Foucault i et sent intervju (gjengitt i boken Remarks on Marx, 1991) at makten bare er allestedsnærværende eller overalt. Den utøves på noen måter av alle, men særlig av visse grupper og klasser. Foucault ble her tydelig på at bl.a klasseanalyse er viktig for disiplineringsanalyse og diskursanalyse, og kritisererer forflatende tolkning av hans teori. Goffman ville vært enig.
Ever since the “Gender equality and quality of life” survey results came in, in 2007, I have worked with improvements of the data base.
Version 5 of the data base has now been constructed and internally tested, eliminating errors. The data base versions 1-4 constructed the main gender equality indexes, as well as easier access to important variables. Version 5 follows this, with new useful variables e g regarding sickness leave, parenting, violence experience, and many other topics.
The data base has 2805 respondents. The variable set is now larger, total 820 variables. Some of these are temporary variables only, but at least 500 variables is realistic.
This is quite a bit above the global gender equality “index approach” with – at best – thirty or fifty variables.
In many ways, the data set is unique. It was constructed in terms of gender equality, and has helped create a new map of gender equality developments.
Why use time and resources for a phd course on “archaic” gift exchange theory, outlined by nowadays somewhat “obscure” theorists like French structuralist Claude Levi-Strauss?
Because, perhaps, there was “something in it”? Something true, across sciences? Something with women “between” men, not just “opposed to” men?
This course enlists main University of Oslo professors as well as independent researchers, as speakers (including Thomas Hylland Eriksen, Elisabeth L’orange Furst, Jorun Solheim) – the researcher interest is collective. Starting from a measurable affair, “who moves in marriage”, we will highlight and develop improved gender equality research.
[June draft version – oversize pictures, some pictures and comments missing, etc]
The “Masculinities in motion” conference at the University of Oslo (May 31 – June 1, see program here), was very successful, with almost 200 participants from Norway, the Nordic region, and several other countries, and a broad range a keynote and workshop presentations.
The conference showed the emerging width of the men and masculinities research field. Workshop papers included topics from A to Z, men and the military, therapy, health, households, work, culture, music, method – some with imaginative titles like Becoming an international man and Breakdance, that’s me!
The conference also showed increasing depth, for example in the fathers and families workshops, the multicultural workshops, health, and others. Professionals and activists were also participating, although the main groups were researchers and students, with fairly good gender balance. Especially encouraging was the presence of many young researchers, showing recent recruitment into the field. The policy part, in the second day, gave interesting new Nordic region information as well as informed debate.
Being the host and leader of the conference work group was great, with so many good people to work with. It was also a bit exhausting. The feedback, afterwards, has been very good. Together we managed to build more of the two main “bridges” that we hoped for, in the planning of the conference – connecting men and masculinites studies to gender equality research, and to health and quality of life research. I hope that most of the 60-70 papers presented will see their way into referee journals, books and other publications. They will surely make a difference.
Here are some photos from the conference (many thanks to the photographer, Nina Heilmann, STK).
Like all good men, we started with a bit of technology, or how to make it work – here is conferancier Thomas Walle, right, and a student assistant (….) left. We had a lot of help from students involved in the conference.
There were two welcome speeches, the first from the University of Oslo, by Jorunn Økland, leader of the University’s Centre for gender research.
And the second by the minister of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion, Inga Marte Thorkildsen.
The welcoming speeches contributed to the good atmosphere at the conference, and a common focus on what the new research says.
Thomas Walle (right), introduces the first “trio” keynote, with me (left)
In the next picture I look to the right, trying to make the rest of the trio agree with me. The point of starting with a trio was to show the new, larger scope of the men and masculinities field, and make different viewpoints more visible and accepted.
The second trio speaker was Jan Wickman.
The third, Lucas Gottzen.
We presented new material, like this:
Some views from the audience:
Ongoing discussions, here with Nina Jon from the conference arrangement committee (left) and Thorkildsen (right).
The conference participants got a quite strong initial input and enjoyed a break.
The second keynote was Michael Messner, on his new research on anti-violence work among men in the US.
The third keynote was Susan Meriläinen, University of Lapland, speaking of gender equality, masculinity and international business culture.
Meriläinen was commented by Jeff Hearn.
On the next day, Ulla-Brit Lilleaas introduced the health topic, discussing her new study.
She was followed by Svend Aage Madsen, asking, is there a gender-equal health model?
The last part of the second day had a Nordic politician panel and a practice oriented focus. Part of the panel here.
[Some pictures]
The Iceland representative told the audience that, despite severe economic setbacks, Iceland would not go back on its gender equal parental leave reform, and is instead planning to extend it.
After the politicians, practicioners got their say, including NGO initiatives. Here, Lennart Lock, Norway.
This was followed by researcher perspectives on politics and practice, here Marie Valentin Beck, Denmark.
This section ended by a presentation by Ingolfur Gislason, Iceland, the picture shows the conferencier thanking the presenter.
Jørgen Lorentzen commented on the politics and practices part, outlining future possibilities.
The final keynote, made by Sigtona Halrynjo, warned against continuing gender inequality, especially in working life.
Halrynjo presented data on continous gender inequality in careers paths in society, and its consequences for men.
The conference was ended by Nina Jon, speaking for the conference group, emphasizing that men are not just on the top of the statistics, but at the bottom too, and the need to investigate more.
So far, the response has been that the conference worked very well.
According to the evaluations from participants, after the conference, some participants liked some keynotes better than others, and some have noted that a few papers in the workshops were less good than others. Mainly, the evaluation is very positive. Discussions at the conference were good, bringing research a step further.
Here is a final picture of informal audience discussion groups, during a break.
When asked about what has made the deepest impressions on him, through his career, researcher and research director Erik Rudeng especially notes Johan Throne-Holst (1868-1946), the founder of Freia, in an inteview in the newspaper Aftenposten published 30.4.2010, see http://www.aftenposten.no/kultur/article3629825.ece#.TxSi4tWwV2M.
Rudeng argues that the Freia fabric hall with its paintings by Edvard Munch became “the Aula of the east” of Oslo, a main academic forum of working class people. He argues that Throne-Holst was an entrepeneur and successful capitalist long before his time, with contributions to science as well as work-place democracy.
Rudeng says (my translation) that “Throne Holsts’ initiatives to our food research and social research is a chapter by itself. Towards the end of his life he envisioned a grand library as the heart of the factory. He liked to quote what one of his inspirations, the famous English industry builder and filantrope lord Leverhulme, said about his work: ‘I like to see some things being done'”.
I did not know about lord Leverhulme, and checked it out. JTH must have refered to the lord at his time, William Lever (1851-1925), a capitalist building soap factories by a very radical scheme, for its time, of improving worker welfare and input.
See:
http://www.todayinsci.com/L/Lever_William/LeverWilliam-SoapAndSociology%281919%29.htm
This quotes, “In the opinion of Lord Leverhulme ‘high wages, bonuses, premiums or piece work, apart from a system of co-partnership can alone bring no solution of labor difficulties. Only the true spirit of co-partnership can tend in this direction, and, by combining the democratic with the individualistic attributes of human nature will result not only higher total earnings but greater efficiency, happier life and improved mental condition.'”
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1919/feb/25/industrial-unrest
This shows how his advanced capitalist arguments were met in the debate at the time.
Rudeng has published a study of JTH and Freia in his book Sjokoladekongen / The Chocolate King. Freia was founded in 1889 and bought by Johan Throne-Holst soon after, in 1892. JTH then developed the factory to become the main Norway chocolate factory. Freia was engaged in work environment issues in many ways including the hall and a park. Based on the success in Oslo, the family in 1916 extended the company to the Swedish factory Marabou in Vasby near Stockholm. In the early 1990s, it expired as an independent unit (bought by Kraft General Foods Holding Norway Inc).
Johan Throne-Holst was my mother’s mother’s father. My mother, Harriet Holter, got a lot of intellectual and emotional inspiration from her maternal grandfather, and was very fond of him. She cherished her youth memories of him including their exciting intellectual exchanges. She felt that someone had recognized and respected her, as a child. I wish I had met him, but I was born six years after his death.
This photo is taken from Rudeng’s book. Harriet 16 years (1938) enthusiastically underlined her name under this photo, that she mailed to her grandfather.
-
- Harriet 1938
Read more: http://www.adressa.no/nyheter/trondheim/byens_gater/article787039.ece
I have been thinking, why is “terror” judged so much by words? Why not look at the actions, their actual consequences? Who is killed or wounded? The victims are mainly civilians. In Norway, at Utøya, youth and children.Civilians, women, men and children – these are the typical targets. I have called terrorists “fascists” in a former blog post. Whatever we call them, the victim is clear; civilians and civil society.
This is what terrorists don’t respect – whatever their words. This is what they try to strangle. Everything that is soft, human, vulnerable, trying. This is dangerous and must be eradicated. Society must be “cleansed”. Terrorists use words, to further the deception – it is done for or against capitalism or imperialism, against the wrong religion, and so on. But the real message is in the action itself – the killing of civilians. According to the Norway July 22 2011 terrorist, this deed is even “knightly”.
Besides the actual victims, two key processes are blocked by the typical terrorist actions. The first, most visible, is democracy. A good target in terrorist logic is voters. Another good target is women in public, or schools for girls (e g Afghanistan). The attack on democracy trend is accompanied, more or less visibly, by attacks on women and gender equality. In the Norway case, the terrorist wanted to target two groups, “cultural marxists” and “feminists”, and the misogynistic aspect is fairly clear (e g women described as birth machines).
In a paper written in 2004, called “A theory of gendercide” (see Texts / Publications in English, on the menu above), I discussed the role of sex/gender in the build-up processes of social aggression and war. I compared Nazi Germany, the Balkan wars in the 1990s, and other cases. I found that a trend towards misogyny (hatred of women) and anti-feminism is common, sometimes combined with an idealized “upgraded” role of women in the new state (or reich) created by the aggressors. I also discuss evidence pointing to sexist terror becoming more common, as a component of terror in general.
The Norwegian 2011 terrorist saw himself as knightly, although he did not exactly protect women and children. Terrorists generally appear on the lower end of the power scale in a conflict. They are not up to a meeting man to man, so to speak, they do not have a military able to meet the enemy on a battle front. Instead they operate a bit like thieves, through sneak attacks. This “lower class position” of terror in the hierarchy of forms of warfare, contributes to the anti-civilian, anti-women and anti-children character of typical terrorist attacks, although it is not the only reason for these trends. Terrorism, as a method, as acutely anti-democratic. Democracy is what we do not have time for, faced with terrorism. We must fight or flee. The terrorist act is not an invitation to democratic settlement, but the very antidote to such settlements. It is no wonder, therefore, that terrorism tends to go together with reduction of democracy, and renewed authoritarianism, on all sides.
I learned in school that democracy was a formal thing. It meant elections every four year and so on. This year, I have learned that it is a very real and lively and vulnerable thing. It is not just there, by itself, it is something we must fight for. Today’s “contempt for politicians” resembles the contempt for democracy in the 1930s. “Politicians” are not crooks, but people elected – by us. The enemies of democracy should be brought into the open.
This is hard. It is really hard. It comes to attack me in my dreams.
I thought I was well prepared. But how could someone do this? Not just a bomb, but an hour-long systematic shooting of youth? I haunts me and gives me nightmares. It is worse than even the Nazi death camps.
Here are some pictures, telling more than many words. The first is of prime minister Jens Stoltenberg. present when a woman got a message of grief (copied from media reports July 24).
Tomorrow Norway stops
Norway stands still one minute, the headline says. It was to become more.
The next pictures are from the flower demonstration in Oslo, known as The Rose March, on July 25, where many people participated, perhaps a third of the nearer city centre population. In fact, the centre of Oslo was so full of people that no march type of demonstration could be arranged. Similar scenes had not been seen since the liberation of Norway from the Nazis in 1945.
All kinds of flowers were displayed.
As a participant, I felt that all the people were angry – and yet not about to show revenge!
On the next picture you can see how all kinds of people participated, and on the left, children at the shoulders of their parents. Is it symbolic that the sign in the middle asks for low speed.
Only a third or so of the marchers had the opportunity to actually hear the start speeches for the meeting. The rest walked towards the parliament and the main church of Oslo. I was among them.
This is how the “main strip of Oslo” between the parliament (Storting) and the King’s castle looked
The streets were full of people. We turned towards the main church of Oslo, to honour the dead.
Many had laid their flowers there already, it was hard to get approach, the square was packed with people.
The tragedy of the commons
Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolution (see blog post Futuyma: Evolution, March 7, 2011) writes on “the tragedy of the commons” and how this problem of individualism versus collectivism is found in nature too and how it can be escalated by selfish gene type of adaptations (p 415).
The tragedy of the commons, as Futuyma correctly states, consists in the depletion of common resources due to individualist behaviour. For example, each boat or fisherman may profit by the largest catch, but this behaviour threatens the longer-term resource. Fish stocks like North Atlantic cod are threatened.
The tragedy is an interpretative dilemma, a situation involving different social rules (individualism and collectivism). It is not just a fact issue. It has to do with theories and rules of social behaviour.
For example, the tragedy of the commons was described in Marx’s work, especially regarding how the upper class tends to delimit communal trends in the lower classes. Whatever the view, one cannot drop the social connections in the argument, the tragedy has to do with power (just like the tragedy of “social darwinism”, briefly acknowledged by Futuyma p 631). Interpretative knowledge of human behaviour is clearly needed. This is where gender research comes into view.
By the way, Evolution is the kind of book gender researchers can only dream of. It has 750 or so big A4 size pages in colour print with an illustration (photo, graph, model) every second page. It is pedagogically presented, with a big glossary, excercises, and an accompanying web site. A teacher’s wet dream, in my area.
Futuyma cites Oscar Wilde, arguing that human life is about meaning, not just utilitarianism, and he warns against using evolution theory for racism (p. 631). I could have wished for more, regarding the critique of Social Darwinism, but it is there, in terms of “race”, if not so clearly in terms of “gender”.
The tragedy of the commons is a process partly explained by social class, partly by “race” (ethnicity / centrality), partly by gender, age and partly by other ranking systems, as mapped by the social and cultural sciences. The lower class is usually more associated with the commons, as are the young, the women, and so on.
Selfish gene types can perhaps develop through selfish or short-sighted societal developments, and possibly correlate or interact with these (cf Jared Diamond: Collapse). Whatever (and however) the biological interaction, the material on sociocultural variation is strong, as well as a more common tendency in human society. The tragedy of the commons, in a more moderate form, that common property is often neglected, was noticed by Aristoteles already. The ‘corruption’ of communal power is a theme in early historical texts. Some societies are fairly well able to put the commons in the middle, others aren’t. Obviously, social systems including class and gender issues are important for understanding if the “neglect tendency” associated with the commons is to develop into a major issue, a tragedy (or catastrophe), or not.
I am writing as a researcher within the field of gender research. I work with recognition also of the limits of current gender research. These include a women-centrism that reflects today’s society and culture in general, perhaps an over-culturedness, a lack of male students and researchers, and much else. These weaknesses are understandable at this stage – this is a small, emerging field. Beyond weaknesses, the more important question is, does the field of gender studies have an important message for biological research?
Unlike some feminists, I would not say, so far, from my attempts to read up in biology, that the answer is a “resounding yes”. I don’t agree with some gender research ideas in the direction that biology or evolutionary psychology have “nothing to say”. I think these gender researchers lack a distinction between gender differentiation (where biology has a lot to say), and gender stratification (less, but possibly some, to say).
Even if there is no “resounding yes”, gender research does have an important message for biology, extending the understanding of social behaviour and the need for interpretative knowledge, and a potential to clear up the understanding in these disciplines. It does have a good case, especially, if gender research is angled towards gender equality (gender stratification), not just “what is gender” (gender differentiation). It has a case, especially, extending the critique of Social Darwinism from “race” to more general democratic and social learning considerations, including “gender”.
One research theme that stands out from my reading of Futuyma’s book, along with others, relates to discrimination of reproduction. This can be found in some outright forms, parents eating their children, and similar, in biology. But can we find an overall group tendency, or is this quite specific for human society? Women, in known human populations, are usually the ones ending up with the main costs of the tragedy of the commons (cf. John Lennon 1972 (Yoko Ono 1969): “woman is the nigger of the world”). Is this a fairly uncommon case? Human societies, especially socially stratified societies, have a tendency to disempower or devaluate reproduction and regeneration, compared to production, which seems less common among animal societies (even if these may have pro-male ranking too).
Although Futuyma is quite clear, in line with e g Kuhn and Wallerstein (not mentioned), in his critical emphasis on biology as research development, often contrary to current societal power and economic interests, he seems somewhat stuck “within the closet”. He correctly argues:
“Science is not a collection of facts, contrary to popular belief, but rather a process of acquiring understanding” 612 “the hypothesis is provisionally accepted” 612 – this is in line with Kuhn, but does not mention him, as part of debate against creationism. Intelligent design (creationism) is “not testable” p. 613. He goes on to say:
“A theory, as the word is used in science, doesn’t mean an unsupported speculation or hypothesis (the popular use of the word). A theory is, instead, a big idea that encompasses other ideas and hypotheses and weaves them into a coherent fabric. It is a mature, interconnected body of statements, based on reasoning and evidence, that explains a wide variety of observations. ” p 613
I like his arguments, and his definition of theory as a big idea, although he goes on to argue that “biology has few theories” – a doubtful sentiment. It has in fact a lot of theories, but usually implicit, and it needs better interpretative knowledge.
