What can we do? Japan is hit by a terrible multiple tragedy, first, the earthquake, then, the tsunami, and now, the possibility of nuclear fallout. I am deeply concerned for the Japanese people. Yesterday, a Japanese student broke down in tears in my course, and asked for a postponement delivering her paper – I said yes, and tried to comfort her.
What I can do, as as a social researcher regarding gender equality, is to ask – what role gender equality, what role women, regarding nuclear and environment safety in Japan? Has this been an all-male affair?`It is fairly well known that men’s risk margins are larger than women’s. There are studies showing that the presence of women improves health, environment and safety in business organisations. I am not saying that gender equality could have avoided the catastrophe, but it could have reduced the impact.
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.
Could gender equality theory be like a radar, or a compass, beyond current feminist theory and gender theory? Can it be based on a critique of conventional gender theory? Can it develop major new insights?
These are problems I shall be working with, this spring, based on three months of author stipend.
Arcade fire, The Suburbs, comes close. So does Arthur’s Landing, Yeasayer and others played a lot recently, including Amanda Palmer and John Grant. Pop is not about enhancing success, it is about raking the claws of life into the superficial face of the winner, the uproar under the song of success. It sings from below as much as above. Good pop is social reportage and comment, combined with good music, by my reckoning.
I may be a dinosaur. My judgement is basically the same since I heard the first great pop songs of the Beatles, the Kinks, and others, in my youth. Yet I feel proud, not shamed. Like, Let England shake ( P J Harvey). This is a great way to judge music, as relevant as ever. Social reportage and comment meaning an extended sense of democracy, a core theme of good pop music.
“For example, in an important sense, there is only one complete unblushing male in America; a young, married, white, urban, northern heterosexual Protestant father of college education, fully employed, of good complexion, weight and height, and a recent record in sports. Every American male tends to look out upon the world from this perspective.” – Erving Goffman, Stigma
On my reading list – and now – on my table. More to follow. Penguin Classics 2009, from the second edition 1890.
Regarding Darwin, interpretation is clearly needed, ability to sort wheat from chaff. For example, he has a lot of racist comments in his work on sexual selection (also recieved, some of it read). One cannot take this on face value, it would resemble taking the old testament on face value in creationism. In Darwin as in other cases the interesting thing is the sense of science beyond the sentiments of the day – that were present there (as in the writings of e g Marx and Freud). This is what challenges the reader, and makes for a captivating story, even today.
This historical novel, published by Spartacus, 2009, has been applauded by e g professor Kåre Lunden (“a picture of life in the 13th century”). Review to follow.
This is a good conventional take on science history, with little problematization of gender or who was heard or not heard.
Very well written “within the frame”, not a good guide to the framing.
– Preliminary report, one third read, March 2011