Darwinist feminism: an article about the work of Sara Blaffer Hrdy and Amy Parish
Darwinist feminism: an article about the work of Sara Blaffer Hrdy and Amy Parish
The arrival of researchers like Sarah Blaffer Hrdy and Amy Parish transformed not only the study of primates, but also our understanding of evolution, sexuality and gender roles in general
SANDRA CAULA | PABLO RODRÍGUEZ PALENZUELA
Up until a few decades ago, biologists mistakenly thought of females’ reproductive behavior as being simple and passive. Their invisibilization of feminine sexual strategy was product of a science developed by men, who paid particular attention to male behavior and skimmed over the importance of female behavior. For decades, this was how biology constructed theories about primate sexuality.
Literature on the subject tells of the working of this model, which dominated until women scientists managed to widen our understanding. Up until then, primatology had approached the study of females with a lack of critical perspective, generally confirming expectations and prejudices of those — largely men — who had initially defined the field of study.
The arrival of women researchers like Jane Goodall, Dian Fossey and Biruté Galdikas, pioneers in our learning about great apes, constituted a fundamental change as they began to question and transform traditional approaches. But the revolution that Sarah Blaffer Hrdy and Amy Parish led in primatology changed not only the study of primates, but also our understanding of evolution, sexuality, and gender roles in general.
Both exemplify so-called Darwinist feminism: a tradition that began in the 19th century, when feminists encountered in the theories of Charles Darwin tools with which to combat essentialism that justified feminine subordination.
Hrdy did not arrive to India with a feminist agenda. Her initial goal was to research why male colobinae primates killed their young. But her findings led her to replant crucial assumptions about sexuality and reproductive behavior — not only in primates, but among mammals in general. She proved that, contrary to what had previously been supposed, females were neither passive nor monogamous by default. Female colobinae paired off with various males to obscure paternity and protect their young, in what Hrdy called “sexual counter-strategies.” In contradiction of traditional beliefs, she discovered that females have active and complex reproductive strategies.
Starting with those studies, Hrdy widened her approach and demonstrated that maternity and childrearing among mammals, including humans, depend as much on cooperation as competition, and that qualities like ambition and initiative, which had been considered masculine traits, were present among females when it came to guaranteeing the survival of their offspring. In her later work, she argued that human childrearing evolved as a shared task in which women as well as men had the biological capacity to care for babies. This was a clear challenge to gender stereotypes pertaining to maternal instinct and fatherhood. Her research changed not only primatology, but also evolutionary psychology and our understanding of the parental roles in human evolution.
Parish, who carried out her doctoral studies under the guidance of Hrdy, took the review of previous assumptions about female primate behavior even further. Her research on bonobos dismantled the traditional idea of natural passivity among females by documenting matriarchal societies in which females form solid alliances, control resources, and have decisive social influence. Parish was the first to scientifically characterize bonobo society as a matriarchy where females, even those lacking familial ties, cooperate to dominate males and maintain group stability.
Parish observed that sex among bonobos fulfills complex social functions. Females utilize it to regularize co-existence, resolve tensions, and strengthen group cohesion, in clear contrast with other primate species. Her interdisciplinary approach transcends primatology, with such findings leading her to explore the evolution of human behavior, sexuality, and power from a biocultural and comparative viewpoint. Her work opened doors to understanding the diversity of social and sexual models possible in nature and human societies.
But with their investigations, neither Hrdy nor Parish attempted to demonstrate that females are superior from a moral perspective, nor more advanced in evolutionary terms than males. Rather, that primates’ — and humans’ — sexual and social behavior is much more complex than what male-centered theories had suggested.
Feminine promiscuity is common, not an exception to the rule. Females also make active decisions about reproduction, coupling, and resources. Sex fulfills functions that go beyond reproduction. And even among species with apparent masculine domination, feminine strategies can be determinants of reproductive success and social organization.
What both scientists demonstrated is not that certain behaviors or organizational forms should be considered natural in animals — or humans — but rather, how a social paradigm can determine the aspects of nature that we decide to study and can influence one’s interpretations.
Science historian Londa Schiebinger wrote about this andocentric bias that, far from being limited to primatology, has prevailed across many scientific disciplines. In medicine, clinical trials are largely conducted on men, which leads to erroneous dosing and diagnosis. In archeology, elaborate prehistoric tools were attributed to male hunters and more simple apparatuses, to female gatherers. In psychology, Lawrence Kohlberg developed his influential theory of moral development by studying male children. In each case, widening the sample revealed previously invisible realities.
The correction of these biases was only possible because women scientists who managed to arrive at research positions formulated different questions, and not by some supposed innate female empathy. Their societal position made them aware of the importance of overlooked factors. The mistakes of previous research was tied to structural dynamics. Male scientists almost unquestioningly assumed that masculinity represented the norm and femininity, the exception. That apparently neutral belief led systematically to an incomplete view of scientific reality.
Hrdy and Parish fulfilled the responsibility of any solid scientific study when data emerged that did not fit into dominant theories. Instead of throwing it out or seeking ad hoc explanations for observations that did not adjust to andocentric evolutionary paradigm, they opted to deepen their research. Their merit lay in subjecting their own assumptions to critical scrutiny.
Their primatological revolution cannot tell us how to organize our societies. Its lesson is distinct: to show that narratives about what is “natural” tend to reflect the viewpoint, interests, and values of those collecting and interpreting data. That is why diversifying the profile of those doing research has led to the understanding of previously ignored patterns.
The legacy of Hrdy and Parish goes beyond their findings. The two of them proved that it behooves us to distrust any interpretation that resorts to “nature” as an authority to justify social arrangements. That is not because biology is irrelevant, but because its understanding is often conditioned by our own cultural contexts.
Link to original article : https://archive.is/MeW7H
Dismantling the myth of female sexual passivity
The arrival of researchers like Sarah Blaffer Hrdy and Amy Parish transformed not only the study of primates, but also our understanding of evolution, sexuality and gender roles in general
SANDRA CAULA | PABLO RODRÍGUEZ PALENZUELA
Up until a few decades ago, biologists mistakenly thought of females’ reproductive behavior as being simple and passive. Their invisibilization of feminine sexual strategy was product of a science developed by men, who paid particular attention to male behavior and skimmed over the importance of female behavior. For decades, this was how biology constructed theories about primate sexuality.
Literature on the subject tells of the working of this model, which dominated until women scientists managed to widen our understanding. Up until then, primatology had approached the study of females with a lack of critical perspective, generally confirming expectations and prejudices of those — largely men — who had initially defined the field of study.
The arrival of women researchers like Jane Goodall, Dian Fossey and Biruté Galdikas, pioneers in our learning about great apes, constituted a fundamental change as they began to question and transform traditional approaches. But the revolution that Sarah Blaffer Hrdy and Amy Parish led in primatology changed not only the study of primates, but also our understanding of evolution, sexuality, and gender roles in general.
Both exemplify so-called Darwinist feminism: a tradition that began in the 19th century, when feminists encountered in the theories of Charles Darwin tools with which to combat essentialism that justified feminine subordination.
Hrdy did not arrive to India with a feminist agenda. Her initial goal was to research why male colobinae primates killed their young. But her findings led her to replant crucial assumptions about sexuality and reproductive behavior — not only in primates, but among mammals in general. She proved that, contrary to what had previously been supposed, females were neither passive nor monogamous by default. Female colobinae paired off with various males to obscure paternity and protect their young, in what Hrdy called “sexual counter-strategies.” In contradiction of traditional beliefs, she discovered that females have active and complex reproductive strategies.
Starting with those studies, Hrdy widened her approach and demonstrated that maternity and childrearing among mammals, including humans, depend as much on cooperation as competition, and that qualities like ambition and initiative, which had been considered masculine traits, were present among females when it came to guaranteeing the survival of their offspring. In her later work, she argued that human childrearing evolved as a shared task in which women as well as men had the biological capacity to care for babies. This was a clear challenge to gender stereotypes pertaining to maternal instinct and fatherhood. Her research changed not only primatology, but also evolutionary psychology and our understanding of the parental roles in human evolution.
Parish, who carried out her doctoral studies under the guidance of Hrdy, took the review of previous assumptions about female primate behavior even further. Her research on bonobos dismantled the traditional idea of natural passivity among females by documenting matriarchal societies in which females form solid alliances, control resources, and have decisive social influence. Parish was the first to scientifically characterize bonobo society as a matriarchy where females, even those lacking familial ties, cooperate to dominate males and maintain group stability.
Parish observed that sex among bonobos fulfills complex social functions. Females utilize it to regularize co-existence, resolve tensions, and strengthen group cohesion, in clear contrast with other primate species. Her interdisciplinary approach transcends primatology, with such findings leading her to explore the evolution of human behavior, sexuality, and power from a biocultural and comparative viewpoint. Her work opened doors to understanding the diversity of social and sexual models possible in nature and human societies.
But with their investigations, neither Hrdy nor Parish attempted to demonstrate that females are superior from a moral perspective, nor more advanced in evolutionary terms than males. Rather, that primates’ — and humans’ — sexual and social behavior is much more complex than what male-centered theories had suggested.
Feminine promiscuity is common, not an exception to the rule. Females also make active decisions about reproduction, coupling, and resources. Sex fulfills functions that go beyond reproduction. And even among species with apparent masculine domination, feminine strategies can be determinants of reproductive success and social organization.
What both scientists demonstrated is not that certain behaviors or organizational forms should be considered natural in animals — or humans — but rather, how a social paradigm can determine the aspects of nature that we decide to study and can influence one’s interpretations.
Science historian Londa Schiebinger wrote about this andocentric bias that, far from being limited to primatology, has prevailed across many scientific disciplines. In medicine, clinical trials are largely conducted on men, which leads to erroneous dosing and diagnosis. In archeology, elaborate prehistoric tools were attributed to male hunters and more simple apparatuses, to female gatherers. In psychology, Lawrence Kohlberg developed his influential theory of moral development by studying male children. In each case, widening the sample revealed previously invisible realities.
The correction of these biases was only possible because women scientists who managed to arrive at research positions formulated different questions, and not by some supposed innate female empathy. Their societal position made them aware of the importance of overlooked factors. The mistakes of previous research was tied to structural dynamics. Male scientists almost unquestioningly assumed that masculinity represented the norm and femininity, the exception. That apparently neutral belief led systematically to an incomplete view of scientific reality.
Hrdy and Parish fulfilled the responsibility of any solid scientific study when data emerged that did not fit into dominant theories. Instead of throwing it out or seeking ad hoc explanations for observations that did not adjust to andocentric evolutionary paradigm, they opted to deepen their research. Their merit lay in subjecting their own assumptions to critical scrutiny.
Their primatological revolution cannot tell us how to organize our societies. Its lesson is distinct: to show that narratives about what is “natural” tend to reflect the viewpoint, interests, and values of those collecting and interpreting data. That is why diversifying the profile of those doing research has led to the understanding of previously ignored patterns.
The legacy of Hrdy and Parish goes beyond their findings. The two of them proved that it behooves us to distrust any interpretation that resorts to “nature” as an authority to justify social arrangements. That is not because biology is irrelevant, but because its understanding is often conditioned by our own cultural contexts.
Link to original article : https://archive.is/MeW7H
