That we are evolved and biological beings is not in question. Just as violent behavior can have evolutionary roots, so can acts of kindness and care. Our task is to consider in which social conditions we lose the capacity to care and respect, and with what values we encourage violent behavior.
The persistent problem of gender-related violence is of critical social importance and a source of individual and collective trauma. As someone who spends a lot of time as an activist against gender-based violence, as a doctor who helps people overcome the trauma that is the result of domestic violence, rape and sexual harassment, and as an academic who describes violence against women and about masculinity, I feel compelled to respond to Drew Forrest’s “Evolutionary theory of male violence to explain the persistence of gender violence” in Mail & Guardians on November 12 last year.
The question of what can be inherited from his distant relatives deserves to be considered in more detail. And at least, a more thoughtful reflection on the debate, and even against the argument, in particular, for a simplistic presentation of the evolutionary determinants of our sexual behavior.
In other words, the suggestion of a causal path from the evolutionary history of male sexual jealousy to the continuation of gender violence in today’s society.
Even evolutionary psychologists, including Margo Wilson whose work is the basis of Forrest’s opinion piece, credit social and environmental factors with as much or even more influence on male violence than the history of evolution.
In an article about the impact of Wilson’s work, Holly Johnson points out: “Even when suspected infidelity by a female partner is considered a provocation that can lead to male violence in all societies … the social cost is high.”
So, he says, evolutionary psychology may reveal the motivation to use violence, but “social influences may be more important to understand when … that motivation will be acted upon”.
There is a rich history of feminist research and scholarship, and a well-documented long and hard struggle by feminist activists to disabuse us of the notion that our biology, our evolutionary history, or our genes, determine our sexuality and sexual behavior.
This liberating work opens the door to understanding the important influence of social and cultural factors on gender roles, inequality and hierarchy, and our understanding of sexual behavior as social and political. Women – and, indeed, men – are freed from beliefs that use biology to mislead and justify oppressive and fixed social roles.
Women have entered the public sphere, where many are developing. Men have been invited to participate more actively in the caring role at home, which many have done comfortably and happily.
We do not have to deny our biology to get rid of the idea that roles and tasks are determined by biological sex or that male sexual violence is driven by “primal impulses”.
The argument made by feminists that the biological and evolutionary theory of male violence can be used as an excuse is mentioned in Forrest’s opinion but is hardly discussed. There are important reasons for this brilliant riposte.
The determinist view, biological or evolutionary, has been used as a dangerous excuse, at best as a convenient rationalization for the oppression of women and children, and violence against women.
Where the dominant order of masculinity is threatened, biological and evolutionary theories are invoked to support arguments about what should be the “natural order” between men and women. And where men have experienced threats in contexts that sanction aggression, violence has been used to assert male dominance.
There is historical research that shows that at various times in history, the benefits and demands of women for rights as citizens, a place in the public sphere of government and economy, and the opportunity to become a professional practitioner, have caused crises and hostile reactions.
This is called a crisis of masculinity, because women are seen as threatening the dominant social position held by men in the family and in public life.
Alan Petersen, among others who have done work to reveal masculinity, points to the ongoing crisis of masculinity.
For example, in the industrialization of Europe at the end of the 19th century when women sought political and economic rights, scientific, medical and religious beliefs were used to demonstrate the “natural order” of things, making women physiologically inferior and because of their reproductive capacity the most suitable for. domestic duties – “a woman’s place is in the home”.
Some have argued that the transition to democracy in South Africa when gender equality was enshrined in the Constitution was simply a “crisis of masculinity”. For some people, the gender rights project can be a disadvantage.
Men who are frustrated by the failure of the promise of political transformation to provide economic and social opportunities feel that their biologically determined natural role as “head of the household” is under threat by women who are now equal under the law. In contexts where aggressive behavior is punished, many people use violence to assert authority.
So, we can argue differently from Wilson, that it is very important to understand the causes of social violence committed by men, apart from infidelity and sexual jealousy.
The more important question is what social conditions give rise to the human capacity for violence and hatred, and under what conditions are these equally important capacities for care and love?
Stephen J Gould, a Darwinist, stated that “violence, sexism and general nastiness are biological because they represent a subset of some behavior. But peace, equality and kindness are biological – and we can see their influence increase if we can create a social structure that allow them to develop.
Dr Tina Sideris is a clinical psychologist and psychotherapist.