Before continuing to write on the subject of the
biological influences on the behavior of men and women (and other genders), I
wanted to write a follow-up post to my 1st post (link) about the role of the unconscious in influencing seemingly
conscious behavior, decisions, and actions. (These are somewhat superfluous terms,
since “behavioral science” encompasses each of these, but many people do not
know this). This is SO important, because
this is a BIG subject area that seems totally absent from any dialogue about
feminism. Yet, it has HUGE
implications. We are, after all, talking
about the brain, and every human has one!
Speaking of behavioral science, a category including
psychology, psychobiology, and cognitive science (and by correlation,
neuroscience), scientists now widely consider all human consciousness and
unconsciousness to be governed entirely by neurochemistry. (Why this relates to
theorizing masculinity or other genders, I will get to shortly).
This fact is probably surprising and troubling to
you. You may be thinking: 1) Does this
mean I don’t have any free will? 2) Does
this mean that gendered behavior has nothing to do with individual choice? 3) What
does it mean to discuss feminist theories and how does activism play a role if
neurochemistry is ultimately responsible?
The short
answer to the first questions is that, “No,
you do not have free will, but you do have deliberation.” The preponderance of evidence shows that the
idea of dualism, the mind-body connection, where mind and body are separate (commonly
known as Cartesian Dualism, though other forms of dualism exist), is
false.
Some modern day thinkers have
attempted to rescue the idea of free will, by proposing theories of “quantum
consciousness.” However, quantum
consciousness fails on 2 counts: 1) Neurochemistry is too cold (low energy
states) for quantum effects to occur; and 2) Even if quantum indeterminacy were
to somehow take place in the brain, it is irrational to think that
probabilities beyond our control give us any control over our thoughts. However, even though behavior is thereby
deterministic, there is still merit in “considering our decisions.” In other words, even though consciousness is
ultimately governed by physical processes alone, choosing to do nothing is a
causally determined choice with different effects (except in rare cases of “local
fatalism”). There is no way to escape
determinism.
In the debate between “nature vs. nurture,”
behavioral determinism is not solely on the side of “nature.” In fact, a necessary implication of a
determined nature is a determined nurture.
The environment has every bit as much of a role to play in behavioral
influences as does biology alone. In
other words, as our interaction is mediated by our biology, it influences the
responses of others. An interrelated field
is the sociological theory of social constructivism (link). (I would further argue
that social constructivism intersects with Judith Butler’s theorizing about
gender).
So, to answer
the second question, “Yes, it is still meaningful to
talk about gendered behavior and individual choice.” However, while there are physical
explanations for all behavior, scientists do not claim to know the causes of all
behavior; merely that they do not originate from a self-made will. The fact that you are not in reality the
controller of your thoughts and actions does have some very interesting
implications in culpability, in general, and legal culpability in
specific. If anyone is interested in
this, I wrote a paper entitled: “Behavioral Determinism and Implications for
Criminal Law.” (The “deterrent” effect
of the law is also related to social constructivism, mentioned prior).
Getting to the
third question, “What does it mean to discuss
feminist theories and how does activism play a role if neurochemistry is
ultimately responsible?” This is a huge
question with huge implications that seems to me to be overlooked by all major
feminist thinkers (of which I’m aware). 1) It means that disagreements between
competing ideologies, while biologically determined, are not individually
valid. Morals have a biological basis,
as evidenced in other species, called “evolutionary altruism.” (Also absent from the usual feminist
discourse is the entire field of epistemology – theory of knowledge). (Sometimes I’m just really shocked about how “experts”
seem to overlook such giant gaps in their theorizing. In fact, this often leads to wildly crazy assertions
to describe things – such as feminist author Elizabeth Grosz’s “Volatile
Bodies.”) Note*** 2) Biological and
social constructivist understandings have direct bearing on gendered social
behavior and identification. 3) Activism is integral to change, as
it is an instrument of social causality.
There’s probably some other implications, but I fear
I have already written too much and probably no one is going to have the
patience to read this. Still, it was
necessary to write so much simply to allay criticism.
Note*** I suppose I shouldn’t be totally surprised
that other authors do not have such extensive knowledge of other subject areas,
despite feminist studies fundamentally being an interdisciplinary field. Admittedly (and as my sources show), feminist
scholars would require functional knowledge of the following subject areas:
psychology, evolutionary psychology, psychobiology, cognitive science,
sociology, neuroscience, quantum mechanics, philosophy, and legal theory.
Sources:
>Becker, E. (1997). The denial of death. New York, NY: The
Free Press.
>Dennett,
D. C. (1984). Elbow room: The varieties
of free will worth wanting. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
>Don, K. (2010, Oct. 17). “The moral
landscape:” Why science should shape morality. Salon. Retrieved from http://www.salon.com/2010/10/17/sam_harris_interview/
>Hameroff, S. R. (1998). Quantum
computation in brain microtubules? The Penrose-Hameroff “Orch OR” model of
consciousness. Philosophical Transactions
Royal Society London (A), 356, 1869-1896. doi: 10.1098/rsta.1998.0254
>Ruse, M. (1993). The significance of
evolution. In P. Singer (Ed.), A
companion to ethics (pp. 500-510). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
>Tegmark, M. (2000). The importance
of quantum decoherence in brain processes. Physical
Review E, 6, 4194-4206. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.61.4194
>Wade, N. (2007, March 20). Scientist
finds the beginnings of morality in primate behavior. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&ref=science&oref=slogin
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructivism
2 comments:
love this!
Thank you :)
Post a Comment