by Kevin Walker
University of California, Berkeley
1992
The study of sex differences has become a politicized battle between sociobiologists and culturally-oriented, mostly feminist, scholars. I believe the two sides can be reconciled around a common recognition of biological facts, and an appreciation of the political and moral character of social factors. I examine one aspect of biological sex differences -- hormones -- to show how biologists have presented seemingly empirical facts, how feminists have criticized these, and how the two sides might reach aggreement. What should emerge is a "kinder, gentler" sociobiological approach which is tempered but not weakened by the critiques of feminists.1 Note that this is just one aspect of sex difference: the influences of genes, environment and free will are not treated.
I begin by stating an obvious fact accepted by both sides of the debate: males and females are physically different. This is due to the Y chromesome, which makes males what they are. When behavioral differences are raised, things get more complex and the mud starts to fly. Nonetheless, both sides would probably agree that on average, throughout known human history, there have generally been some clear differences in male and female behavior. Here, already, feminists would argue that much of what we know about history has been constructed with a male bias. I agree, but both historians and their subjects have held such an implicit bias, and they should not be retroactively prosecuted for it. To avoid further semantic digressions, let me say that I will be using some terms, like "aggression" and "dominance" without defining them specifically, but knowing full well they may be interpreted differently. I refer to their traditionally accepted meanings unless otherwise stated.
A great deal of research has shown that hormones are linked to sex differences in anatomy, behavior, temperament and cognition. Linked, that is, but not necessarily causal; the directionality is not clear. The research is not entirely consistent, but some clear facts emerge.
Stephen Goldberg believes that the social dominance of males is a function of their hormones.2 For all his methodological and interpretive flaws, Goldberg's main point is supported by more and more endocrinological studies. Testosterone is a natural aphrodisiac: it makes birds sing and look for territory in the spring. And it is linked to aggression, risk and selfish competitiveness in animals, especially primates (including humans). Some even argue that through "testosterone poisoning", men have ruined the world. Female rhesus monkeys, when given excess testosterone, act like male monkeys, even performing sexual mounting behavior.
Hormones directly affect the brain. The feminists Longino and Doell3 say that this presumed link is based on an assumption of difference, but in fact it is supported by research: UC Berkeley neurologist Marion Diamond has found that relative levels of estrogen and testosterone affect which hemisphere of the brain is dominant. Testosterone favors the right side, which specializes in spatial ability.4
Michele Rosaldo would call this a "discourse cast in universal terms". She says that empirical biological claims have "rhetorical appeal".5 Hers is typical, if not more astute, of feminist critiques. But such critiques are just that: they make moral and ideological claims but do not challenge the empirical evidence with contradictory empirical evidence. In essence, they exist on a different level. But their points are well taken nonetheless. For instance, empirical biological research generally does not -- and should not -- make moral claims.
Longino and Doell observe that endocrinological research on animals is suspect, since animals have no "culture"; and in humans, the cerebral cortex (the seat of learning, experience and imagination) plays a larger role in behavior. Studying nonhuman primates in particular, they say, is misguided since primates have evolved just as humans have.
But biologists are not studying the cultural factors of behavior; this is left to psychologists and sociologists. Animals, especially primates, are our best source of biological information, since we are closely linked by evolution. Few if any biologists today would argue that biological factors are solely responsible for behavior.
Feminists and social anthropologists also observe that the directionality of hormones may be reversed: that testosterone may be high because of aggression. Studies have shown hormone production to be influenced by the mind. Men given a placebo, for example, but told it is testosterone, exhibit as much increased sexual behavior as those given the actual hormone. Also, men who win in tennis or receive their M.D., for instance, show increased levels. Male monkeys show a decrease when placed in a situation where they are not dominant. Frances Purifoy has found that women who are in management positions have higher concentrations of testosterone than, say, secretaries or homemakers.6 But Longino and Doell cite Anke Ehrhardt's research which seems to show that hormones do the influencing: in a study of "tomboys" born with excess testosterone, the subjects' sisters were used as a control group, thereby eliminating cultural factors, since both sisters were raised in the same environment. From such contradictory evidence, the only viable conclusion is that the influence goes in both directions.
Donna Haraway charges that scientists' preconceived notions of gender can distort research, leading them to look for certain behaviors and not others.7 She, along with many other feminist critics, goes further to say that studies which find a biological determinant of behavior can serve to justify social and political inequalities. For instance, socioibology emerged as women were becoming more politically, financially and reproductively autonomous.
But I doubt that many sociobiologists are actively conspiring to keep women down. Their bias is implicit. Feminism, on the other hand, is explicitly political and seeks to make gender biases in other areas explicit. Feminists seek to change the "androcentric and patriarchal beliefs of our culture," as Longino and Doell say. But as they state, "their critiques are dulled by a lack of adequate methodological analysis." Rosaldo echoes this point. To be sure, only "real research" can refute other, "androcentric" research. It is a tragedy that few feminists are doing primary biological research.
Their arguments are no less important, however, and empirical researchers should make an effort to make their assumptions explicit, without turning their studies into semantic and ideological diatribes. A policing of the language, as many feminists suggest, is dangerous and should be avoided.
"Recognizing and strippping away the biased or implied gender reconstructions" is a goal of feminist revisionism, as Margaret Conkey puts it with regard to archaeology.8 But while feminists have become adept at recognizing male biases, they should not completely discard valuable evidence or interpretations until contradictory evidence merits. After all, who is to say that the subjects of anthropologists are not as "androcentric" as the male scientists who study them? To make females "dominant" could be to create a fiction. Work such as Conkey's is potentially at least as biased as those she attacks. Both sides would do well to have a more cooperative dialogue.
1. The use of "kinder, gentler" is intentionally ironic. The phrase is attributed to President Bush, who nonetheless was charged with "flexing his hormones" in the war against Iraq.
2. Stephen Goldberg: The Inevitability of Patriarchy. (New York: William Morrow & Co., 1973)
3. Helen Longino and Ruth Doell: "Body, Bias and Behavior: A Comparative Analysis of Reasoning in Two Areas of Biological Science," p.218. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 1983, v.9, no.2, pp.206-227.
4. Diamond's research reported in Susan Davis: "Ruled by hormones?" San Francisco Examiner , Oct. 28, 1990, pp.D14-13.
5. Michelle Z. Rosaldo: "Moral/Analytical Dilemmas Posed by the Intersection of Feminism and ocial Science," p.285. Interpretive Social Science: A Second Look , Paul Rabinow, ed.
6. Reported in "Ruled by hormones?" (op. cit.)
7. Donna Haraway: "The Contest for Primate Nature: Daughters of Man-the-Hunter in the Field, 1960-80" Simians, Cyborgs, and Women. (New York: Routledge, 1991)
8. Margaret Conkey: "Men and Women in Prehistory: An Arch¾ological Challenge," p.3. Gender in Cross-Cultural Perspective, Caroline Brettel and Carolyn Sargent, eds. (New York: Prentice Hall, 1992)