National Review‘s blog The Corner posts (presumably with approval) some truly heroically stupid thoughts from a reader in reply to a New York Times piece on genetics and politics that’s generating a lot of discussion. Sez he (and you may rest assured it’s a he):
But perhaps the best evidence is the gender divide in voting patterns– Women in the U.S. vote generally vote for Democrats. What would cause that pattern to occur, unless it was biology?On a more general note, when someone says “culture plays a role”, my
instinct is always to ask whether biology may have played some role
in shaping the culture. For example, if there is sexism about women
in the hard sciences like physics, could that not reflect something
real about the world? Its not as though someone, a long time ago,
flipped a coin and decided that women, not men, would be the victims
of discrimination based on their spatio-analytic abilities.
Yes, and African Americans regarded the Republican party very favorably in the late 19th century, but had become overwhelmingly Democratic voters by the mid-20th. Surely the only explanation is that the genetic stock of the race mysteriously changed during that span.
The point in the second paragraph gestures in the direction of a coherent point—the prehistoric division of labor from which later gender hierarchy emerged was obviously responsive to biological realities having to do with, for instance, child rearing vs. hunting—but it gestures with a ham fist. Reality has a funny way of changing faster than our responses, whether hard-wired or culturally inculcated, and there’s a clear enough feedback loop, often pernicious, between the reality and the social response reinforcing it. Assume men’s “spacio-analytic abilities” are slightly better on average than women’s. If that cashes out into a cultural decision not to bother educating women in science and math much—indeed, creating a norm that exhibiting too much interest in Bunsen burners is un-feminine—how seriously are we supposed to take the reassurance that, after all, the resulting differences in participation or aptitude in those fields just reflect facts about our different biologies?
8 responses so far ↓
1 Rhys Southan // Jun 21, 2005 at 3:18 pm
“Yes, and African Americans regarded the Republican party very favorably in the late 19th century, but had become overwhelmingly Democratic voters by the mid-20th. Surely the only explanation is that the genetic stock of the race mysteriously changed during that span.”
Not that I disagree with your main point, but didn’t the Democratic and Republican parties change over time? Perhaps African Americans were more inclined to favor the Republican party because the Democrats were the party of slavery.
2 Barry // Jun 21, 2005 at 3:33 pm
That’s the point, I believe. Both that things change, and that African Americans have had remarkably sharp voting preferences, for generations. Remarkable only until one sticks one’s head out the window and looks at the real world.
3 Julian Sanchez // Jun 21, 2005 at 3:37 pm
Rhys- Right, I was pointing out that it’s silly to try to attribute to genetics a voting power that’s pretty plausibly explained (and, indeed, rather obviously so) by the relevant voters’ perceptions of which party was most responsive to their concerns and interests.
4 David // Jun 22, 2005 at 11:43 am
“For example, if there is sexism about women in the hard sciences like physics, could that not reflect something real about the world?”
I think there’s an interesting assumption being made here. It’s not immediately clear to me that a genetic reality is somehow more “real” than a cultural one. There’s often a tacit assumption (particularly in feminist circles) that by showing that x, y, z are the result of some social or cultural norm, it follows that they are somehow less real.
They may be some merit to it but it strikes me as less than obvious.
5 Julian Sanchez // Jun 22, 2005 at 12:24 pm
Well, for the moment at least, the implication is that if it’s cultural, we could decide to do it differently, less so if it’s biological. (In practice, of course, changing culture isn’t exactly easy either.)
6 David // Jun 22, 2005 at 12:52 pm
Right. That’s the implication I want to question. It also assumes that culture is the result of conscious choices (hence “we could DECIDE to do it differently). Even in principle that may not be possible.
7 Barry // Jun 22, 2005 at 9:45 pm
Maybe, maybe not. However, if people look at a gender difference and attribute it to the iron rule of X and Y, there’s less chance of changing things.
8 Ben Tremblay // Jun 29, 2005 at 4:45 am
When someone mentions history I always think about drawing my gun. *Duhh* A yuppie with creds pulls a card from the bottom of the deck … astonishing? Hardly.
Nature/nurture … heigh*width = area … that simple.
Next?
When some yuppie cracker wants something to be ignored they bring up something else … plausibly, perhaps, and most likely deniably.
Nothing new … mere mis-direction, mere manipulation, mere sophistry, mere mind-phuck, mere loyalty test … a willing executioner. Yet another …
ciao