Evolutionary Psychology And Feminism
Sex RolesDOI 10.1007/s11199-011-9987-3ORIGINAL ARTICLEEvolutionary Psychology and FeminismDavid Michael Buss & David P. Schmitt# Springer Science Business Media, LLC 2011Abstract This article provides a historical context ofevolutionary psychology and feminism, and evaluates thecontributions to this special issue of Sex Roles within thatcontext. We briefly outline the basic tenets of evolutionarypsychology and articulate its meta-theory of the origins ofgender similarities and differences. The article then evaluatesthe specific contributions: Sexual Strategies Theory and thedesire for sexual variety; evolved standards of beauty;hypothesized adaptations to ovulation; the appeal of risktaking in human mating; understanding the causes of sexualvictimization; and the role of studies of lesbian matepreferences in evaluating the framework of evolutionarypsychology. Discussion focuses on the importance of socialand cultural context, human behavioral flexibility, and theevidentiary status of specific evolutionary psychologicalhypotheses. We conclude by examining the potential role ofevolutionary psychology in addressing social problemsidentified by feminist agendas.Keywords Evolutionary psychology . Feminism . Sexualstrategies . Gender differencesIntroductionWe are delighted with the opportunity to comment onresearch and essays in the exciting and high-impactD. M. Buss (*)Department of Psychology, University of Texas,Austin, TX 78712, USAe-mail: dbuss@psy.utexas.eduD. P. SchmittBradley University,Peoria, IL, USAfield of evolutionary psychology—a field of researchthat has revolutionized how we understand humanpsychological mechanisms and how they interact withsocial, cultural, and ecological variables to producemanifest behavior. It is also an exciting opportunity toclarify the basic tenets of evolutionary psychology,discuss the interface with feminist scholarship, andaddress some of the misunderstandings commonly heldabout work in this field. Dialoguing with other scholarsabout these issues in this format provides an invaluableopportunity to facilitate future progress in this field.It is a hallmark of the maturation of the interface ofevolutionary psychology and feminist perspectives thatSex Roles has devoted an entire special issue to its stocktaking. First, we briefly review some of the main tenetsof evolutionary psychology; fruitful dialogue requiresbeing absolutely clear about those foundational tenets,the nature of hypotheses developed according to theframework, and consequently the relevant empirical testsof those hypotheses. Second, we review some historicallandmarks of the links between evolutionary psychologyand feminism. Third, we comment on the specificcontributions to this special issue. We conclude bylooking to the future—discussing the broader implications for facilitating a productive interface between theseperspectives.Basic Tenets of Evolutionary Psychology: A BriefSketchEvolutionary psychology is a hybrid discipline that drawsinsights from modern evolutionary theory, biology, cognitive psychology, anthropology, economics, computer science,and paleoarchaeology. The discipline rests on a foundation of
Sex Rolescore premises (Buss 2011; Confer et al. 2010; Tooby andCosmides 2005):(1) Manifest behavior depends on underlying psychologicalmechanisms, information processing devices housed inthe brain, in conjunction with the external and internalinputs—social, cultural, ecological, physiological—thatinteract with them to produce manifest behavior;(2) Evolution by selection is the only known causalprocess capable of creating such complex organicmechanisms (adaptations);(3) Evolved psychological mechanisms are often functionally specialized to solve adaptive problems thatrecurred for humans over deep evolutionary time;(4) Selection designed the information processing ofmany evolved psychological mechanisms to be adaptively influenced by specific classes of informationfrom the environment;(5) Human psychology consists of a large number offunctionally specialized evolved mechanisms, eachsensitive to particular forms of contextual input, thatget combined, coordinated, and integrated with eachother and with external and internal variables toproduce manifest behavior tailored to solving an arrayof adaptive problems.Several key implications follow from these premises.First, human behavior is not, and cannot be, “geneticallydetermined”; environmental input is necessary at each andevery step in the causal chain—from the moment ofconception through ontogeny and through immediatecontextual input—in order to explain actual behavior.Second, underlying psychological mechanisms must bedistinguished from manifest behavior. Just as explainingmanifest calluses requires identifying underlying cellproducing mechanisms and the environmental inputnecessary for their activation (repeated friction to the skin),explaining manifest human behavior requires indentifyingthe underlying psychological mechanisms and the environmental input necessary for their activation and implementation. Third, social and cultural inputs are necessary andintegral parts of the scientific analysis of all forms ofhuman social behavior. Fourth, evolutionary psychologycontends that human behavior is enormously flexible—aflexibility afforded by the large number of context-dependentevolved psychological adaptations that can be activated,combined, and sequenced to produce variable adaptive humanbehavior.These basic tenets render it necessary to distinguishbetween “evolutionary psychology” as a meta-theory forpsychological science and “specific evolutionary hypotheses” about particular phenomena, such as conceptualproposals about aggression, resource control, or particularstrategies of human mating. Just as the bulk of scientificresearch in the field of non-human behavioral ecology testsspecific hypotheses about evolved mechanisms in animals,the bulk of scientific research in evolutionary psychologytests specific hypotheses about evolved psychologicalmechanisms in humans, hypotheses about byproducts ofadaptations, and occasionally hypotheses about noise (e.g.,mutations).As in all scientific endeavors, the outcomes of theempirical research necessarily vary from hypothesis tohypothesis. Some will be empirically supported. Some willbe falsified. And some will receive mixed support andrequire modification as the helical interplay betweentheories and empirical data unfolds. We applaud the effortsof the authors in this special issue who have conductedempirical tests of specific evolutionary psychologicalhypotheses, ranging from adaptations to ovulation throughdesign features of short-term mating strategies. And weconcur with the authors of these articles that the best way tomake progress is by using the scientific method to testempirical claims.An Evolutionary Meta-theory of Gender Differencesand Gender SimilaritiesEvolutionary psychology provides a meta-theory for predicting when and where to expect gender differences andwhen and where to expect gender similarities (Buss 1995a).Women and men are expected to differ in domains in whichthey have faced recurrently different adaptive problemsover human evolutionary history. They are expected to besimilar in all domains in which they have faced similaradaptive problems over human evolutionary history.Although the final scientific word is not yet in, wesuspect that the similarities outnumber the differences.These include similarities in taste preferences (an exceptionoccurs when women get pregnant and hence face a differentsuite of adaptive problems), and similarities in habitatpreferences (e.g., for resource-rich environments containingplaces for refuge), similarities in kin investment as afunction of genetic relatedness, and similarities in adaptations to avoid the “hostile forces of nature” such aspredators, parasites, and other environmental hazards. Thissentiment is echoed by Hannagan (2011), who suggests that“What is shared among the genders is a motivation for theelimination of economic or social competitors and thedesire for control over events (i.e., ‘politics’)” (this issue).Mating and sexuality, in contrast, are domains in whichwomen and men are known to have confronted differentadaptive problems. For example, unlike men, women havefor millions of years faced the adaptive problems ofpregnancy and breastfeeding, both of which are metabolically expensive endeavors. Men but not women have faced
Sex Rolesthe adaptive problem of paternity uncertainty and the risk ofmisdirected parental investment—adaptive problems incurred as a consequence of internal female fertilization.Despite domains in which evolutionary psychologiststypically predict gender-differentiated adaptations, evenwithin mating women and men face many similar adaptiveproblems. In long-term mating, for example, both gendersface the problem of identifying mates who will commit tothem over the extended temporal durations (Buss andSchmitt 1993). Consequently, psychological solutions tothe commitment problem, such as seeking signs of love as acommitment device, are expected to be largely similar forwomen and men (Buss 1988; 2006).The key point is that the meta-theory of evolutionarypsychology is perfectly compatible with the feminist gendersimilarities hypothesis (Hyde 2005) in domains in which thegenders have faced similar adaptive problems, which includemost domains of cognitive abilities. And it is also compatiblewith the empirical meta-analyses conducted by feministscientists who find that the genders differ profoundly insome domains, such as the desire for sexual variety (Oliverand Hyde 1993) and physical aggression, which is mostly amale form of intrasexual competition (Archer 2009; Eagly1987). In short, evolutionary psychology does not hold thatmen and women are from different planets, psychologicallyspeaking. Rather, it provides a sound and nuanced theoreticalrationale for predicting domains of similarity as well asdomains of difference.An Historical Perspective on Evolutionary Psychologyand FeminismHistorically, feminist scholarship and evolutionary psychology have tended to be entirely separate endeavors,despite focusing on many of the same topics. Both, forexample, focus their conceptual lenses on gender differences and their causal origins. Furthermore, sex, power,and social conflict have been key content domains (Bussand Malamuth 1996). Despite the similarities in these foci,the two are in some ways incommensurable. Evolutionarypsychology is a scientific meta-theoretical paradigmdesigned to understand human nature and has no politicalagenda. Although we are not naïve in thinking thatpersonal politics have no bearing on scientific work,empirical findings show that the private political orientations of evolutionary psychologists are in fact highlyvariable, and contrary to some claims, are no moreconservative or liberal than those of non-evolutionarypsychologists (Tybur et al. 2007). Feminism, in contrast, ispartly a scholarly scientific enterprise, but also oftencontains explicitly political agendas (although these differamong feminist scholars, as noted below). In these senses,the two approaches or disciplines are in some waysoverlapping but in some ways incommensurable.Neither “feminism” nor “evolutionary psychology” istheoretically monolithic. Among feminist psychologists, forexample, some such as Hyde have argued that genderdifferences have been exaggerated and that women andmen are much more similar than they are different (e.g.,Hyde 2005). In contrast to “similarity feminists,” otherfeminist psychologists, such as Eagly, have argued thatgender differences exist, are consistent across studies, andshould not be ignored merely because they are perceived toconflict with certain political agendas (Eagly 1995).“Difference feminists” view those who minimize genderdifferences as interfering with efforts at attaining genderequality. This is just one dimension among many alongwhich scholars who fall with the broad rubric of “feminism”differ.Evolutionary psychologists, like feminist scholars, arenot univocal in their theoretical positions (see The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, Buss, 2005a, for asample of the range of positions). Although all share theview that natural and sexual selection are key causalprocesses that shaped human psychology, they differ intheir emphasis on domain-specific versus domain generaladaptations, on the role and importance of individualdifferences within genders, and on the causal role of culturewithin the explanatory framework (Buss 2011).With these distinctions in mind, one can still make a fewbroad generalizations about the admittedly uneasy historyof feminism and evolutionary psychology. In the 1970s and1980s, feminists tended to show antipathy to evolutionaryapproaches to psychology (see Vandermassen 2005, for anexcellent historical treatment feminist reactions to evolutionary psychology). Some feminists saw evolutionaryapproaches as antithetical to political goals, such asachieving gender equality. Some expressed concern that ifgender differences exist and are evolved, then some mightclaim that gender differences ‘ought’ to exist, and thesetheories might therefore be used to oppress women andinterfere with achieving gender equality. Some worriedthat documentation of evolved differences might lead tojustification of bad or immoral behavior. If men have anevolved desire for sexual variety, for example, someworried that men would use that scientific finding tojustify cheating on their romantic partners (e.g., “Icouldn’t help it, dear; my genes for an evolved desirefor sexual variety made me do it”). Misunderstandingsabout the fundamental tenets of evolutionary psychologywere common—something historically true in psychologyspecifically, and in the social sciences more generally (seePark 2007, for persistent misunderstandings in psychologytextbooks; see Confer et al. 2010 for a clarification ofcommon misunderstandings).
Sex RolesThe beginnings of a rapprochement between feminism andevolutionary psychology began among female scientists whodescribed themselves as both “feminists” and “evolutionists”such as Smuts (1995), Gowaty (1992), and Hrdy (1981).Then in 1996, Buss and Malamuth published an edited bookbased on a year-long symposium series on sex, power, andconflict held at the University of Michigan that featuredevolutionists, feminists, and evolutionary feminists. Thebook, entitled “Sex, Power, Conflict: Evolutionary andFeminist Perspectives,” attempted to bring together leadingscholars in an attempt to encourage scholarly dialoguebetween perspectives previously seen as antithetical. Judgingby the citation count (61 according to Google Scholar as ofthis writing), the book largely failed to have much impact inthis attempt at rapprochement. Another edited book based onanother symposium series, “Feminism and EvolutionaryBiology: Boundaries, Intersections, and Frontiers,” byGowaty 1997, also made little impact (71 Google Scholarcitations as of this writing). Another modest effort attemptedto use evolutionary psychology to extend a feminist analysisof domestic violence against women (Peters et al. 2002).The next landmark was the publication in 2005 of thebook “Who’s Afraid of Charles Darwin? DebatingFeminism and Evolutionary Theory,” by Vandermassen(a self-described Darwinian feminist). The story behindthis book is interesting, and worth noting. Vandermassenstarted out her academic career firmly embedded within,and embracing, traditional feminist scholarship. Afterreading some harsh critiques of evolutionary psychology,her intellectual curiosity led her to read the originalsources within evolutionary psychology. This intellectualforay was eye-opening. She reported that many feministcritics had badly distorted the actual arguments made byevolutionary psychologists. She also found, to her surpriseand contrary to her view prior to reading these, thatevolutionary psychology had much merit, and couldactually be used to benefit feminist agendas.Vandermassen, in the book, takes feminists to task formischaracterizing evolutionary psychology. And she takesevolutionary psychologists to task for failing to recognizethe important contributions made by feminist scholars (seealso Vandermassen 2010). She notes that feminists havebeen prematurely “critical and dismissive of . . . evolutionary psychology” (Liesen 2010, this issue), and makes apowerful argument that evolutionary psychology should notonly be embraced by feminist scholars, but that evolutionary psychology also provides a powerful metatheory forfeminism. This sentiment has been echoed by Hannagan(2008), who argues that “As Darwinian feminists explain,empirical science based on an evolutionary framework canbe a powerful tool for understanding gendered dynamicsand power relations . . . This approach is not just good forfeminists, it is good social science” (p. 473).We see this special issue of Sex Roles as anothermilestone, although our evaluation of it is somewhat mixed.On the positive side, it contains some excellent articles thatprovide accurate depictions and move the science forward.At the same time, some articles and book reviews containthe same errors and misunderstandings that seem stubbornlypersistent, despite numerous published efforts to address them(e.g., Confer et al. 2010). We note two below.Flexibility and Context-Contingency of Human BehaviorLiesen (2010) characterizes evolutionary psychology ashaving the assumption that “human behavior is not veryflexible” and asserts that evolutionary psychologists do not“consider the impacts of environmental variables onfemale/male behavior and reproductive strategies” (thisissue). We, along with Liesen, would object to anytheoretical position that viewed human behavior as inflexible or lacking complex environmental contingencies.Fortunately, evolutionary psychology does not subscribeto these views (see basic tenets of evolutionary psychologyabove). Buss (2003), for example, describes a complexmenu of evolved mating strategies, and discusses in depthempirical research on social and environmental variablesthat influence these mating strategies. A short list of socialand environmental variables discussed explicitly for shortterm mating alone includes: father absence versus presenceduring development, transitions between mates, operationalsex ratio in the mating pool, pathogens in the localenvironment, cultural contexts of food sharing, culturalvalues places on virginity, and various other legal, social,and cultural sanctions (Buss 2003, pp. 93–95; see Schmitt2005a for results from a massive cross-cultural project thatexplores these social and environmental variables in depthfrom an evolutionary psychological perspective). In short,feminists and evolutionary psychologists appear to convergeon conceptualizations of human behavior as flexible andcontext-contingent.The Origins of PatriarchyBuss (1996) advanced a hypothesis about the origins of onecomponent of patriarchy. Specifically, he suggested that theco-evolution of women’s evolved mate preferences for menwith resources and men’s co-evolved mate competitionstrategies to embody what women want created genderdifferences in the motivational priority attached to resourceacquisition. Men who failed to obtain resources that werepart of what ancestral women sought in mates often failedto succeed in mate competition. Men did not place ananalogous selection pressure on women. Iterated over timeand across cultures, men’s strategies of mate competitionled them to vie with other men to acquire the resources
Sex Rolesneeded to render themselves attractive to women. Liesen(2010) implies that women should not be “blamed” formen’s greater control over resources. We concur: “Theinference of blame, however, does not follow from theidentification of women’s participation in one aspect of thecausal chain” (Buss 1996, p. 308). In short, there isabundant evidence for this evolutiona
Evolutionary psychology is a hybrid discipline that draws insights from modern evolutionary theory, biology, cogni-tivepsychology, anthropology, economics,computerscience, and paleoarchaeology. The discipline rests on a foundation of D. M. Buss (*) Department of Psychology, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712, USA e-mail: dbuss@psy.utexas.edu
Liberal feminism—form of the equality type of feminism: Liberal feminism is a form of feminism that argues that equality for women can be achieved through legal means and social reform. Liberal feminism
NATURE OF HUMAN INTELLIGENCE Leda Cosmides* and John Tooby* EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY The goal of research in evolutionary psychology is to discover and understand the de- sign of the human mind. Evolutionary psychology is an approach to psychology, in which knowledge and principles from evolutionary biology and human evolutionary
other evolutionary forces on human psychology. This is evidenced by greater emphasis on evolutionary theories in leading handbooks of personality psychology (Buss, 2009; Buss & Penke, 2015) and social psychology (Buss & Ken-rick, 1998; Neuberg, Kenrick, & Schaller, 2010), special issues dedicated to an evolutionary approach to the psycho-
evolutionary biology. From this point of view, some authors have tried to extend the Darwinian theory universally beyond the domain of evolutionary biology (Cf. Dawkins, 1983), using the three principles of evolutionary theory (inheritance or retention, variation, and adaptation) as a heuristic for evolutionary economic theorizing (Campbell, 1965).
Keywords: Feminism, waves of feminism, types of feminism Introduction . Their financial dependence on opposite gender and the absence of independent financial stability prevent women from writing. She believes that if women are given the financial sources and freed
According to Margot Badran, Islamic feminism emerged out of a critique of both patriarchal Islam(ism) as well as of secular feminism. Islamic feminism appeared at the time of an accelerating Islamist movement, according to the Iranian Ziba Mir-Hosseini who initially s
data into studies of eco-evolutionary dynamics can provide a better mechanistic understanding of the causes of phenotypic change, help elucidate the mechanisms driving eco-evolutionary dynamics and lead to more accurate evolutionary predictions of eco-evolutionary dynamics in nature (Fig. 2). What genomic data can reveal about
Introduction to Quantum Field Theory John Cardy Michaelmas Term 2010 { Version 13/9/10 Abstract These notes are intendedtosupplementthe lecturecourse ‘Introduction toQuan-tum Field Theory’ and are not intended for wider distribution. Any errors or obvious omissions should be communicated to me at j.cardy1@physics.ox.ac.uk. Contents 1 A Brief History of Quantum Field Theory 2 2 The Feynman .
