There are in fact real and measureable
differences between women and men as groups in things like emotions, empathy, spatial
ability, physical activity level, violence, and interests that are documented at
a very young age. Sociobiologists have also documented many differences across
species. The question is, are these differences determined by biology, or are
they socially constructed?
In
order to answer this question, I wish to first define the terms “biological
determinism” and “social constructionism.” Biological determinism is exactly
that: the belief that biology determines such characteristics as behavior,
ability, likes, dislikes, etc. Biological determinism is the theory behind the
phrase: “boys will be boys.” This phrase is associated with “boyish” behavioral characteristics, which we can all easily identify, that are believed to be
essential and natural in boys.
Social
constructionism, on the other hand, is the theory that social identifiers, like race and gender, among others, are created by society rather than biology. Many argue that social constructionism is a much stronger force in shaping behavior and other social characteristics. Though social constructionists do have differing opinions on
the influence of society or biology over male/female characteristics, a popular opinion is that though there are some innate biological
differences between men and women, society is overwhelmingly more influential
in the long term.
One
of the ways we can see how society creates differences between men and women is
the way we are socialized at birth. Research has been done that suggests that
although there are small differences between men and women, the way parents interact
with their babies and children can exacerbate those differences (Eliot 2009). It may make sense to say that because there are such common traits associated with men and women that are true for many people, that biology must be the
answer as to why these differences exist. However, correlation does not imply
causation. Just because girls tend to have certain traits and boys tend to have
certain traits does not prove that these differences are based in biology.
It
is also important to note that although some differences have been found
between baby boys and girls, it is hard to understand what these differences
even mean. For example, boys do on average have larger heads than
girls, but it is unclear how or if brain size actually has any real effect on
intelligence and mental ability (Eliot 2009). Some differences that researchers
who also believe in social constructionism have found to be accurate include:
size, Apgar score, and neurological maturity (Eliot 2009).
When
discussing biology versus social constructionist theories on differences
between men and women, it is incredibly important to examine the methodology
used in many of these research studies. For example, one study
produced results that argued that girls are innately more people oriented than
boys. The study had extremely flawed methodology. In order to come their
conclusion, researchers had newborn babies interact with a human face as well
as a colorful mobile toy. The boy babies were recorded as having spent more
time staring at the mobile than the human face, while the girl babies were
recorded as being more receptive to the human face spending more time on the
human than on the mobile (Eliot 2009). The problem with this study is that the analyst interacting with and providing visual stimulation for the babies was not blind to the baby's sex. It is a well known fact that when
people know the sex of a baby, they interact with it very differently. People
are often more animated with girl babies than they are with boy babies.
Therefore, it is not a stretch to suggest that the human who participated in
the study as a visual stimulant may have acted differently based on the sex of
the baby, which could effect the outcomes of the study. If the researcher knew
that the baby they were holding was a girl or a boy, it is likely that they
would act differently and thus the data cannot be conclusive and suggest innate
differences between baby boys and girls. The amount of time the baby boys and
baby girls spent looking at either visual stimulant could very well be shaped
by society due the ways in which people interact differently with babies based
upon their sex. This study shows how important it is to be careful when
attributing biological origin to something that is in fact very much influenced
by society.
When
researchers critically examine commonly held characteristics that are often believed to be
based in biology, often times we can easily see the ways in which
society has a direct influence in these outcomes. One example of this is a
study assessing the ways in which parents perceive their children’s physical
ability differently based on whether or not their child is a boy or a girl.
Researchers asked parents to estimate the level of slope their eleven-month-old
babies could successfully descend. Results did not show any real difference in
the athletic ability of the two sexes; the interesting result was in the ways
in which parents estimated their child’s ability to descend the slope. Mothers
of baby girls under estimated their ability by an average of nine degrees.
Mothers who had baby boys only underestimated their baby’s ability by an
average of one degree (Eliot 2009). Lise Eliot, an author who applies a social
constructionist approach, uses this study as an example of the ways
preconceived notions about varying abilities between the sexes alters the
expectations we have for our children.
This
expectation has real repercussions. If parents believe their daughters to be
less physically capable than their sons are, than they are less likely to
enroll girls in athletic extracurricular activities. This widens the gap
between athletic ability, but it is not based upon a biological athleticism
boys possess. Rather, it reflects the ways in which boys are encouraged to
pursue athletics based off of the commonly held belief that boys are innately
more athletic and enjoy athletics more. Once again, it is easy to see the
numbers of boys involved in sports and argue that boys are innately drawn to athletics
more. When we consider the possibility that society may have some influence
over who pursues athletics, we are able to see the ways in which these
differences are based more in society than pure biology. This does not extend
merely to athletics, but has large implications for how we normalize dangerous
behaviors, like violence or aggression, based on gendered expectations that are wrongly perceived to be
biological.
Even
real and physical differences can be attributed to more social constructionist
theories when we operate outside of the strict framework of absolute biological
determinism. For example, a measurable difference between men and
women is that the ratio of gray to white matter is larger in women than in men
(Spanier and Horowitz 2011). Initially used as evidence of biological sex
differences being absolutely hard wired, researchers have found that
experience and behavior can actually change the structure of the brain. It is
extremely critical that whether we are scientists or readers of science, we are cautious about how we make conclusions and whether or not we are
considering all possible causes before doing so.
Sociobiology as a field has come under a
lot of legitimate scrutiny for its methodology. Many critics of sociobiology
take issue with the fact that sociobiologists draw a lot of their conclusions
from nonhuman animal behavior using human ideas of relationships and apply them
to animal interactions. In the continued quest to find a gene for monogamy, we
can see more examples of flawed science in the search for biological origins of
highly politicized and gendered institutions. For example, in Angela Willey and
Sara Giordano’s piece, “’Why Do Voles Fall in Love?’: Sexual Dimorphism in
Monogamy Research”, the authors utilize a feminist lens to
critique the ways in which sociobiologists make claims about the naturalness of
human behavior via flawed methodology in nonhuman animal studies. In this
particular study, researchers used arbitrary definitions of monogamy (whether
male voles spent more time with a previously bonded female vole or a newly
introduced female vole) to argue that voles are in fact monogamous (Willey and
Giordano 2011). The first obvious critique of this study was the researchers' definition of monogamy. The researchers used nearness of the male vole to the
female vole to define monogamy. They even used language like
“husband” and “wife” to describe the relationships between voles, which is terminology that can really only be attributed to humans, as marriage itself is a social construction.
The researchers that conducted this study
applied their human understanding of monogamy to draw conclusions about animal
relationships. After they (through flawed methodology) concluded that voles do
in fact have a biological imperative for monogamy, the researchers were able to
send a very strong message about difference. Scientists are often given a high
level of legitimacy, and many people are unlikely to question scientific
conclusions. However, these scientists used flawed methodology to make
conclusions about the ways in which animals are determined to act, which in turn
implicates our thoughts about how human behavior is natural and biologically
determined.
When we apply a critical lens to the
conversation about difference, we see that social constructionism,
rather than biological determinism, is a more solid cause for many differences
between men and women than pure biology. It is important that we utilize an
understanding of social constructionism to question scientific conclusions
about difference, though it is just as likely that the conversation is not dichotomous; it is very possible that biology and social constructionism both play a hand in the development of behavior. It is just a matter of how much, and at what period of time.
Written by Marisa B.
Written by Marisa B.
Eliot, Lise. "Under the Pink or Blue
Blankie." In Pink Brain, Blue Brain:
How Small Differences Grow Into Troublesome Gaps -- And What We Can Do About It,
by Lise Eliot, 55-102. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2009.
Spanier, Bonnie. "Looking for
Difference." In
Gender and
the Science of Difference: Cultural Politics of Contemporary Science and
Medicine. Ed. Jessica Horowitz, 43-67. New Brunswick:
Rutgers UP, 2011.
