2005 Haldane Award Winner: Brian Fritz for “Genes, Memes, and Gender”

Genes, Memes, and Gender: Transhumanist Anthropology and Cultural Evolution

by Brian L. Fritz

ABSTRACT

Over the past few decades the study of gender in human culture has become a requisite topic within the field of anthropology.  Gender is of fundamental importance to understanding cultural and biological evolution in humans.  However, theoretical perspectives within anthropology, and the social sciences in general, have diverged from the physical sciences in regard to the importance of culture verses genetics in human evolution.  New anthropological theories of cultural and biological co-evolution provide some promise of bridging this divide.  Recognition of the dual inheritance of culture and genetics is essential to understanding gender.  Our understanding of the evolution of gender and gender identities may provide the best analogue for exploring the cultural implications of possible human biological divergence within a Transhumanist future.

When Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution, he noted striking differences in some animal species between males and females that appeared to run counter to the basic precepts of natural selection.  Males in some species have evolved weapons.  The male bighorn sheep uses his horns to fight off potential rivals during mating.  In other species, males have evolved elaborate body parts that are displayed as ornaments.  The peacock’s long and brightly colored tail appears to attract picky females who choose the best mate.  A cumbersome and brightly colored tail is contradictory in terms of natural selection in that it potentially attracts predators as well as mates.  Darwin concluded that these unlikely traits could not evolve through natural selection alone.  There must be a process of evolution that operates on the biological differences between the sexes (Zuk 2005:8; Darwin 1859:95-96).  The academic battle of the sexes begins with Darwin;

Inasmuch as peculiarities often appear under domestication in one sex and become hereditarily attached to that sex, so no doubt it will be under nature.  Thus it is rendered possible for the two sexes to be modified through natural selection in relation to different habits of life, as is sometimes the case; or for one sex to be modified in relation to the other sex, as commonly occurs. This leads me to say a few words on what I have called Sexual Selection” (Darwin 1859:95).

Darwin (1859:95) defines sexual selection as a struggle between individuals within the process of selecting a suitable mate for reproduction.  Individuals of each sex try to advance their reproductive success by choosing mates that exhibit favorable traits toward those ends, or by exhibiting competitive traits that win access to more mating partners.  Reproductive success or failure associated with these traits creates selective pressures that drive the evolution of biological and behavioral differences between the sexes, and to some extent the evolution of the species as a whole.  Thus, sexual selection and natural selection are deeply inter-nested evolutionary processes.

The brilliance of Darwin’s theory of evolution has been clouded by academic disagreement over the importance of sexual selection in biological evolution.  Some of the difficulty lies in the way Darwin framed and supported his argument.  He cast sexual selection within broad universals of male-female behavior that, some argue, better represent Victorian era cultural biases of male-female relations than the realities of our extremely diverse biosphere (Roughgarden 2004:3; Zuk 2005:8).  Universals imply innate predispositions toward behavior.  To Darwin’s credit, he left the door open to culture by insisting that mind and body both play a role in adaptation.  Many biologists consider this to be Darwin’s greatest error (Richerson and Boyd 2005:16)

Theories of sexual selection ultimately extend to questions of human behavior.  Culture provides yet another level of complexity within the already complex inter-nested relationship between natural selection and sexual selection.  This leads to the long standing debate concerning nature and nurture.  Do human gender roles emerge from some level of genetic hard wiring, or do gender roles emerge from the social relationships shaped by culture?  In the past, researchers from the biological sciences favored genetics, while social scientists favored culture (Richerson and Boyd 2005:4; Zuk 2002).  This divide may be shrinking as new theories of gender, and human behavior in general, are trending toward a view that cultural evolution and biological evolution are interdependent systems of inheritance which together define our species.

One of the most recent and harshest critics of sexual selection has been from the population biologist Joan Roughgarden.  In her book Evolution’s Rainbows, Roughgarden (2004) explores her personal interest in concepts of gender.  Sex and gender are not the same thing.  Due to the great diversity among living species, biological sex cannot easily be determined by body form or mating behavior.  The only universal that can be used to define sex is the differential size of the reproductive cells called gamates.  The sex that contributes small gamates (sperm) for reproduction is defined as male.  Large gamates (eggs) designate the female sex (Roughgarden 2004:23; Dawkins 1989:141; Shennen 2002:180).  Gender is not as simple.  Roughgarden (2004:27) defines gender as “the appearance, behavior, and life history of a sexed body.” Inclusion of “behavior” and “life history” within definitions of gender implies a strong influence of culture in gender identity. 

Roughgarden then proceeds with her attack on Darwin’s sexual selection by providing numerous examples of species who’s mating habits do not conform to the gendered stereotypes often presented by Darwinian theorists.  The standard model of the male wielding ornaments or weapons to impress upon the coy female is exemplified in the male peacock’s colorful display of cumbersome tail feathers and the male bighorn sheep’s battle ready horns.  Using the mating habits of a few select fish and bird species as examples, Roughgarden rejects the universal notion of direct male competitiveness in sexual selection.  She argues that females do not choose their mates based on displays of superior genes, but rather on the female’s perception that the male will deliver on his “promise of parental care” (Roughgarden 2004:125).  Thus, parental care is more important to the success of offspring than are good genes.  Her examples tend to interject a sense of cultural inheritance into behavior which might be a little overindulgent because it assigns human characteristics to animals. 

Zoologist Richard Dawkins ( 2004:273) is not ready to discard sexual selection, but he does not consider sexual selection perfect or universal.  “Sexual selection produces quirky, whimsical evolution that runs away in apparently arbitrary directions, feeding on itself to produce wild flights of evolutionary fancy” (Dawkins 2004:263).  He seems to suggest that the arbitrariness of sexual selection may be the necessary mechanism needed for species to evolve down their own unique path.  Sexual selection leading into a runaway feedback loop of female choice and male adaptation may drive both females and males lockstep towards the evolution of useful things like bipedalism and large brains.  From this view, a larger brain is the human version of the peacock’s tale.  However, Dawkins is troubled by the fact that the human brain does not exhibit strong sexual dimorphism.  He explores several promising solutions espoused by other researchers, including the possibility that sexual selection operates bidirectionally between male and female.  In the end, Dawkins (2004:273) remains unsatisfied on this aspect of human evolution, but encourages a continued discussion on the idea of sexual selection. 

If sexual selection is the mechanism needed to explain the vast diversity of unlikely behavior found in nature, then how does sexual selection account for same-sex sexuality?  A pure Darwinian view holds that the purpose for mating is for reproduction.  Sexual selection only chooses adaptations that are more successful in reproduction.  From this perspective, same-sex sexuality is maladaptive.  Selection is against any genetic propensity toward homosexual behavior due to the failure or reduction in passing on those genetic tendencies (Roughgarden 2004:127; Zuk 2002:179).

Roughgarden (2004:127) believes that sexuality plays an important role in managing social relationships as well as facilitating reproduction.  Therefore, same-sex sexuality has adaptive importance even if it does not directly support reproduction.  Roughgarden (2002:148-150) re-enforces her argument by describing homosexual and transexual behavior in several animal species.  Bonobos are the favored example because they appear to use non-monogamous sex for social reasons as well as for reproduction.  Participating in sexual activities reenforces the social group.  In regard to social bonding, same-sex encounters seem to be as important as between-sex mating.  Roughgarden (2004:150) concludes that social sexual behavior is an adaptive advantage and what she calls a social-inclusionary trait.  Participating in the social behaviors of the group enhances individual survival which in turn provides selective pressure in favor of hereditary traits that promote social behavior.  Roughgarden (2004:175) calls this process “social selection.” In terms of biological evolution, social selection regards the social group as a fundamental unit of selection from which evolution operates.

Group selection is adamantly rejected by Dawkins (1989:8).  It seems plausible to think that reproduction is designed to perpetuate the species as a whole, or even a bounded social group.  In order for natural selection to favor a group, members of that group must adopt altruistic behaviors that advance the survival of the group over the survival of the individual.  According to Dawkins, this is not an evolutionary stable arrangement.  Individuals who possess biological propensity toward cheating the system would be more successful at propagating their genes.  In time cheaters would outnumber altruists and the system would collapse.  Biological evolution is a selfish endeavor.  Dawkins (1989:8) takes individual selection a step further in proposing the idea that selective competition is played out at the level of the gene, or better known as the “selfish gene.”

All this about animal behavior, selection strategies, and selfish genes may be interesting, but in the end how does is relate to the huge diversity in human behavior?  Dawkins (1989:164) asked this very question of human mating behaviors and concluded that “what this astonishing variety suggests is that man’s way of life is largely determined by culture rather than by genes.” As any good neo-Darwinist would do, Dawkins attempted to cast culture within an evolutionary framework that is analogous to biological systems.  He proposed the “meme” as a unit of cultural transmission.  A meme is any symbol or idea that can replicate and spread using humans as their host (Dawkins 1989:192-194).  The idea of the meme as a replicator and mechanism for cultural transmission has since met some notable challenges, but as a general term, meme can be used to symbolize cultural inheritance within an evolutionary framework (Shennan 2002:46-48).

When culture is viewed as a hereditary system separate from genetic inheritance, a crucial understanding of the relationship between these two systems becomes apparent, culture guides biological evolution as much as biological evolution guides culture.  Within the definition of human the two are inseparable.  Ironically, anthropologist Clifford Geertz may have preceded the biologists in recognition of this important relationship (Knauft 1987:95).  Geertz (1966) concluded that the sequential view that humans first physically evolved to their modern state and then acquired culture should be discarded.  He saw the evolution of culture playing a critical role in the biological evolution of man. 

Dawkins (2004:271-272) sees the meme as potential operator in the process of sexual selection.  The basic principle of the meme as a unit of cultural transmission has spurred a whole new field of research called memetics.  One of the fundamental tenants of memetics is that cultural information is an important modifier of the biological world (Gabora 1997:1.2).  Roughgarden’s (2004:235) perspective of the human brain as a social-inclusionary trait stems from the idea that social complexity selects for a complex brain, in a “runaway evolution of brain size and complexity.” That natural selection can occur through genes (nature) and memes (nurture), functioning as separate but interdependent hereditary systems, provides new theoretical possibilities for exploring human evolution (Shennan 2002:35; Knauft 1987:95-96; Richerson and Boyd (2005:235)

Dual Inheritance theory forwards a Darwinian perspective of evolutionary change.  Shennan (2002:35) identifies two new ways evolution can take place;

 

1. Natural selection on people’s survival and reproductive success can occur through selection on their cultural traditions.

2. Processes of cultural selection can also operate. . . not as a result of natural selection affecting people’s survival and reproductive success but as a result of conscious and unconscious decision-making based on a variety of criteria.

Dual Inheritance theory holds that language, art, and diagnostic artifacts can be empirically studied in regard to the transmission and dissemination of ideas.  The spread and evolution of cultural forms can be compared and contrasted to the genetic spread or decline of populations (Knauft 1987:96).  Mechanisms of cultural transmission operate differently from mechanisms of biological transmission.  Cultural inheritance and biological inheritance are both evolutionary systems but they do not obey the same rules (Shennan 2002:64).  Biological evolution may very well be selected at the level of the selfish gene, but cultural evolution appears to select at the group level.  This potential mixing of multiple levels of selection certainly complicates matters.  By collecting empirical data from both inheritance systems, patterns of similarity and difference in propagation can be explored (Knauft 1987:96).  Mid-level theories organized within these principles can advance the study of gender from both an anthropological and archaeological perspective.

Shennan (2002) dedicates an entire chapter of his book Genes, Memes, and Human History to the topic of male-female relations.  Using numerous ethnographic accounts, he compares and contrasts correlations between resources, competition, coercion, and choice in regard to male and female investment in offspring.  Shennan (2002:196) concludes that there is enough empirical evidence to summarize five “. . . predictable constellations of relations between males and females. . . [that] arise out of their independent reproductive interests and responses. . . [and] they are not genetically hard-wired.”

 

1. Inter-female competition will be particularly strong in conditions of high wealth differentials, both with and without monogamy.

2. Form and strength of inter-female competition will vary depending on the likelihood and need of male parental investment.

3. Inter-male competition will tend to be more muted in stratified than unstratified societies, because by and large males from different strata do not compete with one another.

4. The correlation between wealth and reproductive success is stronger for males than females, as is the correlation between parent and child reproductive success.

5. Female sexuality will be more strongly controlled in situations of high male investment. (Shennan 2002:196)

Shennan does not regard his constellations as universals but rather as predictable tendencies.  However, they fail to take into account the full realm of social complexity found within male-female relations.  For example who is doing the selecting?  As Zuk (2002:11) points out, until recently most marriages were arranged by the perspective families for political reasons.  Families are benefactors of fortuitous marriages that better their access to status or survival enhancing resources, especially when bride wealth and dowries are at stake.  Potential brides and grooms may hold some veto power, but the will of parental control can be a powerful cooperative incentive.  Shennan does not address group selection on the family or kinship level, but instead focuses on larger groups.  This is unfortunate since selection based on cooperation among kin may be the strongest argument for group selection (Richardson and Boyd 2005:197). 

Shennan’s shear reductionism in regard to male-female relations might not be a failure to recognize the complexities and diversity of human behavior.  Instead it may be an intentional strategy directed toward a specific methodology utilized by dual inheritance theory.  Richerson and Boyd (2005:97) outline their basic steps for Darwinian analysis:

• draw up a model of the life history of individuals;
• fit an individual-level model of the cultural (and genetic, if relevant) transmission processes to the life history;
• decide which cultural (and genetic) variants to consider;
• fit an individual-level model of the ecological effects to the life history and the variants;
• scale up by embedding the individual-level processes in a population; and
• extend over time by iterating the one-generation model generation after generation.

Mathematical models based on these principles are used to process large data sets generated from empirical investigations.  This method demands that complexity and diversity be simplified to basic parts.  However, Richerson and Boyd (2005:98) stress that “the ‘reductionism’ of evolutionary science is purely tactical. . . Simple, deliberately unrealistic models and highly controlled experiments have great heuristic value, because they capture manageable bits of realism.”

Nearly all anthropological work has been rooted in the past or present.  Darwinian anthropology strives to understand how the past state of human has evolved to the present state of man.  Other paradigms are strictly concerned with describing and understanding human behavior as it exists today.  Few anthropologists dare to look toward the future, maybe for good reasons.  Bad memories of social Darwinism still linger with potent effect, and rightly so.  However, in the increasing state of rapid change that faces today’s societies, it may be unwise for anthropology to not look toward the future and ask “what if” questions.  Our survival may depend on some anthropological insight.

Roughgarden’s case for recognition of alternative genders and the importance of diversity has stout political underpinnings both for our present times and for our future.  I strongly agree on the need to understand and treat fairly people of all genders and personal identities.  However, her warning that future technological advancement is a threat to human diversity seems unfounded.  History has shown that technological advancement has generally increased the individual’s power of choice in cultural expression.  In technologically advanced societies today, the average individual holds power of choice that in many ways exceeds that of royalty only a few centuries past.  I ask, in how many traditional cultures does an individual have the opportunity to alter or change their gender identity both on the social and biological level? 

Gender is an extremely important topic of discussion in our present times because it is the issue of personhood that is closest to our definitions of humanity.  What does it mean to be human?  Geertz (1966:417), Dawkins (2004:5), and most scholars of evolution have come to the realization that Homo sapiens is an unfinished animal.  Evolution does not stop with us as the ultimate goal.  Even more, almost forty years ago, Geertz (1966:420) had the remarkable insight that Man is a cultural artifact!  Our biological identity is in part the result of our cultural inventiveness.  Until now, cultural has only been able to deflect trajectories of human evolution by shaping the environment in which adaptation occurs.  With the coming age of genetic engineering culture will have the power to direct human evolution. 

Humanity is on the eve of a technological revolution that has no historical precedence, except possibly the emergence of life itself.  Life, like culture, is a self emerging, self organizing natural phenomena.  With the likely development and convergence of genetic and molecular scale technologies, humanity, as we define it today, may at some point in the future cease to exist.  Culture has the potential power to subsume our biological identity.  In philosophical circles this transformation of humanity is called Transhumanism (World Transhumanist Association 2002). 

Transhumanists predict and promote a future in which individuals can choose to extend their physical and mental capacities beyond the naturally evolved limits of the human condition.  They argue that genetic and molecular technologies needed to escape the bounds of nature are at most only a few decades away from reality.  Predicting the future is a precarious endeavor.  However, if some version of this Transhuman future were to become reality, our concepts of personhood and identity, and even humanity itself, will be challenged.  Today’s cultural markers of identity such as cosmetic alteration, body building, and applied adornment may become genetically enhanced biological markers of identity.  The potential for biological divergence will only be limited by the diversity of human creativity and the power of individual choice.  The closest present day analogy to these potentially divergent human identities are the culturally and biologically linked identities of gender.  Transhumanist ideas may appear to be science fiction, but the fundamental technological premises advocated by Transhumanism are now being seriously considered by researchers in nearly every field of science. 

Darwin gave us the ideas of natural selection and sexual selection.  Geertz and others realized the subtle power of cultural selection.  We may soon have the personal choice to implement individually directed selection.  Should a Transhuman future emerge, Transhumanist anthropology will need to cope with new levels of complexity and diversity represented by transhuman bio-culture.  Gender studies may provide the best starting point for exploring these challenging new realms of identity, diversity, and choice.  As human nature becomes increasingly acculturated, anthropology must devise new methods to study and understand the separate but linked trajectories of cultural evolution and biological evolution.  Dual inheritance theory may provide one possible tool.  The challenge for anthropology in the coming decades is to not only understand how we evolve, but to keep pace as we evolve. 

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Dr. John Ernissee for his reading suggestions and his time given in discussing the intricacies of biological evolution, and Dr. Susan Prezzano and Amanda Valko for their critical review of this paper.

Works Cited

Darwin, Charles

1859 The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. New York: New American Library, 1958.

Dawkins, Richard

2004 The Ancestor’s Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution. Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Co.

1989 The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

Geertz, Clifford

1966 The Impact of the Concept of Culture on the Concept of Man. Reprinted in, Investigating Culture. Pp. 411-422. By Carol Delaney, 2004, Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

Gabora, Liane

1997 The Origin and Evolution of Culture and Creativity. Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission 1(1):29-57. Electronic document, http://jom_emit.cfpm.org/1997/vol1/gabora_l.html, accessed March 20, 2005.

Knauft, Bruce M.

1987 Divergence Between Cultural Success and Reproductive Fitness in Preindustrial Cities. Current Anthropology 2(1):94-114.

Richerson, Peter J., and Robert Boyd

2005 Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. Chicago and London: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Roughgarden, Joan

2004 Evolution’s Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press.

Shennan, Stephen

2002 Genes, Memes and Human History: Darwinian Archaeology and Cultural Evolution. New York: Thames and Hudson.

World Transhumanist Association

2002 The Transhumanist Declaration.  Electronic document, http://transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/declaration/, accessed April 5, 2005.

Zuk, Marlene

2005 Animal Models of Gender. In Gender in Cross-Cultural Perspective. 4^th ed. p. 1-16 Ed. Caroline B. Brettell and Carolyn F. Sargent Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

2002 Sexual Selections: What We Can and Can’t Learn about Sex from Animals. e-Book ed. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: Univ. of California Press.

Link