There's a lot of talk about how many of our personality traits come from genes, and there's a lot of dispute over it, especially when the question comes up of whether, and how strongly, any of these traits are connected to gender or race. Basically, I believe that many of our behaviors are genetic-- but also that many people take the idea of genetic traits too far, and that we have to recognize the dangers that come with this kind of thought.
First of all, I do believe that many of the personality traits we associate with gender are genetic, and that there is a basic tendency for these traits to follow the genders we expect them to follow. After all, practically every animal species that has genders exhibits behavior differences between them-- differences that often resemble the gender differences we see in humans-- and nobody doubts that they are genetic when found in animals. We share over half our genes with most animals; why should we think that we're the only species that doesn't have any inherent instincts (or at least any that tend to follow the gender lines)?
However-- and this is a big "however"-- we must be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking that such genetic traits always, or even almost always, follow the gender lines. They do not. They are tendencies, no more. Within the human species there is enormous variation in what instincts we experience, and also in whether we choose to act on our instincts. For any generalization describing human behavior, there are so many exceptions that the rule is barely any use.
When I was little, I was obsessed with frilly dresses, princesses, ballerinas and jewelry, and my brother was obsessed with cars, tanks, submarines, airplanes and guns. No one knew where this came from. Our parents had made an enormous effort to raise both of us in a gender-neutral environment, encouraging both of us equally to play with traditionally "feminine" toys, traditionally "masculine" toys, and gender-neutral toys. We couldn't have learned traditional gender roles from our parents' example; they were as far from the traditional gender roles as any parents can be. We had barely any friends, and mostly avoided our peers; I doubt we learned anything from them. We were isolated from almost everything outside the family. We didn't even watch TV. And at that age, we saw our mother as the ultimate authority on everything, and she said gender didn't matter, so we wouldn't have listened to anyone who said otherwise.
And yet, somehow, we had developed stereotypical masculine and feminine interests. The only explanation seems to be that it was an inherent instinct.
Yet it's also clear that such inherent instincts do not always appear in the genders they're expected from. At the same time that I was obsessed with princesses and ballerinas, I also played with worms and centipedes in the backyard. At the same time that he was fascinated with war machines, my brother also devotedly loved kittens and puppies.
And of course, time and time again throughout history, a mother has brought her daughter up with nothing but dolls and tea sets to play with, forbidden her to associate with anyone who went against gender expectations, and still found the girl becoming a "tomboy," developing interests in traditionally masculine activities. Such a girl's interests must be genetic-- there's no place else they could come from-- and yet they do not follow our expectations of where such a genetic instinct would appear.
There are similar issues with race. I believe it is quite possible that there are some genetic behavioral tendencies associated with race-- after all, evolution has caused different races to have many different physical characteristics depending on what is useful for survival in the environment where each race originally developed. It's not too much of a stretch beyond that to suppose that we might also have evolved different genetic leanings toward behaviors that were beneficial in our ancestors' original habitats.
However, this idea poses the same dangers as the thought of gender-related genetic tendencies. First, it sometimes leads people to believe that some races are genetically "inferior" to others. Obviously, this is not true. There would never have been any reason for a race to evolve a behavior that was inherently harmful. The only traits that could have been evolved are ones that are helpful in certain environments.
For instance, it's been shown that members of cultures that live in cold climates tend to be more introverted, while members of cultures that live in warm climates tend to be more extroverted. It's quite possible that this is just cultural, but I also wouldn't be surprised if there were some genetic factor. After all, the ability to enjoy being alone is very useful in an environment where snow and cold may often prevent you from going out and spending time with people... while the ability to enjoy other people's company is useful in an environment where warm weather brings everyone outside most of the time.
In contrast, I do not believe that there is anything genetic behind the fact that some races in the United States have higher crime rates than others. There would be no reason to evolve a tendency toward crime. The most likely explanation is that such tendencies come from the economic situations that some races are forced into.
And again, as in the case of gender, it is dangerous to start making assumptions about people based on the idea that there are genetic behavior traits linked to race. It is possible that there are such links, but if so, they are weak links; remember that we haven't even found proof of them yet. And even the most reliable generalizations about human beings have enough exceptions to get you in trouble if you use them as your basis for understanding people.
Using generalizations may increase your chances of guessing correctly about people's personalities, but it's better not to guess at all. There will always be times when your generalizations will cause you to guess wrong and offend someone, and those times will cause a lot more problems than the times when you start out with no assumption at all.
For instance, I would be very upset if everybody looked at me and said, "She's a woman, therefore she probably has a strong maternal instinct-- let's all ask her to baby-sit our kids." They would be wrong. Most women (and most men, for that matter) do have some parental feelings, but I'm different. I panic if I have to look after a child, and I'd be offended if people assumed otherwise just because of my gender. Similarly, I'd be very upset if people looked at me and said, "She's part Norwegian, and Norway is a cold place; therefore she's probably a loner. She'll be happier if we all avoid her and don't talk to her." I am introverted, but that doesn't mean I want everyone to ignore me... and I certainly don't want anyone to make assumptions about me based on my ethnicity.
So, the conclusion I've come to is that each race or gender may carry a somewhat increased likelihood of having certain genetic behavior traits, but even if that's true, it's irrelevant to the question of what's the moral way to treat people. Such traits, if they exist, are not universal or even close to universal within the given gender or race. The best thing we can do for society is to act as if there were no connection between behavior traits and race or gender... and simply avoid making assumptions about people until we get to know them.
No comments:
Post a Comment