purely about the theory?social Darwinism, behavioral ecology, whatever...
I haven?t read Wrangham?s book so I can?t comment on that specifically, but I do think that the behavioral ecology theory is an interesting one that holds some merit (as well as many limitations). From my knowledge (which is admittedly limited in this area), the core concept of the theory is that all of our behavior logically stems from our instinctive desire to pass our genes on to the next generation (and to actually have these genes ? aka children ?
survive). So, even just from a purely intellectual (or pseudo-intellectual if you so choose
) point of view (not a moral one), I don?t see how seriously hurting or killing the mother of one?s children would
help insure the survival of one?s genes (children).
From what I understand, the theory states that while both male and female behavior is centered around delivering one?s own genes into the next generation, males and females
tend to have different
default strategies when it comes to actually doing this (especially in lactating mammals) ? while the parent with the larger gamete (egg=female) tends to focus her energy on her offspring?s day to day care and survival, the parent with the smaller gamete (sperm=male) tends to focus on acquiring resources to help ensure the survival of his children and to attract future mates as well as on diversifying the genes of his offspring by breeding as frequently and with as many different partners as possible given that he also wants his children to actually
survive ? he doesn?t want to have more than the particular number of children his resources can provide for.
So, assuming for a moment that this theory is 100% true, then a father seriously hurting or killing his children?s primary caretaker (theoretically their mother) would presumably lessen the children?s likelihood of survival, right? So it would go
against the theory?s core concept. The argument could probably be made, though, that using force to ensure a mate?s monogamy (that the energy a male spends on providing for children is really being spent on
his genes, not some other guy's) would be inline with the behavioral ecology theory. But theories are just theories, and although they can sometimes help us understand large, abstract patterns, we are creatures with emotions, sometimes
morals, and hopefully enough compassion and personal accountability to not condone one?s own or other?s violent behavior by excusing it as part of his (or her) ?nature.? I believe we?re very much capable of intelligent decision-making, foresight, and self-control.
Also according to the behavioral ecology theory (and my understanding of it), males tend to attract women (who, importantly, are the ones responsible for mate selection) by flaunting resources/power/traits that demonstrate the male?s ability to help ensure the survival of her and her future children. Depending on the particular society (the threats to and needs of mother & children) these resources/power/traits could translate into either physical strength (when there are physical dangers present), financial power, social status/clout, etc. So in this sense, a physically strong (aka violent?) man
could be seen as a preferable mate to a physically weak man, but this would only hold true in societies where men may have to physically protect their wives (
not beat/kill their
wives, mind you) and children from physical dangers. We could definitely play with trying this part of the theory (about men trying to attract women through flaunting traits/resources) onto Dominican culture and most other cultures, including my own. Why do some men choose to ?wear? their wealth? Maybe this is a piece of the answer. But probably just a piece.
Golo, have you actually read Wrangham?s book? I don?t mean that as a jab, I?m just wondering if you could explain how he managed to connect wife beating/killing to this theory.
So, I think that wife beating/killing in the Dominican Republic and elsewhere is certainly about something
very different from gene survival and so doesn?t logically fit into the behavioral ecology theory. But, of course, I could be wrong ? any thoughts?
~Leja (I?m back again and sadly just as verbose) :speechles