Saw a post at Feminist Philosophers mentioning Dan Savage, and in the comments section, mentioning Sex at Dawn
Dan Savage had given an interview to Sunday’s New York Times magazine in which he blamed the decline of marriage on feminists who dislike consensual adultery and apparently much of his belief is based on info in the book Sex at Dawn -- the idea that early humans were not monogamous .....
“The mistake that straight people made,” Savage told me, “was imposing the monogamous expectation on men. Men were never expected to be monogamous. Men had concubines, mistresses and access to prostitutes, until everybody decided marriage had to be egalitarian and fairsey.” In the feminist revolution, rather than extending to women “the same latitude and license and pressure-release valve that men had always enjoyed,” we extended to men the confines women had always endured. “And it’s been a disaster for marriage.” -- Married, With Infidelities
It's kind of strange ... in a way, I suppose evolutionary psychology can be seen as an enemy of feminism (for instance, the idea that it's natural to rape, and what's natural cannot really be said to be wrong), but I'm not sure that's true. I'm not going to contest the idea that early human were not monogamous (see this at the blog of Darcia Narvaez - What you think about evolution and human nature may be wrong).
But I will contest Savage's idea that there's more divorce now, that the institution of marriage is failing, because feminists have demanded monogamy from men who are unable to be monogamous. Aas Martha Nussbaum noted in a talk on same-sex marriage given at Cornell (see my post), the reason why there have been more divorces is not about the degeneration of the institution of marriage, but about women now having more options, about women being more able to leave bad marriages without being financially or physically ruined. And as Nussbaum mentions, this is saying something good about marriage in the now, not something bad --- marriage can now be more honest.
I also disagree with Savage's idea that men can't be monogamous now (and shouldn't be expected to be) because early humans weren't monogamous. There seem to be two assumptions made: that the way things were in the hunter-gatherer past is (1) the way they *should* be now, and (2) the way they *must* be now.
Does the fact that early humans weren't monogamous mean that's the way it should now and ever be, does "natural" = good or right? I don't think so, and I find it weirdly confusing that liberal Dan Savage seems to be using a sort of argument from nature (evolutionary ethics) to back up his beliefs ... that's the kind of argument also used by religious conservatives to back up thei beliefs (Christian natural law). But as Hume so famously opined, no ought-judgment may be correctly inferred from a set of premises expressed only in terms of ‘is' -- most evolutionary psychologists would say, I think, that evolution cannot tell us anything about what "ought" to be in a moral sense, only about what worked (sometimes) to promote survival of the species.
Are we the behavioral slaves of genetic determinism? I don't think so. As psychologist David J. Ley writes in Biology is NOT destiny .....
I've been concerned of late, when several people have written me, or approached me in my practice, feeling that biological processes have already determined the fate of their relationships. My concern peaks when these folks tell me that my writing has increased their worry.
Much of my writing addresses the underlying biological processes that run in the background of things like infidelity, mate selection, and sexual relationships. I like to explain these things, with the goal of normalizing them for people. I have seen people in so much pain, over feelings like jealousy, over the decline of their sexual relationship, etc., that I believe it helps, takes the pressure off so to speak, for them to understand that some of this is just biology, working the way it does.
But, apparently these arguments are perhaps too successful, because people approach me now, concerned that these biological indicators are actually the death knell for their relationships. One man wrote me, saying that his wife showed all the signs I wrote about, and that it must be inevitable that she would be unfaithful. After all, who can stop biology? ......
Biology may subtly influence your choices, particularly if you go through life on automatic pilot. But, if you are aware, and conscious, making thoughtful, considered decisions, it is you in charge of your life. Not your cells, genes or gonads. Biological influences on our behavior dispose us towards certain decisions or behavior, in the short-term. The blessing of being human though, is that we can make long-term decisions, and override those biological compulsions. Yes, biology and our gonads may drive us to mate with this person, now, instead of our husband or wife later. But, the ability to make long-term decisions, and to consider the lifelong impact of these different options, allows us to make decisions based upon will, ethics, love, compassion and respect. These are things not covered in biology. At least, not yet. Hopefully not ever. They reside in the existential ability we have, to make our own decisions. To decide our own fate. At least, we have this ability, when we decide to exercise it ......
