DOCSLIB.ORG

Women, Behavior, and Evolution: Understanding the Debate Between Feminist Evolutionists and Evolutionary Psychologists Author(S): Laurette T

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Women, Behavior, and Evolution: Understanding the Debate between Feminist Evolutionists and Evolutionary Psychologists Author(s): Laurette T. Liesen Reviewed work(s): Source: Politics and the Life Sciences, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Mar., 2007), pp. 51-70 Published by: Association for Politics and the Life Sciences Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40072927 . Accessed: 10/03/2013 22:50 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Association for Politics and the Life Sciences is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Politics and the Life Sciences. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:50:53 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Women, behavior, and evolution Understandingthe debate between feminist evolutionistsand evolutionarypsychologists Laurette T. Liesen, Ph.D. Department of Political Science Lewis University One University Parkway Romeoville, IL 60446 USA [email protected] Abstract. Often since the early 1990s, feminist evolutionists have criticized evolutionary psychologists, finding fault in their analyses of human male and female reproductive behavior. Feminist evolutionists have criticized various evolutionary psychologists for perpetuating gender stereotypes, using questionable methodology, and exhibiting a chill toward feminism. Though these criticisms have been raised many times, the conflict itself has not been fully analyzed. Therefore, I reconsider this conflict, both in its origins and its implications. I find that the approaches and perspectives of feminist evolutionists and evolutionary psychologists are distinctly different, leading many of the former to work in behavioral ecology, primatology, and evolutionary biology. Invitingly to feminist evolutionists, these three fields emphasize social behavior and the influences of environmental variables; in contrast, evolutionary psychology has come to rely on assumptions deemphasizing the pliability of psychological mechanisms and the flexibility of human behavior. In behavioral ecology, primatology, and evolutionary biology, feminist evolutionists have found old biases easy to correct and new hypotheses practical to test, offering new insights into male and female behavior, explaining the emergence and persistence of patriarchy, and potentially bringing closer a prime feminist goal, sexual equality. the twentieth century, the feminist broaden evolutionary theory by examining selection movement was one of the major sources of pressures on females as well as males. Partly because of social change, with profound effects on both these feminists' contributions over the last thirty years, academia and society. Despite the many changes for sociobiology moved away from sexist stereotypes and women, tensions between older and more modern adopted a more dynamic, ecological, and historical 2 conceptualizations of females persist. These tensions approach to the study of female and male behavior.1' are particularly evident in the relationship between These contributions also influenced those scholars who evolutionary psychology and its precursor,sociobiology, moved on to human behavioral ecology, evolutionary as well as behavioral ecology, primatology, and evo- biology, and primatology. lutionary biology. Although evolutionary theory had its Nonetheless, though evolutionary psychology from and shares its intellectual roots in the Victorian era and incorporated dogmatic emerged sociobiology foundations with the other it retained sexual ideas about sex differences, a group of women socio- subfields,3 selection as it was used in the biologists, a number of whom were influenced by theory by sociobiologists later 1970s,4 which did not female feminism and feminist critiques of science, helped fully incorporate perspectives. As a result, it still struggles with its con- doi: 10.2990/21_l_51 ceptualization of women and its approach to feminism. Politics and the Life Sciences • 17 September 2007 • vol. 26, no. i 51 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:50:53 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Liesen Not only do some evolutionary psychologists not take Gowaty, Barbara Smuts, and Marlene Zuk - who feminist criticisms seriously, evolutionary psychology's definitely have brought new insights into the study of approach to human behavior in general contributes female behavior and various human social structures. to feminists' skepticism and criticism of evolutionary The term feminist evolutionist is the best description of approaches. Many feminists consider evolutionary the evolutionary biologist, sociobiologist, primatolo- approaches to human behavior to be detrimental to gist, or behavioral ecologist whose work is informed by women and their pursuit of equality. Not only do they female perspectives and/or feminist theory and who consider the literature to be biologically deterministic uses them to formulate testable scientific hypotheses.16 and reductionist, several feminists see it as inherently Feminist evolutionists have pointed out not only the sexist.5'6-7'8 male biases in evolutionary theory but also that Evolutionary psychology sees human behavior as evolutionary approaches to human behavior are not having evolved during the Pleistocene (1.7 million to inherently sexist.17 They have always called for the 10,000 years ago) as natural selection helped form the incorporation of female and feminist perspectives along human mind. According to evolutionary psychologists, with better science. Indeed, Gowaty addresses those the various psychological mechanisms that evolved in who claim that feminist evolutionists allow their our ancestral environments continue to guide our politics to direct their science: 10' n thoughts, emotions, and behavior today.9' By Science is the practice of systematic observation focusing on an ancient environment of evolved adap- and experiment as a means to test predictions from tation, evolutionary psychologists tend to downplay the hypotheses while reducing or eliminating (i.e. control- flexibility of humans to respond to their current envi- ling) the effects of perceived and possible biases on ronments and circumstances. Consequently, evolution- results and conclusions. So, what it means to be self- ary psychology portrays human behavior as extremely consciously political is that one is thereby in a scientif- slow to change. This premise that human behavior is ically better position relative to those who are unaware rooted in the (a that we do not know) past past really of the and social forces and not be has left political potentially affecting may changeable today evolutionary their science. In the best one can do is to to continued criticisms of deter- my opinion psychologists open institute controls one's biases . and from against perceived minism, reductionism, storytelling, especially Buttressed with better controls feminists.12' 13 For feminists outside the evolu- controls, against poten- many tial biases we are able to makes our con- this leaves little of perceive, tionary sciences, approach hope clusions more reliable.18 women's liberation and equality because evolutionary psychologists maintain that patterns of inequality and While maintaining a fruitful dialogue with other some biased behavior are rooted in human psycholog- feminists, feminist evolutionists have brought new ical mechanisms that will persist despite feminist insights into female and male behavior, have provided 15 attempts to change behavior and society.14' explanations as to why patriarchy emerged and persists, On the other hand, behavioral ecologists, primatol- and have contributed to the feminist goal of greater ogists, and evolutionary biologists see behavior as equality of the sexes. evolving. These scholars see females and males as active In contrast to more recent scholarship arguing that and strategic agents in pursuit of their own reproductive feminism and evolutionary psychology are potential success, using a variety of reproductive strategies in allies,19 the actual professional behavior of feminist response to contemporary environmental pressures and evolutionists themselves compellingly suggests that constraints. In terms of female behavior in particular, feminist insights and female perspectives are more behavioral ecology, primatology, and evolutionary readily incorporated into behavioral ecology, primatol- biology tend to better integrate feminist and female ogy, and evolutionary biology, presumably owing to perspectives into their analyses and models, correcting a shared understanding of and approach to social past and even current biases and creating new and behavior and environmental influence. Whereas evolu- testable hypotheses. These developments can be tionary psychology assumes that humans' psychological credited to a group of feminist evolutionists - such mechanisms are currently unchangeable, feminist evo- as Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, Jane Lancaster, Patricia Adair lutionists see human behavior as responsive to its current 52 Politics and the Life Sciences • 17 September 2007 • vol. 26, no. i This content downloaded
Recommended publications
  • A Few Good Men: Evolutionary Psychology and Female Adolescent Aggression Anne Campbell Durham University, England

    A Few Good Men: Evolutionary Psychology and Female Adolescent Aggression Anne Campbell Durham University, England

    ELSEVIER A Few Good Men: Evolutionary Psychology and Female Adolescent Aggression Anne Campbell Durham University, England Criminologists have drawn attention to the fact that crime peaks in the teens and early 20s and that this pattern shows invariance over culture, history, offense, and sex. Wilson and Duly (1985) have proposed that among young, disadvantaged mules, the age-crime curve reflects risky tactics aimed at averting "reproductive death." Though young women's rate of involvement in violent crime is much lower than men's, they also show a similar age-violence curve for assault. This paper proposes that this may be the result of aggressive mate selection among young women and that, under certain specified dgcumstances, women may engage in low-key intrasexual strategies in addition to epigamic strategies. This pa- per reviews material on sex differences in violent crime and in mate selection strategies, and offers predictions about the likely circumstances under which females will use intrasexual strategies. The scant available data on female adolescent fighting suggest that female-female assaults are more common than official statistical estimates and that they are frequently triggered by three key issues related to reproductive fitness: management of sexual reputation, competition over access to resource-rich young men, and protecting heterosexual relationships from takeover by rival women. KEY WORDS: Aggression; Female; Mate selection. H irschi and Gottfredson (1983) make a compelling argument for the invariance of the age-crime curve. The association between youth and heightened crime rate, they argue, holds constant regardless of histor- ical period, country, race, type of crime, and (most relevant for the present discussion) sex.
  • THE DESCENT of MADNESS: Evolutionary Origins of Psychosis

    THE DESCENT of MADNESS: Evolutionary Origins of Psychosis

    THE DESCENT OF MADNESS Drawing on evidence from across the behavioural and natural sciences, this book advances a radical new hypothesis: that madness exists as a costly consequence of the evolution of a sophisticated social brain in Homo sapiens. Having explained the rationale for an evolutionary approach to psych- osis, the author makes a case for psychotic illness in our living ape relatives, as well as in human ancestors. He then reviews existing evolutionary theor- ies of psychosis, before introducing his own thesis: that the same genes causing madness are responsible for the evolution of our highly social brain. Jonathan Burns’ novel Darwinian analysis of the importance of psychosis for human survival provides some meaning for this form of suffering. It also spurs us on to a renewed commitment to changing our societies in a way that allows the mentally ill the opportunity of living. The Descent of Madness will be of interest to those in the fields of psychiatry, psychology, sociology and anthropology, and is also accessible to the general reader. Jonathan Burns is chief specialist psychiatrist at the Nelson Mandela School of Medicine. His main areas of research include psychotic illnesses, human brain evolution and evolutionary origins of psychosis. THE DESCENT OF MADNESS Evolutionary Origins of Psychosis and the Social Brain Jonathan Burns First published 2007 by Routledge 27 Church Road, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2FA Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2007 Jonathan Burns This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2007.
  • Raising-Darwins-Consciousness.Pdf

    Raising-Darwins-Consciousness.Pdf

    RAISING DARWIN'S CONSCIOUSNESS Female Sexuality and the Prehominid Origins of Patriarchy Sarah Blaffer Hrdy University of California, Davis Sociobiologists and feminists agree that men in patriarchal social systems seek to control females, but sociobiologists go further, using Darwin's theory of sexual selection and Trivers's ideas on parental investment to explain why males should attempt to control female sexuality. From this perspective, the stage for the development under some conditions of patriarchal social systems was set over the course of primate evolution. Sexual selection encompasses both competition between males and female choice. But in applying this theory to our "lower origins" (pre- hominid ancestors), Darwin assumed that choices were made by essen- tially "coy" females. I argue here that female solicitation of multiple males (either simultaneously or sequentially, depending on the breeding system) characterized prehominid females; this prehominid legacy of cy- clical sexual assertiveness, itself possibly a female counter-strategy to male efforts to control the timing of female reproduction, generated fur- ther male counter-strategies. This dialectic had important implications for emerging hominid mating systems, human evolution, and the devel- opment of patriarchal arrangements in some human societies. For homi- nid males who will invest in offspring, there would be powerful selection for emotions, behaviors, and customs that ensure them certainty of pater- nity. The sexual modesty that so struck Darwin can be explained as a recent evolved or learned (perhaps both) adaptation in women to avoid penalties imposed by patrilines on daughters and mates who failed to conform to the patriline's prevailing norms for their sex.
  • Cinderella Effect Facts

    Cinderella Effect Facts

    The “Cinderella effect”: Elevated mistreatment of stepchildren in comparison to those living with genetic parents. Martin Daly & Margo Wilson Department of Psychology, Neuroscience & Behaviour McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4K1 <[email protected]> <[email protected]> Theory Parents commit a huge amount of time, attention and material resources to the care of their children, as well as incurring life-threatening risks to defend them and bodily depletion to nourish them. Why are parents motivated to invest so heavily in their children? From an evolutionary perspective, the answer is surely that natural selection has favoured intensive parental care in our lineage. Those ancestral genotypes and phenotypes that best succeeded in raising children to become reproducing adults were the ones that persisted and proliferated. If the psychological underpinnings of parental care have indeed evolved by natural selection, we may furthermore anticipate that parental feeling and action will not typically be elicited by just any random conspecific juvenile. Instead, care-providing animals may be expected to direct their care selectively towards young who are (a) their own genetic offspring rather than those of their reproductive rivals, and (b) able to convert parental investment into increased prospects for survival and reproduction. This is the kernel of the theory of discriminative parental solicitude, which (notwithstanding some interesting twists and caveats) has been abundantly verified in a broad range of care-giving species
  • Evolution, Child Abuse and the Constitution Christopher Malrborough

    Evolution, Child Abuse and the Constitution Christopher Malrborough

    Journal of Law and Policy Volume 11 | Issue 2 Article 6 2003 Evolution, Child Abuse and the Constitution Christopher Malrborough Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/jlp Recommended Citation Christopher Malrborough, Evolution, Child Abuse and the Constitution, 11 J. L. & Pol'y (2003). Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/jlp/vol11/iss2/6 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Law and Policy by an authorized editor of BrooklynWorks. MARLBOROUGHMACROX.DOC 6/25/03 5:10 PM EVOLUTION, CHILD ABUSE AND THE CONSTITUTION Christopher Marlborough* INTRODUCTION The presence of a non-genetic parent in a child’s home is the largest single risk factor for severe child maltreatment yet discovered.1 Professor Owen Jones has used the example of stepparent infanticide to explain how evolutionary analysis in law can serve society’s goals when prevailing theories have failed.2 * Brooklyn Law School Class of 2003; B.A., State University of New York at Purchase, 1991. I would like to thank Professors Jennifer Rosato and Bailey Kuklin for their input and guidance in writing this note and my lovely wife Jennifer for her infinite patience. 1 MARTIN DALY & MARGO WILSON, THE TRUTH ABOUT CINDERELLA: A DARWINIAN VIEW OF PARENTAL LOVE 7 (1998) [hereinafter DALY & WILSON, CINDERELLA]. 2 Owen Jones, Evolutionary Analysis in Law: An Introduction and Application to Child Abuse, 75 N.C. L. REV. 1117 (1997) [hereinafter Jones, Child Abuse]. Professor Jones suggests a four-stage process to determine when evolutionary principles can be helpful to inform legal policy.
  • Can the Social Scientists Be Saved? Should They?

    Can the Social Scientists Be Saved? Should They?

    Evolutionary Psychology human-nature.com/ep – 2006. 4: 102-106 ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ Book Review Can the social scientists be saved? Should they? A review of Missing the Revolution: Darwinism for Social Scientists by Jerome H. Barkow (Ed.). 2006. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 302 + vii. $49.95 (hardcover). Satoshi Kanazawa, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, United Kingdom. Email: [email protected]. I began my graduate career in the Department of Sociology at the University of Washington, where the great sociobiologist Pierre van den Berghe taught all his career. I was a stupid SSSM (“Standard Social Science Model”) sociology graduate student then, and I joined the chorus of the confederacy of dunces to ridicule Pierre’s sociobiological work. More than a decade later, I discovered evolutionary psychology on my own by reading Wright's The Moral Animal, and converted to it overnight. When I began working in EP, I apologized to Pierre for having been too dense to see the light a decade earlier, and told him my grand plan to introduce EP into sociology and revolutionize social sciences. Pierre was encouraging but cautious. He told me that he had tried to do that himself a quarter of a century earlier but to no avail. Sociologists were just too stupid to understand the importance of biology in human behavior, a view that he has expressed in print (van den Berghe, 1990), and he eventually left the field in disgust. Blinded by youthful optimism and ambition, I did not heed Pierre’s cautionary words and tried very hard to introduce EP into sociology.
  • Biology and Criminology

    Biology and Criminology

    Biology and Criminology Routledge Advances in Criminology 1. Family Life and Youth Offending Home Is Where the Hurt Is Raymond Arthur 2. China’s Death Penalty History, Law, and Contemporary Practices Hong Lu and Terance D. Miethe 3. The Politics of Antisocial Behaviour Amoral Panics Stuart Waiton 4. Hooked Drug War Films in Britain, Canada, and the United States Susan C. Boyd 5. The Violence of Incarceration Edited by Phil Scraton and Jude McCulloch 6. Violence, Prejudice and Sexuality Stephen Tomsen 7. Biology and Criminology The Biosocial Synthesis Anthony Walsh Biology and Criminology The Biosocial Synthesis Anthony Walsh New York London First published 2009 by Routledge 270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016 Simultaneously published in the UK by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2009. To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk. © 2009 Taylor & Francis All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereaf- ter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trade- marks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Walsh, Anthony, 1941- Biology and criminology : the biosocial synthesis / by Anthony Walsh.—1st ed.
  • The Natures of Universal Moralities, 75 Brook

    The Natures of Universal Moralities, 75 Brook

    Brooklyn Law Review Volume 75 Issue 2 SYMPOSIUM: Article 4 Is Morality Universal, and Should the Law Care? 2009 The aN tures of Universal Moralities Bailey Kuklin Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr Recommended Citation Bailey Kuklin, The Natures of Universal Moralities, 75 Brook. L. Rev. (2009). Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol75/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brooklyn Law Review by an authorized editor of BrooklynWorks. The Natures of Universal Moralities Bailey Kuklin† One of the abiding lessons from postmodernism is that reason does not go all the way down.1 In the context of this symposium, one cannot deductively derive a universal morality from incontestible moral primitives,2 or practical reason alone.3 Instead, even reasoned moral systems must ultimately be grounded on intuition,4 a sense of justice. The question then † Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School. I wish to thank the presenters and participants of the Brooklyn Law School Symposium entitled “Is Morality Universal, and Should the Law Care?” and those at the Tenth SEAL Scholarship Conference. Further thanks go to Brooklyn Law School for supporting this project with a summer research stipend. 1 “Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives.” JEAN-FRANCOIS LYOTARD, THE POSTMODERN CONDITION: A REPORT ON KNOWLEDGE xxiv (Geoff Bennington & Brian Massumi trans., 1984). “If modernity is viewed with Weberian optimism as the project of rationalisation of the life-world, an era of material progress, social emancipation and scientific innovation, the postmodern is derided as chaotic, catastrophic, nihilistic, the end of good order.” COSTAS DOUZINAS ET AL., POSTMODERN JURISPRUDENCE 16 (1991).
  • My Background, Research Interests, and Future Plans by Geoffrey Miller

    My Background, Research Interests, and Future Plans by Geoffrey Miller

    My background, research interests, and future plans By Geoffrey Miller Miller, G. F. (2011). My background, research interests, and future plans. In X.T. Wang & Su, Y.-J. (Ed.), Thus spake evolutionary psychologists (进化心理学家如是说), pp. 320-328. Beijing: Peking University Press. After I got a B.A. in psychology and biology from Columbia University, I went to graduate school in psychology at Stanford in 1987. I intended to study cognitive psychology, but found it too boring and abstract. Fortunately, two founders of evolutionary psychology – Leda Cosmides and John Tooby – were working as post-docs with my advisor Roger Shepard. Along with David Buss, Martin Daly, Margo Wilson, and Gerd Gigerenzer – who were visiting Stanford in 1989- 1990 – they introduced me to the possibility of applying evolutionary theory to study human nature. After that, my Stanford friend Peter Todd and I knew that we wanted to join this new field of evolutionary psychology, but we weren’t quite sure what research to do. We had learned about genetic algorithms – ways of simulating evolution by natural selection in computers – and we applied them to designing neural networks for learning some simple tasks. We hoped to illustrate how evolution and learning could interact to produce adaptive behavior. Our research led to my post-doc at University of Sussex in England in the early 1990s, working on artificial life and evolutionary robotics. That was fun, but I realized that I was more interested in human psychology than in cognitive engineering. At Stanford, I also grew interested in sexual selection through mate choice. It seemed like a very powerful but neglected process, not only for explaining sex differences in bodies and brains, but also for explaining the fast evolution of any extravagant mental abilities, whether bird song or human language.
  • The Cinderella Effect: Parental Discrimination Against Stepchildren the Cinderella Effect: Parental Discrimination Against Stepchildren

    The Cinderella Effect: Parental Discrimination Against Stepchildren the Cinderella Effect: Parental Discrimination Against Stepchildren

    The Cinderella Effect: Parental Discrimination against Stepchildren The Cinderella Effect: Parental Discrimination against Stepchildren Cinderella stories about abused stepchildren are cross-culturally universal. Are they founded in reality? Because Darwinian selection shapes social motives and behavi- our to be effectively nepotistic, an obvious hypothesis is that stepparents will be over- represented among those who mistreat children. This possibility was long neglected, but stepparenthood has turned out to be the most powerful epidemiological risk fact- or for child abuse and child homicide yet known. Moreover, non-violent discriminati- on against stepchildren is substantial and ubiquitous. Martin Daly, Professor, Margo Wilson, Professor, Department of Psychology, Department of Psychology, McMaster University McMaster University Parents are Discriminative Nepotists selectively toward close relatives of the caretaker. A cornerstone of evolutionary psychology is the Usually, this means the caretaker’s own offspring. proposition that Darwinian selection shapes social Imagine a population of animals in which there are motives and behaviour to be effectively »nepotis- two alternative, heritable types of parental psyche. tic«, that is, to contribute selectively to the well-be- Type A invests its time and energy selectively in the ing and eventual reproduction of the actors’ genetic care of its own young, who are better than average relatives. In any species, the genes and traits that bets to be carriers of the same heritable tendencies. persist and proliferate over generations are those Type B nurtures any youngster in need, regardless whose direct and indirect effects cause them to of which type of behaviour it will display when it replicate at higher rates than alternative genes and later becomes a parent itself.
  • Marxist, Conflict, and Feminist 95

    Marxist, Conflict, and Feminist 95

    CHAPTER 6 CriticalCritical Theories:Theories: Marxist,Marxist, Conflict,Conflict, andand FeministFeminist At the heart of the theories in this chapter is social stratification by class and power, and they are the most “politicized” of all criminological theories. Sanyika Shakur, aka Kody Scott, came to embrace this critical and politicized view of society as he grew older and converted to Afrocentric Islam. Shakur was very much a member of the class Karl Marx called the “lumpenproletariat” (a German word meaning “rag proletariat”), which is the very bottom of the class hierarchy. Many critical theorists would view Shakur’s criminality as justifiable rebellion against class and racial exploitation. Shakur wanted all the material rewards of American capitalism, but he perceived that the only way he could get them was through crime. He was a total egoist, but many Marxists would excuse this as a trait that is nourished by capitalism, the “root cause” of crime. From his earliest days, he was on the fringes of a society he clearly disdained. He frequently referred to whites as “Americans” to emphasize his distance from them, and he referred to black cops as “Negroes” to distinguish them from the “New African Man.” He called himself a “student of revolutionary science” and “rebellion,” and advocated a separate black nation in America. Conflict concepts dominated Shakur’s life as he battled the Bloods as well as other Crips “subsets” whose interests were at odds with his set. It is easy to imagine his violent acts as the outlets of a desperate man struggling against feelings of class and race inferiority.
  • Evolution and the Prevention of Violent Crime

    Evolution and the Prevention of Violent Crime

    Psychology 2011. Vol.2, No.4, 393-404 Copyright © 2011 SciRes. DOI:10.4236/psych.2011.24062 Evolution and the Prevention of Violent Crime Jason Roach1, Ken Pease2 1Huddersfield University, Huddersfield, UK; 2Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK. Email: [email protected] Received April 28th, 2011; revised June 2nd, 2011; accepted July 3rd, 2011. This paper suggests how violence prevention can be better informed by embracing an evolutionary approach to understanding and preventing violent crime. Here, ethical crime control through an evolutionary lens is consid- ered and speculation is offered as to what an evolution-evidenced crime reduction programme might look like. The paper begins with an outline of the current landscape of crime prevention scholarship within criminology and presents some possible points of contact with actual or possible violence reduction practice, including child homicide and violence against women. The paper concludes with suggestions for an ethical research agenda for reducing violence, whereby it is hoped that an audience of open-minded criminologists and diverse students of evolution may lend a hand in increasing the sophistication of the criminological study of violence prevention. Keywords: Violence, Evolution, Child Homicide, Prevention Introduction the human mind, which has been inherited, and represents the product of evolutionary processes (i.e. natural and sexual selec- Criminology generally is justly criticized for its theoretic in- tion). Put more simply, what we can do today is a direct result sularity, and in particular its general hostility towards or neglect of what was needed to be done in order to increase our ances- of approaches other than that of sociological determinism tors’ survival and reproductive chances in the past.