0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Feminist paradigms, February 28, 2010
This review is from: Primate Paradigms: Sex Roles and Social Bonds (Paperback)
"Primate Paradigms" was first published in 1982. A new edition was printed in 1992.
Although the author never explicitly calls herself a feminist, the book does give a feminist perspective on the science of primatology. Primates in general, and baboons and chimpanzees in particular, have often been used as models for human evolution. These models have been blatantly androcentric and patriarchal. Male dominance, aggression and promiscuity have been seen as "natural" and "adaptive", and derived from our primate ancestors. The political agenda is obvious: since patriarchy is a biological fact, the women's liberation movement is utopian, destructive or worse. Hence, it must be stopped. Sociobiology has been the main seedbed of this kind of male chauvinism, dressed up as "a new scientific synthesis".
Unfortunately for the male chauvinists, anthropology has disproved the notion that all human societies are patriarchal, hierarchic or aggressive. Even more damning, scientific studies of apes, monkeys and prosimians don't offer much comfort either. This is what makes "Primate paradigms" such an interesting read.
Linda Marie Fedigan begins by pointing out that concepts such as aggression, dominance or sexual dimorphism are complex, and not always easy to define. The interaction between nature and nurture is also very complicated. In a section on anthropomorphisms, Fedigan points out that expressions such as "selfish", "competitive", "rape" or "harem" (often used by sociobiologists when describing animal behaviour) are just as anthropomorphic as expressions such as "sweet" or "jealous", which everybody roundly condemns and criticizes. Frans de Waal makes a similar observation in one of his books, sarcastically pointing out that animals seem to have many "enemies" but no "friends" - the latter expression is condemned as anthropomorphic, but not the former! Other methodological mistakes includes using metaphors as if they were statement of fact, using animals in captivity to generalize about their behaviour in the wild, or projecting human behaviour onto animals of one's choice, and then using the projection as proof that humans are indeed naturally aggressive, etc.
Fedigan is particularly critical of the "baboonization model" of human evolution (now quietly forgotten). Baboons were ostensibly selected as models for human evolution because they were social creatures living on the African savannah, and hence might have resembled our hominid ancestors. Fedigan believes otherwise. At the time, baboons were seen as patriarchal, aggressive hunters. Also, their sexual dimorphism is obvious. These were the real reason why they were choosen as models. The baboons seemed to confirm the theory of "Man the Hunter". Another savannah-living monkey, the vervet, has less dimorphism, is less aggressive and the females usually don't defer to the males, yet there has never been a "vervetization model" of human evolution. (It should be noted that neither baboons nor vervets are particularly closely related to humans.)
The most interesting part of "Primate paradigms" describes the behavioural patterns of different species of primates. It turns out that primates are very variable. Different species may have vastly different social organizations, and there might also bee variation within the species. This makes it risky to choose one particular species or population as a "model" for human evolution. In fact, primates are even more variable than indicated by the author. The book was published at a time when studies of the bonobo were still relatively unknown outside a small circle of specialists. Today, we know that bonobos, also known as pygmy chimpanzees, behave in ways diametrically opposed to the chimp stereotype. It turns out that bonobos are matriarchal, peaceful and bisexual vegans! This obviously calls into question the "chimpanzee model" of human evolution, a model based on the common chimpanzee rather than the bonobo. Naturally, this model emphasizes the aggressive behaviour and co-operative hunting of common chimpanzee males.
One fascinating fact mentioned by the author is that most species with "harems" actually have strong bonds between the females, with the male being somewhat aloof. Rather than the male "owning" the females, it seems that a single male has attached himself to a clan of bonded females. Who is owning who? The only primate with a real harem seems to be the bizarre Hamadryas baboon, something of a celebrity in sociobiological circles. The author also points out that the only nonhuman primate species where something akin to rape exists is the orangutan, and that such rapes virtually never lead to conception. (Perhaps this is why sociobiologists prefer to explain rape among humans using insect models, specifically the scorpio fly?)
Perhaps I must also point out that this book is written in a scholarly and somewhat detached language, quite unlike my militant feminist speeches here on Amazon!
Ironically, I actually read this book for a somewhat "anti-feminist" reason. Another customer reviewer, who is more feminist than Andrea Dworkin, suggested that human fathers lack parental instincts, while such instincts do exist among human mothers. He also believed this to be true of mammal in general. Apparently, this hypothesis doesn't work either. There are primate species where the fathers are uninterested in their offspring, and probably don't even know which infants are theirs. However, there are also primate species where both sexes take care of the infants. Most of these are monogamous, but at least one is a "promiscuous" species, the Barbary macaque. In captivity, male rhesus monkeys have also been seen to take care of infants if the mother is removed.
But this was a side point. The main thrust of "Primate paradigms" is directed at androcentrism. Once again, androcentric sociobiology has been disproved by solid science.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
