Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T11:17:10.685Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is Sociobiology Amendable? Feminist and Darwinian women biologists confront the paradigm of sexual selection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Thierry Hoquet
Thierry Hoquet*
Affiliation:
Université Paris-Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Is it possible to be a socio-biologist and a feminist? Socio-biology has been accused of being a macho ideological arsenal, which seems to exclude in advance any possibility of amending it. However that was the project of several female researchers (in particular S. B. Hrdy and P. A. Gowaty), who suggested adopting the science's theoretical framework in order to change it from within. This has been expressed in a change of focus: an appeal to take account of female strategies and their evolution as well as the “sex war” at work in process of reproduction. This opening out of socio-biology's theoretical framework has not been undertaken in the name of the privilege of a “female perspective” but it has without a doubt been nourished by the researchers’ marginal position in their discipline as well as their political involvement. “Male” contributions, such as W. G. Eberhard's work on the “female's cryptic choice”, are also part of this movement though they do not claim allegiance to it. Similarly, a critical study has been carried out on the vocabulary of socio-biology: not in order to exercise a “politically correct” ideological tyranny but to improve the efficiency of the conceptual tools introduced by the science. Today some feminists think feminism should incorporate socio-biology's results but resistance still remains strong. Though many feminists think feminism has more to bring to biology than the reverse, many biologists consider that feminism is just an ideology that should remain apart from scientific work.

Type
Articles
Information
Diogenes , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , February 2010 , pp. 113 - 126
Copyright
Copyright © ICPHS 2010

References

Ah-King, M. (2007) “Sexual Selection Revisited: Towards a Gender Neutral Theory and Practice,” Eur. J. of Women’s Studies, 14(4): 341–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagemihl, B. (1999) Biological Exuberance. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar
Bateman, A.J. (1948) “Intrasexual selection in Drosophila,” Heredity, 2: 349–368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biology and Gender Study Group (1988) “The Importance of Feminist Critique for Contemporary Cell Biology,” Hypatia, 3(1): 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birkhead, T. (2000) Promiscuity. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Birkhead, T. and Cunningham, E. (1997) “Female Roles in Perspective,” TREE, 12(9): 337–338.Google Scholar
Blackwell, A. (1875) The Sexes Throughout Nature. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.Google Scholar
Bleier, R. (1984) Science and Gender. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Bleier, R. (ed.) (1986) Feminist Approaches to Science. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Cézilly, F. (2006) Le Paradoxe de l’hippocampe. Paris: Buchet-Chastel.Google Scholar
Clutton-Brock, T. (2007) “Sexual Selection in Males and Females,” Science, 318: 1882–1885.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Danchin, É., Giraldeau, L.-A. and Cézilly, F. (2005) Écologie comportementale. Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1871) The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: J. Murray.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1976) The Selfish Gene. New York: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
Eberhard, W.G. (1990) “Inadvertent Machismo?" TREE, 5(8): 263.Google ScholarPubMed
Eberhard, W.G. (1996) Female Control. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estep, D.Q. and Bruce, K.E.M. (1981) “The Concept of Rape in Non-Humans: A Critique,” Animal Behaviour, 29(4): 1272–1273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fee, E. (1981) “Is Feminism a Threat to Scientific Objectivity?” Int. J. of Women’s Studies, 4(4): 378–392.Google ScholarPubMed
Geddes, P. and Thomson, J.A. (1889) The Evolution of Sex. London: Walter Scott.Google Scholar
Gould, S.J. and Lewontin, R. (1979) “The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Program,” Proc. Royal Society London, Series B, 205: 581–598.Google Scholar
Gowaty, P.A. (1982) “Sexual Terms in Sociobiology: Emotionally Evocative and, Paradoxically, Jargon,” Animal Behaviour, 30: 630–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gowaty, P.A. (1992) “Evolutionary Biology and Feminism,” Human Nature, 3(3): 217–249.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gowaty, P. A. (ed.) (1997) Feminism and Evolutionary Biology. New York: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gowaty, P.A. and Hubbell, S.P. (2005) “Chance, Time Allocation, and the Evolution of Adaptively Flexible Sex Role Behavior,” Integr. Comp. Biol., 45: 931–944.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamilton, W.D. (1964) “The Genetical Evolution of Social Behaviour,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7: 1–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haraway, D. (1989) Primate Visions. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harding, S. (1991) Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Ithaca: Cornell UP.Google Scholar
Hrdy, S.B. (1977) The Langurs of Abu. Cambridge: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
Hrdy, S.B. (1981) The Woman That Never Evolved. Cambridge: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
Hubbard, R. (1983) “Have Only Men Evolved?” in Harding, S. and Hintikka, M. B. (eds) Discovering Reality, pp. 45–69. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Jablonka, E. and Lamb, M.J. (2005) Evolution in Four Dimensions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keller, E.F. (1985) Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven/London: Yale UP.Google Scholar
Lawton, M.F., Garstka, W.R. and Hanks, J.C. (1997) “The Mask of Theory and the Face of Nature,” in Gowaty (1997), pp. 63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, E. (2005) The Case of the Female Orgasm. Cambridge: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
Longino, H.E. (1990) Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. (1997) “Commentary,” in Gowaty (1997): 522–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, C. (1980) The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific Revolution. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Milam, E. (2010) Looking for a Few Good Males: Female Choice in Evolutionary Biology. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, G.A. (1970) “Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects,” Biological Reviews, 45: 525–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richmond, M.L. (2007) “Opportunities for Women in Early Genetics,” Nature Reviews. Genetics, 8: 897- 902.Google Scholar
Rodman, P.S. (1990) “Flawed Vision: Deconstruction of Primatology and Primatologists,” Current Anthropology, 31: 484–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossiter, M.W. (1982) Women Scientists in America: Struggles and Strategies to 1940. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roughgarden, J. (2004) Evolution’s Rainbow. Berkeley: UC Press.Google Scholar
Roughgarden, J. et al. (2006) “Reproductive Social Behavior: Cooperative Games to Replace Sexual Selection,” Science, 311: 965–969.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruse, M. (1981) Is Science Sexist? Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sahlins, M. (1976) The Use and Abuse of Biology. An Anthropological Critique of Sociobiology. Ann Arbor: U. of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapin, S. (1989) “The Invisible Technician”, Am. Scientist, 77: 554–563.Google Scholar
Snyder, B.F. and Gowaty, P.A. (2007) “A Reappraisal of Bateman’s Classic Study of Intrasexual Selection,” Evolution, 61: 2457–2468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stuart, R.J. (1983) “A Note on Terminology in Animal Behavior,” Animal Behavior, 31: 1259–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thierry, B. (1997) “Adaptation and Self-Organization in Primate Societies,” Diogenes, 180(45/4): 39–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thierry, B. (2007) “Behaviorology Divided: Shall We Continue?" Behaviour, 144: 861–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thierry, B. (2008) “Primate Socioecology. The Lost Dream of Ecological Determinism,” Evolutionary Anthropology, 17: 93–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Touraille, P. (2008) Hommes grands, femmes petites: une évolution coûteuse. Paris: Maison des sciences de l’homme.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trivers, R.L. (1972) “Parental investment and sexual selection,” in Campbell, B. (ed.) Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871-1971, pp. 136–179. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Trivers, R.L. (1994) “Deriving Females and Feminism,” BioScience, 44(4): 210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandermassen, G. (2004) “Sexual Selection: A Tale of Male Bias and Feminist Denial,” European J. of Women’s Studies, 11(1): 9–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandermassen, G. (2005) Who’s Afraid of Charles Darwin? Lanham, MD: Rownan and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Waage, J.K. and Gowaty, P.A. (1997) “Myths of Genetic Determinism,” in Gowaty (1997), pp. 585–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, G.C. (1966) Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP.Google Scholar
Wilson, E.O. (1975) Sociobiology, the new synthesis. Cambridge: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
Zuk, M. (1993) “Feminism and the Study of Animal Behavior,” BioScience, 43(11): 774–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuk, M. (2002) Sexual Selections. Berkeley: U. of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar