2.1. Intelligence

One of the most contentious claims in the dispute over biological explanations has been the affirmation that intelligence is inheritable and to a high degree immutable. These claims are normally associated with evidence that allegedly shows that whites are more intelligent than African Americans (see Jensen Reference Jensen1998; Herrnstein and Murray Reference Herrnstein and Murray1994). Presumably the differences in intelligence explain the differences in the social ladder: those who are more intelligent tend to be more successful. The high rates of poverty that afflict our western societies are determined more by intelligence than they are by socio-economic background. Thus, the argument often goes, using social resources to enrich the education of those at the low end of the cognitive distribution is an inefficient way to distribute our money. It does not matter how many resources we provide for these children, their cognitive abilities and their chances of succeeding in our world, are not going to improve significantly.

Society is then doubly exculpated. First, we do not need to feel responsible for those individuals who do not “make it.” After all, no matter how much we did for them, it would not improve their chances. And second, we do not need to be critical of social practices and institutions that appear to increase the chances that some people are not going to be able to “make it.” After all, if you are smart enough you will, sooner or later, overcome those problems.

But do these consequences about abdicating social responsibility follow from the claim that intelligence is genetically determined? I will argue here that they do not. Let's forget, for the sake of the argument, some of the serious problems that have been pointed out about the concept of intelligence (Devlin, et al. Reference Devlin, Fienberg, Resnick and Roeder1997; Fraser and Fraser Reference Fraser1995; Jacoby and Glauberman Reference Jacoby and Glauberman1995; Rose, et al. Reference Rose, Lewontin and Kamin1984; Gould Reference Gould1981). Let's forget that the concept of heritability is a local concept and heritabilities cannot be compared between different populations. Let us assume that the notion of human intelligence is uniform, that intelligence can be described by a single number, that it is capable of ranking people in some linear order, that it is clearly measured by IQ tests, that it is genetically based, that it is immutable, and that there is a black-white differential in IQ. Let us also assume that those who do well on IQ tests tend to occupy high positions in academia, in the business world, and in politics. And, that those who do poorly on IQ tests tend to occupy lower positions on the social ladder. This means that there will be a correlation between IQ and wealth and social status: the higher your IQ, the better the chances you have to became wealthy and respected; the lower the IQ, the higher the chances you will be poor. Now, we have presupposed that IQ is immutable, and therefore special education programs to try to increase people's intelligence levels will not do the job. At this point, it seems that all is lost for those concerned with social equality.

Nevertheless, this is the case only if we believe that not only intelligence but also our social context, value system, and political institutions are immutable. But such a presupposition is quite questionable. If such social factors are changeable, then there could be a few things that a society committed to social justice could do. For example, we could decide to pay better those who now occupy low-wage jobs (presumably because they are not smart enough to do any better); this might go a long way toward improving the lives of people who are less smart. Or, we could change the kinds of things we value most. Instead of valuing wealth, we could begin to value things such as the ability to care for others, to keep promises, to enjoy other people's company, to be concerned with our environment, or to be able to grow a garden. Presumably these traits would be distributed more or less equally across populations, and we could certainly do things to improve them. Or, we could also begin to realize that academics, CEOs, and scientists, did not get to where they are just by themselves, and just because they happen to be intelligent people. They would not be able to do much without the help of the people who pick up their garbage, clean their houses, or who harvest the vegetables and fruits they eat. Changing our value system and social institutions could certainly go a long way toward improving the lives of those who happen to be less intelligent. Those changes could go as far as to wrest importance from the fact that some people might be more intelligent than others. For example, imagine that tomorrow a new scientific study shows conclusively that the strength required to be able to become a first-rate wrestler is hereditary. No matter how much one trains, no matter how many social programs we implement to help people to become better wrestlers, the result would be the same: those who have the necessary genetic material will succeed, those who do not should give up.Footnote ² Now, it is unlikely that in our present social context this would cause too much of a stir. Why? Well, because in our value system wrestling does not rank too high: if you can and want to do it, fine; if you don't, there are plenty of good things, maybe even better things, that humans can do with their lives. Thus, in a social context in which intelligence is not seen as a necessary condition to have a meaningful life, those who happen to be less intelligent will still have chances. There might be many other traits they do have that might be valued by our society. If my argument is correct, genetic determinists' claims about intelligence make critical evaluation of our social institutions and values even more important and necessary.

2.2. Sex Differences

Biological explanations have also been prominent, and highly controversial, in matters of sex differences (see Fausto-Sterling Reference Fausto-Sterling2000; Tuana Reference Tuana1993). Although trying to explain the differences between women and men in biological terms is far from a new scientific approach, of late sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists occupy a top position in the field (see Badcock Reference Badcock2000, 149–187; Cartwright Reference Cartwright2000, 92–156, 212–260; Mealey Reference Mealey2000; Thornhill and Palmer Reference Thornhill and Palmer2000, 31–52; Buss Reference Buss1999, 97–185; Wright Reference Wright1994, 33–151; Daly and Wilson Reference Daly and Wilson1983; Wilson Reference Wilson1978, 121–148). According to these disciplines, the different physical constitutions of the sexes would provide different strategies for maximizing their fitness through the reproduction of the largest possible number of offspring. The psychological characteristics that make males effective reproducers are likely to be different from, and to some extent in conflict with, those that make females effective. If this is so, then genes that are successful in transmitting copies of themselves into future generations are likely to be ones that have different physiological and psychological effects in the male and female bodies that they help to construct. One would expect then for males and females to have different natures, behaviors, and social roles.

Differences in reproductive strategies between men and women are related to differences in parental investment. Men produce millions of sperm a day and, without much investment, can theoretically father offspring with different women daily. Women, however, have a much greater investment in each offspring because their eggs are much larger than the sperm; they normally produce only one egg per month and about 400 in their lifetimes, and they usually produce no more than one offspring a year. Furthermore, women are the ones who gestate the fetus in their bodies, and the ones who will nurse and most likely will take care of the baby for years. Thus, women contribute a larger proportion of their reproductive potential and a larger investment in time and energy than men. As a result of these differences in investment, women and men have developed different reproductive strategies: women are selective and choosy and it is in their best interests to hold back until they can identify males with the best genes. It pays men, on the other hand, to be aggressive, hasty, promiscuous, and undiscriminating.

Sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists maintain that modern women have developed, from their successful ancestors, wisdom and prudence about the men with which they consent to mate. Because women seek resources in a partner, and because resources might not be directly discerned, women have developed traits that allow them to identify qualities in men that signal likely possessions or future acquisitions of resources, such as intelligence, ambition, and older age. But having resources is not enough. Women need to make sure that the mate they choose would be willing to invest those resources on them and their offspring. Thus, women seek traits that indicate this willingness to invest, such as dependability and stability, love cues, and positive interactions with children. But of course, characteristics such as good health, size, strength, bravery, or athletic ability are also important to modern women because tall, strong, athletic men offered ancestral women protection and we are descendants of women who chose this way.

Men, on the other hand, supposedly have greater desire for short-term mating than do women. The reproductive advantages to ancestral men as a consequence of short-term mating would have been an increase in the number of offspring produced. Modern men thus, express greater desire for a variety of sex partners, are more undiscriminating, have more sexual fantasies, and have a larger number of extramarital affairs. However, because many ancestral women required reliable signs of male commitment before consenting to sex, men who failed to commit would have failed to attract many women. Thus, it was beneficial for ancestral men to seek long-term partnerships. Also, this would have increased certainty in paternity, as well as the survival and reproductive success of his children. But to be reproductively successful, ancestral men had to marry women who could bear children. Because women's reproductive capacities cannot be observed directly, men have evolved standards of attractiveness that represent clues to women's ability to reproduce such as youth and health as indicated by clear skin, full lips, symmetrical features, absence of sores and lesions, white teeth, and a small ratio of waist to hips. Also, because of the problem of paternity uncertainty, men have evolved preferences for fidelity in women. Thus, modern men want physically attractive, young, sexually loyal wives who will remain faithful through their lives.

Of course, most sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists are careful to point out that the fact that sexual differences are biological does not mean that they are unchangeable (see Thornhill and Palmer Reference Thornhill and Palmer2000; Buss Reference Buss, Buss and Malamuth1996, 306; Wright Reference Wright1994; Wilson Reference Wilson1978). They might mention though that to try to create gender equality will only come at serious costs (Wilson Reference Wilson1978, 132–134). Human beings' behaviors might be malleable, but not that much. Critics of these kinds of biological explanations worry that the alleged natural coyness of women, and the intense male competition and aggression it presumably produces, serve to justify the prominence of men in positions of power, social structures that encourage and allow for unequal opportunity and access to resources for women, as well as male violence against women, rape, or adultery. Thus, they worry that if sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists are correct about the genetic origin of sex differences, then no amount of political initiative, social spending, or political disruption will change the essentially unequal relationships between men and women. If sexual differences are genetically determined then the fight for sexual equality seems misguided. And, again, a critical evaluation of our social structures appears to be little more that futile.

As in the cases of intelligence it seems far from clear that an abdication of our critical and transforming abilities follows from the fact that sexual differences might be genetically determined and unchangeable. Again, as before, it seems that such abdication might follow only if we presuppose that our current social context is immutable. But as I said earlier, such an assumption is quite questionable. Let us then presuppose, for the sake of the argument, that sexual and gender differences can be explained mainly in biological or genetic terms. Let us then accept that women will always tend to prefer high-status, older men, who would provide for their offspring. And, that men will tend to prefer younger, beautiful women who will be faithful wives and nurturing mothers. Do these purportedly biologically determined desires doom women to a life of subordination and men to a life of domination? I think not. Let us begin with, for example, women's alleged nurturing desires and tendencies. And, let us also presuppose that we believe that encouraging women's caring abilities is good for women in particular and society in general. This would be so because women would do what they desire to do, and our youngsters will be nurtured and cared for. We can conclude, and many have done so, that if these nurturing tendencies cannot be changed, then it is better for women to remain at home taking care of their children. But, of course, there are other options. For example, we can propose that all working facilities have appropriate daycare services. Thus mothers will be able to work outside of the house at the same time that they have a chance to satisfy their alleged biological desires. We can also encourage social changes directed to offer women part-time jobs that allow these women, without overworking them, to advance in their careers and take care of their families. Or, we can promote systems of tenure and promotion that do not penalize women for doing what is presumably in their nature to do, to have children and care for them. Furthermore, although it might be the case that women are biologically equipped to take care of their offspring, this should not be an impediment to promote social changes that would encourage men to be more nurturing. As we can see, critical evaluation of our societal structures seems far from unnecessary even when we presuppose that women are naturally inclined to nurture and care for their babies and that they are the ones better equipped to do so.

The same can be said about the different mating strategies employed by men and women. That men desire young, beautiful wives that will be faithful and caring, and that women desire older men with resources, is a problem in societies where these kinds of alleged biologically evolved traits systematically disadvantage women and favor men. In a society where men tend to have the resources and women tend to be dependent on men for their own support and that of their children these desires appear highly problematic. An evolutionary desire for younger women is a problem in a society where older women lack communal and personal resources and are continuously disregarded and devalued. Women's alleged desire for older, richer men is a serious problem in a society where that might be the only way for many to acquire status and opportunities. The same can be said about men's desire for beautiful women. The problem is not that they want beauty but that the lack of opportunities faced by women might compel the female population to see beauty as the only way to have access to social and individual resources.

Alas, these desires do not demand that we abdicate critical evaluation and reform of our social institutions. Thus, even if these mating strategies have been naturally selected, and therefore are not easy to overcome, still there is much we can do in the direction of gender equality. For example, we could promote laws, regulations, or social institutions that give women equality of opportunity in the access to high-paid, high-status jobs. We can also promote changes directed to alter our societal view of women as fundamentally wives and mothers. If women had the economic resources and the social assistance necessary to support themselves and their children, it would seem irrelevant for the social status of women that they still might desire older, richer men, even if as a matter of fact they do so because of their biology. Moreover, if women have financial resources and communal support for themselves and their children, the fact that men have a tendency to be unfaithful would be less problematic for women's equality. Unfaithfulness in a partner certainly could be a problem for a particular woman, but not different from having friends who are dishonest, or siblings who might deceive her. Also, if women are not economically dependent on men, and if they have social support, it might discourage some men from completely giving up on controlling their purported natural desires for extramarital affairs.