Generally the class is bothersome because our instructor presents material in such way that we breeze through cultures, in time and space, by blips of facts. Fun facts sprinkled around that we write down in our notes and then repeat faithfully back for scantron tests every few weeks.
(Besides the limited engagement this produces with the material) I think what to critique here is the whole frame-work of gen-ed classes. Made to be thrown away, like single-use ziplock bags and tampons. If taught this way, with this attitude in mind, they are a waste of everyones time. Introductary overveiws. Its more beneficial to get down into the nitty gritty of the topic instead of superficially skowering the surface of topics. In this troposphere of education, partial information is equivalent and as lethal as mis-information. But thats a side note.
In particular I am bothered becuase of today. Today's lecture subject is human marriage and kinship. With a special emphasis on human sexuality. What confuses me was that it seemed our professor pointed to biology to reason out all sorts of things at every turn.
One particular incidence: Human females are different than other primates becuase they have concealed ovulation. AKA their sex organs dont get red and swollen and pharemones dont ooze in the air around them when they are ovulating. Prof says this allows females to be continually receptive to males' sexual advances, and keeps males on thier toes because they don't know when they are going to get some (in so many words). Consequently, this set-up promotes bonding between the sexes.
I am deeply unsatisfied with this explanation.
And can't I be?
This isnt a law of science. Its one theory. And I think there are better ones out there. Or waiting to be thought upon.
If I read my text book correctly, humans' largest tool to succeed from generation to generation is culture. Being part of, and communicating with, the group is more essential to surviving rather than making physical adaptations. Otherwise, wouldn't humans in colder climates grow more body hair to keep warm? Instead they make coats and distribute them to other humans. We stay warmer faster with out taking centuries to develop. In this way, humans who are quick to problem solve and communicate are selected by evolution to succeed.
As I type this, I am remembering that there are some exceptions to this in regards to skin pigmentation. But still, when is it biology? When is it culture? Is always a bit of both?
But, besides that, why do we neccessarily need biology to explain this aspect of human sexuality stated above? Females have "concealed" ovulation, true. But human females also have the capacity to communicate, to say hey "I'm on my period" or "Hey I've been counting my cycles and its ovulating time." Wouldnt this feature of culture trump this strange biological explanation?
In fact, within this same lecture he had us copy down the phrase
cultural success=reproductive success
And what I said above seems to agree with this.
So why this stuff about biology when its not the biology that matters but how we innovate around it?
Lastly, I do not appreciate this interpretation of male dominance over females in the animal world. Our professor described the large genitals of a chimpanzee are useful for taking a female chimp by suprise and getting the deed done quickly. These interpretations are not fully objective. I would like to read what zoologist and philosopher Donna Harraway thinks about all of this. I am ordering my Primate Visions book off of Amazon today. According to wickipedia,
"In her book, Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern Science, Haraway explicates the metaphors and narratives that direct the science of primatology. She demonstrates that there is a tendency to masculinize the stories about "reproductive competition and sex between aggressive males and receptive females [that] facilitate some and preclude other types of conclusions" (Carubia, 4). She contends that female primatologists focus on different observations that require more communication and basic survival activities, offering very different perspectives of the origins of nature and culture than the currently accepted ones."
Ultimately, I think it is a damage rendered to a receptive classroom when a professor runs through facts without taking time to ruminate over contradictions that may arise.
No comments:
Post a Comment