Culture and Desire
Today, I read an enlightening interview with Daniel Bergner whose book, What do Women Want?, takes a look at the science behind female desire. What science, once scientists moved beyond the cultural biases, has to say is very contrary to what culture teaches us. Just as Joan Roughgarden questions the portrayal of females as the coy ones of the species – “comparatively passive,” as Darwin put it – Bergner shares evidence of female monkeys very actively pursuing the males they desire. And it’s not just monkeys. Human females also display a lot more desire than we’re allowed to admit: Physical measures of arousal show much more arousal than women disclose. We have been culturally trained to suppress our desire.
The force of female desire is dangerous for the status quo. Monogamy is challenging for both men and women because it’s not natural, so women have been trained to believe that they are responsible for upholding relationships to ensure that monogamy works (sort of). Thus, we have been taught to rechannel desire rather than act on it because acting on it could undermine the whole cultural structure! If we take Aristotle’s (and others’) claim seriously that the nuclear family is the building block of society, female desire that leaps outside of the monogamous restriction threatens all of society that is built around the nuclear family. There’s something very subversive, then, about a woman’s desire!
Why is maintaining the status quo so important? We are living in a highly hierarchical culture. The hierarchies are maintained, in part, through shame (another big part, of course, is overt violence): Stepping outside of the cultural norms is shameful, so most people don’t dare do it. They stay coupled (for example) even when they’re miserable just because being single is undesirable since there’s something wrong with singles (so the myth goes). If we were to leave the idea behind that we have to be coupled, if we were to allow ourselves to follow our desires, rather than suppress them, we might end up developing more collaborative ways of living because we’d still want to take care of our offspring. We might just end up with more alloparents than biological parents, which according to Sarah Bluffer Hrdy’s research actually comes with a slew of benefits for that offspring, including lower infant mortality and more resilience.
To circle back to the beginning of this post: The taboo against relationships beyond marriage is designed to channel a woman’s desire so that the hierarchical structures of society are maintained along marital lines. People busy suppressing their desires don’t have time to create a different, more life-affirming (and desirable) culture.
Share this post with others:
Rachel – a few comments………
Firstly – I heard/ read something that only being married once in your life was something that happened when the average lifespan was 60. Now that the average lifespan is 86 for women, is it realistic that people are still married only to the one person for their whole and long lives?
Plus you said
“People busy suppressing their desires don’t have time to create a different, more life-affirming (and desirable) culture.”
The odd person doing something different (not suppressing desires) doesn’t change culture. It might – might – only happen over the length of a generation ……. change is very slow in their type of thing……..
fwiw etc
Stephanie Coontz points out the change in lifespan in her book “Marriage, A History.” Basically, couples used to be married to raise the kids – once the kids were grown, there wasn’t much time left in the parents’ lives.
I totally agree with your second point: We need systemic changes, which are slow, partly because the cultural norms bind us from within. There’s a lot for us to unlearn! There is, of course, an interplay between individual and system change: If enough of us do things differently, the system changes.
courageous and enlightening!
another tragic outcome of placing the burden of ‘holding the family together’ on women, is throwing all blame on her when things go wrong. this clearly fosters mysogeny in its many forms…
there’s a still-thriving tribe in the amazon jungle where each family decides freely on marriage partners, resulting in some women ‘having several husbands’, and the opposite, and any combination that works for the people involved.
they are a tribe at peace with one another and who willingly care for all members, especially kids and elders…….well-documented on video and in research.
Wow! I’d love to know more about that tribe, Shira! Can you point me to some of the research?
i watched an hour-long documentary from brazil, where they are, and have to find the link. (in fact, i saw a different docu weeks ago on the same tribe, but this one’s even more comprehensive….
i do remember they are called the ‘ZOEH’ ……….seems they pronounce it: ‘THO’EH’ (the ‘Z’ is read as ‘TH’ in brazil).
it was a wonderful, in-depth project, and beautifully filmed, and i’m determined to find its link soon….and share it….
here’s the first link i found…..wikipedia..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoe_(tribe)
….more will follow
HERE’S THE MAIN LINK FOR THE ZO’E TRIBE….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SW0jzXTS6A
ENJOY !!
Wow! This is great, Shira! Thank you so much! I look forward to learning more about this tribe 🙂