Posts Tagged ‘dominance hierarchies’

Ethnocentrism and Violence

Thursday, December 20th, 2012

Humans are naturally ethnocentric. From an early age, we are programmed to establish ourselves as part of a tribal in-group, in order to identify and categorize potential allies and potential threats. This is an important part of the pre-existing psychological landscape upon which we gradually build up our identities and beliefs as we mature. It’s a part of “human nature”, you could say, if you wanted to phrase it more misleadingly. But at the same time, there is no greater significance to this fact, either – it’s simply one of the strategies that helped our ancestors survive, which is why it has persisted to the present day. It’s like a wing, or an eye: shaped by the natural selection of varying traits, with no foresight or intelligent interference.*

This is the kind of discovery that a lot of people, even those who are generally enthusiastic about science, sometimes appear to be afraid of. These fears usually stem from the idea that if we discover a genetic basis for certain behaviours, then suddenly these behaviours will be rendered an immutable aspect of human nature, and any political or social arguments against them will be instantly voided. It’s a fear of genetic determinism, in other words. Richard Dawkins gives an example of this in one of his books (I think it was The Extended Phenotype but don’t quote me), recalling a science lecture he attended where afterwards, a woman asked the lecturer how much scientific evidence there was for genetically-based gender differences (other than traits relating directly to biological sex, obviously) – the trembling emotion in her voice suggesting that all her feminist beliefs were riding on the answer. A similar fear of (or appeals to) all-powerful genes overruling our better judgment can be found pretty much across the spectrum of political and social ideologies.

Let’s assume the existence of a single gene with a single allele that controls for the aforementioned tendency towards ethnocentrism, or perhaps just a more generalized tendecy towards tribalism. This is by no means certain to be true; it could be a trait controlled by the combined effects of multiple genes, or a gene with a complex subset of alleles, or some other weird biological curve ball that nature delights in throwing our way. And it could also be possible for this gene to have additional pleiotropic effects which make it extremely difficult to mess about with. But since this is a hypothetical scenario, we’ll keep it simple. What would be the consequence of discovering such a gene, learning how it works, and perhaps even figuring out a way to remove it entirely?

At first glance it seems like this might be a useful course of action, given the problems associated with our tribalist heritage. You could easily imagine media reports proclaiming that scientists had uncovered the “racism gene”, with the suggestion that either removing the gene or blocking its expression could be seen as a “cure for racism”. Strictly speaking this doesn’t add up, but only because the logic is incomplete. Race might be a social construct, but as long as we use this construct to denote tribal divisions, you can effectively argue that we are evolutionarily predisposed to racial prejudice and that genetic engineering could therefore offer a solution to the problem.

This view is much too simplistic, of course. There are many other ways in which tribalism manifests in human behaviour, and a wholesale genetic slash and burn job would eliminate these, too. We can take “predisposition to tribalism” as a basic psychological building block and say that this is the thing that cultural evolution has transformed into religion, nationalism, organised sports, and all the other things that involve large groups of people pooling resources to achieve things beyond the simple pursuit of individual survival that we normally see in more “classical” Darwinian settings. Secular humanism is perhaps the most important product of this branch of cultural evolution, but it, too, is reliant on our hypothetical “racism gene”. To an alien observer who did not possess this trait, these behaviours could well seem bizarre and difficult to relate to – but to us, they are quite meaningful, for better or worse (and don’t worry; through observation and a little game theory, our alien friend would eventually come to understand this too, at least intellectually).

This is the main point I want to make with this little hypothetical scenario: that our increasing knowledge of the human genome and the various behaviours that have filtered down through our evolutionary history don’t automatically equate to a justification for these same behaviours. In this example, we see that there are many different ways in which a basic instinctual impulse can manifest, especially once cultural evolution takes hold of it. This is a key fact we need to keep in mind when new scientific discoveries come to light, to ensure that they expand our knowledge without being used to reinforce old prejudices and outdated worldviews. And the reason I chose to use the increasing knowledge of our tribal heritage as an example is because of our inspiring reaction to this information: we didn’t justify racism, we (re)invented humanism. We turned a potentially divisive weakness into the greatest of strengths.

Now we can turn to the subject that I am normally going on about. There is no sound reason why we can’t use this same principle to argue against violent behaviour as well. The more we learn about how violent behaviour works, the better equipped we are to develop strategies and philosophies to circumvent these psychological shortcomings – and the dumber it is that people keep trying to use this knowledge to justify violence instead. As I have discussed before, to a large extent cultural evolution is steadily chipping away at this problem even as we speak (and not out of any sort of benign interest either, but simply because it works). Humans today are much less violent than they were during pretty much any other period of history, and the gradual trend towards nonviolence shows no signs of slowing down. However, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to help the process along, as there is still work to be done.

I don’t really want to get bogged down in another long blog post here, so I’m just going to write about a couple of discomforting truths which I feel are usually neglected during discussions on this topic. The obvious one to start with is the fact that you don’t have to be crazy to think that violence is a useful solution to your problems. Violence is a sound evolutionary strategy, and probably one of the oldest, too, because evolution is a process that occurs without foresight, so the long-term consequences of violence are irrelevant. Moreover, the wastefulness of natural selection – wiping out the vast majority to filter out a select few survivors – also mitigates the consequences of violence, from that perspective at least. Indeed, in many instances, violence is precisely what propels natural selection onwards. (And it’s worth noting here that natural selection ultimately doesn’t favour organisms, it favours genes, so unpleasant outcomes are hardly of any concern to it in that resepect also.)

The key predictors of violent behaviour in humans remain the most dangerously banal ones: young, male, low socioeconomic status, substance abuse. Mental illness is rarely a factor, and when it is, usually the other factors will also be in play to a larger degree anyway. In fact, mental illness is actually much more likely to make a person suicidal rather than homicidal, and this is an important factor in a special kind of statistically-rare but highly publicized kind of violent behaviour: mass shootings and suicide bombings. In these cases, the pathological desire to die will naturally change the brain’s internal risk-vs-reward analysis and make violence seem like a more attractive option, but even so, regular suicides are far more common than murder-suicides. Even in these rare outlier cases, the triggers for violent behaviour are usually just the same as the ones that influence the behaviour of mentally healthy people; the difference in outcome is due to the way these triggers interact with the person’s suicidal desires. Considering that the vast majority of violent acts are committed by mentally healthy people, that is where our focus really ought to lie.** The problem is that the kinds of violence that are most common – domestic violence, rape, street violence, etc – are also the kinds that people don’t want to talk about, whereas the rare outlier cases get widespread media attention and therefore alter people’s perception about the reality of violent behaviour. If we are constantly told that “the man with the gun was crazy” then inevitably it will sink in, regardless of the level of truth in that statement. But in reality, automatically attributing all instances of real-life violence to “craziness” is like dismissing all car accidents as being caused by ice on the road – you’ll be right occasionally, but you’re ignoring all the most common causes of the problem, and your calls to combat car accidents by increasing the public’s awareness of icy road conditions will just look silly and ill-informed.

As usual, an evolutionary perspective can shed some light on why this is the case. Prior to the advent of civilisation, the “typical” social arrangement for hunter-gatherer tribes was a dominance hierarchy headed by a small number of polygamous males who monopolized all the mating opportunities. From my feminist perspective, I see this as a sort of “proto-patriarchy”; the thing that cultural evolution would later shape into the familiar patriarchal societies of today (not with any foresight, of course, but we can apply these labels in hindsight, for convenience). For the present discussion, however, the key point to note is that this proto-patriarchal social order did not benefit all males; only those at the top of hierarchy. An inevitable by-product of polygamous, “harem-style” mating strategies is that there will always be groups of males, often adolescents who have not yet challenged the alphas, who are left on the outer, and are frustrated by a lack of mating opportunities and, usually, harrassed and shunned by the rest of the group. Under these circumstances, any risk-vs-reward calculations will now swing towards the violent end of the scale, and aggressive behaviour will become a potentially winning strategy. (This is true not just amongst our ancestors but of pretty much all species which have adopted this kind of social structure.) So now, we see that violence is a conditional strategy, triggered by environmental circumstances.

At this point I was considering trying to stretch the feminist analogy and suggesting that we should be thinking in terms of alpha-male privilege versus regular male privilege, as a way of linking our current cultural conditions with the behavioural patterns of our ancestors – but of course, the more obvious approach would be to suggest we are looking at the beginnings of class-based privilege instead. There is already a wealth of analysis on the intersectionality between these two concepts, so I won’t dwell here. Again, the key points are that aggressive behaviour, as an evolutionary strategy, is triggered by certain social conditions which, in a modern context, look a whole lot like the predictors of violent behaviour I listed above. The only outlier is substance abuse, which, in common cases such as alcohol-related violence, acts as a remover of inhibition and thereby enhances the role played by other factors which, on their own, may not have been powerful enough to influence the person’s behaviour. It’s worth remembering that one of the primary functions of the neocortex is simply to act as an inhibitor of lower brain functions, so disabling it through artificially altered brain chemistry provides an important shortcut for those who have not developed violent behaviours habitually, and therefore have greater difficulty overcoming these barriers through more natural means.

So, as the causes and origins of our built-in behavioural repertoire come to light, we are faced with much the same choice as in the previously-examined example of ethnocentrism: we can either use these facts to try and justify violence, or we can use them to develop strategies to prevent violence. On the surface, this might seem like a no-brainer, but the real problem with most anti-violence philosophies is that people will readily agree to them in principle, but they will then often reserve a few exceptions to this rule in order to preserve instances where they either benefit from violence or are too afraid of letting go of violence as a coping mechanism, even if it is not the optimal choice. We need to keep in mind that violence is a selfish strategy with short-term benefits which serve to blind people to its long-term consequences. We therefore cannot expect people to willingly change their behaviour unless some solid alternatives are provided, and the consequences of a failure to act are highlighted to the point of being impossible to ignore.

I’m not going to drive myself crazy (again) by trying to come up with all the solutions here. But the most obvious starting point, at least, would be to focus on the hierarchical nature of our society and examine the ways in which it turns violence into a statistical inevitability by recreating conditions that favoured violence in our evolutionary past. Deconstructing hierarchies is already a necessary task faced by feminists and atheists anyway (which I’m guessing is the direction your views already skew if you’re reading this), so we have plenty of pre-existing ideas to call upon. It’s just a question of synthesizing all these different perspectives into a coherent whole, and perhaps also, convincing ourselves that such wide-reaching change is indeed a goal we can realistically work towards. I certainly think it is within the realms of possibility, even if it will take a long time. Societies can’t remain in stasis; new ideas are constantly being generated, and the best of these will rise to the top and oust the old ideas. It’s just a question of whether “best” means “best for everyone”, or “best for those at the top of the hierarchies” (or even “best for the ideas themselves”, selfish meme style, but that’s a whole other thing). But whichever way it goes, change is inevitable, so we might as well try and make it a change for the better.

I began with a reminder that behavioural patterns are naturally-selected artifacts, no different from an eye or a wing. This is important because humans are the only animals that actively modify and rework their bodies instead of just having to settle for whatever evolution provided them with. Eyes and wings can be augmented and improved upon, and the same will hold true for just about anything else we care to turn our attention to. We are humans; that is what we do.


*This is something of a digression, but I point it out because it’s easy to get caught up in the complexity and subjective strikingness of some evolutionary products and start thinking to yourself, wow, this must mean something; it must be important. But would you say the same thing about some of the more humble yet, by most measures, far more successful Darwinian progeny, such as cyanobacteria? The significance we apply to a thing needs to stem from more than just its ability to survive in relation to other things. Evolution is the closest thing we have to a science of teleology, so it can therefore powerfully inform our moral and ethical judgments, but that is all it can do; it cannot dictate morality, which is key. As primates we have a built-in desire for morality to be dictated from an authoritarian source (originally the alpha male of the social group, which eventually evolved into increasingly-powerful tribal leaders and up to spirits and gods and so forth), which is why we need to approach claims of such authority with an additional level of skepticism, to compensate for our innate biases.

**Of course, mental healthcare is worth advocating for regardless of the role it plays here, so obviously I don’t wish to downplay its importance. We just need to recognize that pursuing that path won’t lead to the decrease in violence that many people seem to think will naturally follow from it.

Evolved Hip Hop

Monday, July 18th, 2011

Recently I’ve been listening to The Rap Guide To Evolution (Revised) by Baba Brinkman. I know, I know, I would have preferred The Metal Guide To Evolution, but I guess I can make do with this for now (but seriously metal bands, get on that already). It’s interesting stuff, and it’s nice to listen to music where the lyrics actually align with my interests for a change (for the most part, anyway…). Here is my favourite passage, from “Worst Comes To Worst”:

In the South Pacific Islands, there’s certain animals that don’t
Experience fear, like Galapagos iguanas
They never had predators, so their adaptive responses
Evolved to be as calm as a pack of Dalai Llamas
So then, why do we have to live with violence
When this whole planet could be like a pacifistic island?
Do we need fear to escape invading aliens?
The only predators here are called Homo sapiens
And yeah, we can be dangerous, but we can also be
Motivated by affection and positive reciprocity
Stop the violence, right? We can all agree!
But violence comes from the fear of predators stalkin’ me
See, violence is never entirely senseless
Natural selection, that’s how you make sense of it
We just gotta identify what triggers a threat switch
And redesign society to disconnect it
And then instinct will take care of the rest of it
It’s a simple idea, but when it’s widely comprehended
Then I predict a world of aligned interests
Where the people are as peaceful as Galapagos finches.

Pretty sweet, huh? Another highlight is “Survival Of The Fittest”, in which he remixes the classic Mobb Deep song of the same name but puts the subject matter in more literal evolutionary terms (Brinkman explains his approach in this TED Talk, which features earlier versions of both that song and “Worst Comes To Worst”). The result is a fairly compelling examination of the evolutionary roots of violent behaviour and other crime amongst the lower socio-economic classes.

It’s not all good, though – much like Brinkman’s feminist sister (mentioned in “Creationist Cousins”), you know I’m going to take issue with some of the ev-psych gender theories he puts forward. To be fair he does a good job of explaining the theories, so it’s not his treatment I’m worried about, it’s the ideas themselves. But since I’m here suggesting that you go and listen to this stuff, I would like to balance it out with my own views. The thing is, these theories are often useful explanations of how the gender binary manifests in the context of a patriarchal dominance hierarchy (which is the kind of underlying scaffolding that has shaped our cultural evolution, although it manifests in many different ways) – but they usually don’t carry this qualifier; instead, they are put forward as explanations of the intrinsic nature of gender, which is another thing entirely. Admittedly I have noticed this trend as a result of reading popular accounts of research rather than the original research itself, but unless that research is being systematically misrepresented (which is not all that farfetched in discussions about gender), then it is based on a flawed assumption of bizarre inflexibility of gender and gender roles. Certainly, it is still important to understand our evolutionary past and the reproductive strategies which shaped it, because this gives us a better understanding of the ways in which our behaviour can be inadvertently manipulated or distorted – but tired old suggestions that women are “choosier” than men because they have to worry about babies just don’t make any sense in the age of contraception and birth control, and the idea that humans won’t rapidly adapt to this new environment is fairly naive, I think. It’s like assuming that people will instinctively avoid eating too much junk food because being overweight could put them at a disadvantage if they have to run away from a lion. We don’t live in that environment anymore, and more to the point, unnatural satiation of biological responses which evolved to deal with scarcity (and therefore compel people to take advantage of every opportunity) will always leave past strategies in the dust, even when the results aren’t optimal (or the case of sex, they are super-optimal and totally sweet).

I hate to go on about this, but it’s just really jarring when he puts forward lines like: “Especially women – on you the pressure is greater [to be sexually selective] / ‘Cause men will always do what it takes to get into your favour / That’s just in our nature“. If this was actually true then men would have been leading the feminist movement, not trailing petulently behind it, resisting every step. Besides, the pressure for women to be selective only exists because men create it! And there is nothing in our “nature” that forces men to be constantly pressuring women for sex in this fashion. Indeed, if men actually did want more sex then the ideal approach would be to relieve this pressure, so women could be more forthright in expressing their own desires without having to worry about a subsequent avalanche of propositions and general creeper-tude (not to mention judgment and slut-shaming). The result would be more sex for everybody, men and women alike. But of course, this approach would require cooperative foresight and, much more alarmingly, freedom for women to make their own choices and have those choices respected – so, you know, goodbye patriarchal dominance hierarchy. The fact that alleged male hypersexuality often results in less sex than may otherwise have been possible reveals its true nature: this behaviour is not about increasing mating opportunities, it is about maintaining control (ie. dominance) over women.

Incidentally, I’m certainly not suggesting that there is anything malicious in this regard about the views Brinkman is expressing or indeed the similar views held by quite a lot of men in our culture – and more importantly, the reasons why they hold these beliefs are irrelevant. We are discussing imitated behaviours that have been passed down from a far less enlightened time. Each generation picks up on them and puts forward their own justifications, but in the end it is behaviour, not belief, that we should concern ourselves with if we want to see positive changes on these issues. Belief is just the past tense of behaviour, and it is often next to meaningless, especially when it is being used to justify harmful behaviour.

An important thing to note here is that evolution, by its nature, is engaged in an eternal battle with entropy, which means that in order for evolved traits to be maintained over long periods of time, there must be a sustained source of “pressure” which will cause natural selection to favour these traits over and over again (for example, gazelles exist under constant threat of predation by cheetahs, so only the ones fast enough to elude these threats will be continuously selected as time goes on, and any mutations to the contrary will be swiftly weeded out. If cheetahs were suddenly removed from the environment and could therefore no longer act as selecting agents for fast gazelles, the gazelles’ subsequent evolutionary path would be drastically altered). An obvious example of what happens when this pressure goes away is cave-dwelling animals whose eyes have degenerated to the point of being no longer functional, because they are no longer a beneficial adaptation – indeed quite the opposite, they simply consume resources unnecessarily. The traditional human gender roles, even if they were necessary for our survival in the past, can now be seen in this same light. Once the sources of evolutionary pressure which shaped this dynamic are lifted – and not only has this already started to happen, but the change is gathering momentum – then gender will start to manifest in increasingly diverse and unexpected ways, and in principle there is no rational reason to see this as anything other than a good thing.

Aaaaanyway, I doubt we will resolve this argument anytime soon but it’s just something I find rather annoying, mainly because I personally don’t fit it with most of the stereotypes being traded here. I can understand why people who do possess these traits, and encounter them regularly amongst others, might latch on to these theories as a relatable explanation, though. I am reminded of Hitchens’s infamous Vanity Fair article from a few years back, in which he argued that men are funnier than women because humour is just a way for men to attract mates – an argument which on one hand is almost self-evidently wrong, but on the other hand, quite possibly matches up with a lot of Hitchens’s past experiences and observations. If he had mustered similar evidence and instead concluded that this was how people had been taught to behave, rather than suggesting that this was their inherent nature, then the article may well have been praised instead, at least by the feminist critics who quite rightly tore it to pieces afterwards.

Okay I’ve gotten way off track here, so let’s finish with this: even if like me you don’t agree with all of it (and I didn’t even touch on the potentially even more controversial subject of group selection, which I am somewhat more sympathetic towards, as is Brinkman), The Rap Guide To Evolution is certainly worth checking out, and it’s always nice to see people popularizing science and getting Darwin’s message out there. I can’t really speak authoritatively on how musically accomplished it is, considering I hardly ever listen to hip hop anymore, but it kept me entertained, at least.

And finally, speaking of music, I came across some strong evidence recently for one of the other theories that Brinkman deals with: the idea that music evolved through sexual selection. I think you will agree, it all adds up. ;)

Private Vice Leads To Public Virtue

Wednesday, July 13th, 2011

Recently I’ve been writing out plot summaries for some of the future story arcs in Comical Interlude, and I noticed that a lot of them were about the characters’ sex lives – and more to the point, these aren’t the sorts of stories that will still work if they conveniently fade to black just before a boob comes into view (though don’t worry, they will be proper, relatable stories, as opposed to the ridiculous Hollywood satire put forward in my latest comic). On one hand, I didn’t actually sit down and say, “okay, time to write some sex comics” – and indeed it is something which I’ve been kind of subconsciously avoiding for a while now, despite the fact that I have these stories I want to tell, because I don’t particularly want to be associated with the current porn culture. But on other other hand, sex is naturally a subject that is going to be of considerable interest to humans, and being a human myself, I don’t see any problem with that… in principle, at least. So, given this direction my work is now heading in, I thought it would be useful to work through some ideas about the depiction of sex in art and our cultural attitudes towards it.

A good place to start would be Justice Potter Stewart’s famous failure to define pornography:

“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”

I’m sure there are a lot of things we could discuss about such a statement, but what catches my interest is what it reveals about the unspoken rules we live our lives by. We all possess an extensive catalogue of cultural values which have been instilled in us – largely through memetic behavioural imitation – as we have grown up, often without conscious realization of the process. The main reason we don’t notice what is happening is because usually, we are surrounded by people behaving in the exact same way, so this all seems perfectly normal according to our only available reference points. By the time we gain enough knowledge and experience to properly reflect on our behavourial patterns, we are usually well and truly enveloped within our cultural constructs, and deconstructing them becomes a rather daunting and complicated task indeed.

Justice Stewart’s problem seems to be that when he encountered something outside his own cultural domain, he simply lacked the necessary self-awareness to properly define it as such (hence being forced to rely on intuition). This observation, I think, highlights the crucial distinction that separates porn from all other forms of art: namely, art is an expression of culture, while porn is a deliberate violation of it. Porn is not simply “depictions of sex”, because such things will sometimes also fall within the domain of art; rather, porn is depictions of sex which fall outside of the cultural values we attach to such material. Additionally, whilst it is of course common for art to challenge cultural norms, porn doesn’t even attempt to do this – it exists almost as an acceptable violation, and not one which is striving for higher ideals or that needs to be met with counterarguments, because everyone already knows that it is wrong, and indeed, that is usually considered part of the appeal. This is also why the term has become shorthand for certain other forms of entertainment – for example, excessively violent and sadistic movies being labelled “torture porn” – because it’s a way of expressing that this material violates the unspoken rules we normally live by, but at the same time, we are also acknowledging that it’s not a true violation, merely an imaginary one. And interestingly, this is true regardless of whether the speaker is using the term in a positive or negative context.

To understand how this strange situation came about, we need to remember that culture is an artificial construct that has essentially evolved on top of our pre-existing emotional and behavioural responses, and which manipulates those responses into different and highly complex patterns. The defining pattern in Western culture has been a variation on the common patriarchal dominance hierarchy seen throughout the world, influenced particularly by Christian theology and, more recently, democratic nationalism. Like any other culture, it is a highly imperfect system with various strengths and weaknesses, but people invariably play along with it because, as is the way with all dominance hierarchies, they feel they gain a net benefit from it, even if they’re not at the top of the tree (and they probably also comfort themselves with fantasies about climbing higher up that tree one day, too).

But one of the more curious aspects of this system is the extent to which it has repressed sexuality. From a modern context it seems absurd to imagine humans, of all species, adopting an anti-sex viewpoint, but you have to keep in mind that this system dates back to before reliable contraception and birth control, when even extremely brief, one-off encounters could carry considerable consequences, especially in a culture built around arranged marriages and such, where maintaining the family unit within fairly narrow confines was central to all aspects of life. This was exacerbated by the fact that the culture was modelled as a dominance hierarchy, meaning there was increased competition for mates, which equates to fewer mating opportunities for almost everyone except perhaps the alpha members of the group. Additionally, people at the top of social hierarchies often benefit from controlling the reproduction of those beneath them, so it’s in their interest to start interfering with the cultural values they dictate to the masses. Combine this with the fact that sex is one of our major sources of fear anyway (it’s the reason why we die, after all), and it’s not hard to imagine why people could get freaked out and start inventing all kinds of crazy rules to try and control it.

But a sexually repressed culture brings Problems. In particular, it leads to increased and unfocused aggression, because people are left with the subconscious feeling that something, some unseen force, is preventing them from fulfilling their biological imperatives, but because they don’t know what it is, that aggression generally just gets directed towards whoever happens to be around them (this is especially true for males, of course, because they compete through aggressive behaviour, whereas females have traditionally competed more indirectly through appearance-based sexual selection). Taken to extremes, this can result in the kind of problem that the Islamic dominance hierarchy model is currently dealing with: young, almost exclusively male suicide bombers who have been persuaded to their cause in part because they think they will get laid in the afterlife. When people have reached the point where they think their best chance at having sex is to kill themselves then it is perhaps time to start rethinking your cultural values. [Note: yes, obviously the situation is much more complicated than that; I don't have time to deconstruct the entire psychology of a suicide bomber here. My point is, sexual repression is certainly one of the factors that directs people towards such a path, and moreover it makes the whole process easier than it would have been if that element were not present.]

This is where porn comes to the rescue of the patriarchal cultural model. If you want to run a sexually repressed society then you are going to have to deal with the increasing pressure to rebel against this artificial repression that will be quietly building up in your populace. And of course, the perfect way to do that, whilst still keeping the original culture intact, is to construct an outlet outside of those cultural values, where people can seek refuge as needed and let off some steam before falling dutifully back in line. So this, then, is the strange truth about porn (and similar, seemingly-contradictory constructs surrounding sex): it is the moon to the patriarchy’s Earth, an orbiting satellite which stabilizes the main body and allows it to flourish where otherwise it would have failed.

[Note: in researching this blog post I have come across several articles citing this study (pdf link), which indicates a slightly higher percentage of porn subscribers in conservative states in the US compared to their more liberal counterparts - but on further reading it appears the correlation is not statistically significant. Unfortunately I haven't come across any other, more helpful statistics here - but at the very least, the Edelman study indicates that porn consumption doesn't vary all that much across a range of political and religious belief sets across America, which I suppose is what you'd expect of a unified culture that drinks from the same mass-media well, despite the variations within that culture. So, as much as I wanted for this to be the part of the post where I cited that study as another in a long line of religious hypocrisies, I guess I will have to hold off on that one. For now. Plus, they may not be consuming more porn than anyone else, but they're not exactly abstaining from it either, so I guess there's that.]

Ultimately, this just serves to highlight the exact same point that we regularly reach when deconstructing patriarchal culture: this whole thing is a really dumb idea that never would have happened if intelligent people actually sat down and designed the culture from scratch, as opposed to accidentally allowing it to evolve this way over several thousand years. But it also highlights the mistaken assumption people often make when trying to counteract this culture: that by supporting porn and promoting its ideals, we can start to break down the repressive parent culture. Clearly, when that parent culture is actively reliant on porn to sustain itself, this approach is not going to work out as people would like it to. This is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that, regardless of whether people are pro-porn or against it, very few will disagree on the actual use of the word “porn” to describe the material in question. Generally, these arguments are not about changing the overarching culture, they are about whether or not it is appropriate to have an externalized outlet for things that don’t fit within that culture. And indeed, for many people, the entire appeal of porn is that they see it as a place where they can break the rules they normally live by (which just raises the obvious question of why they choose to live by rules which are by their own definition unsustainable…). This is also why some of the few attempts to actively redefine porn as “erotica” or something similar and instill some cultural values in it have often failed to catch on (or at least, have certainly failed to achieve the popularity of regular porn), because people are inadvertently removing the very characteristics that attracted them to porn in the first place, whilst not taking it far enough to remove the need for those characteristics entirely.

As an aside, an interesting illustrative example of how arguments about porn are based on cultural values rather than measured evaluations of its actual content is a movie called The Good Old Naughty Days, which was released in 2002 after being edited together from a collection of old silent porn films from the early twentieth century. These films had originally been made to screen in French brothels, so obviously, at the time of their creation, they would not have been held in particularly high cultural esteem. But fast forward eighty years, and this same footage suddenly has enough “sociological” merit to be classified for a limited cinematic release in the freaking UK, of all places, despite containing not just explicit sex scenes but also some bestiality and stuff like that. And whilst there was an inevitable backlash from the usual religious types, there was also apparently enough interest for people to quite happily attend their local cinema just so they could watch such a film. The lesson here is that all you need is the thinnest of pretenses to allow people to tell themselves that they are watching the movie for any other reason than just because it’s porn, and suddenly it becomes a perfectly acceptable and reasonable idea. Or, essentially: it’s okay to watch porn for intellectual reasons, but it’s not okay to enjoy it. I think you will agree, this is a fairly transparent set of rationalizations by any standard – and it also recalls the cultural distinction between art and porn that I mentioned earlier. So long as the material is ostensibly not being put forward for the purpose of sexual gratification, it is clearly not serving any practical purpose at all, and therefore is much easier to define as “art” – whereas regular porn, which does serve a practical purpose, is barred from such standards. A barbeque pit is not art, but a broken barbeque pit beaten to an incomprehensible mess by Homer Simpson is.

So how do we go about fixing this problem, then?

Ironically enough, in my view, the best approach would be to start promoting depictions of sexuality in non-porn settings – sort of like the cinematic release of The Good Old Naughty Days, except with material that is designed to be unironically enjoyed, rather than being presented as some pretense at a history lesson. That way, you are not escaping the culture, you are actively confronting it, and forcing the audience to consciously reflect on their absorbed values. People will subsequently begin to criticize these ideas, of course – and that is when real progress can begin to happen. Improvement will only occur if we actively hold the material to a higher standard. In fact, I believe it should be held to the same standard we expect from any other form of art or storytelling, and the fact that the material is sexual in nature should neither cause us to automatically discount it, nor automatically accept it. More important questions, such as what sort of artistic merit it possesses, whether or not it is degrading, what sort of emotional depth it carries, etc, should instead come to the fore. In particular, the current porn standard of either completely context-free sex scenes or absurd and childish scenarios where people suddenly start having sex for no reason is the thing I would really like to see changed, because it stands in the way of a culture which could instead feature much more emotionally fulfilling kinds of entertainment, built around the same real, human stories we spend the rest of our time preoccupied with anyway. And sure, it is certainly possible to detach yourself in order to enjoy the kind of emotionally bankrupt porn that currently overwhelms the market, but it is not particularly… hedonistic.

This is the main way in which art can play a role in influencing the course of human development, incidentally: not by actively solving problems or swooping in to rapidly change people’s views through transcendent expression, but simply by disseminating new ideas and subtlely influencing people’s thoughts and beliefs (for better or worse, sadly). Art doesn’t end discussions; it starts them. And perhaps most importantly, it can entertain and reassure people who already agree with the ideas in question, so they can then go on to make more important strides in achieving these goals. Realistically speaking, a deeply ingrained problem like this is not going to go away overnight – it’s something that can only be changed over successive generations, as people grow up and readily adopt new behaviours and new ideas before the old patterns have a chance to take hold. This is how cultural evolution always works, of course, so if we wish to consciously influence its path then we need a realistic understanding of its mechanisms, and we need to be ready to play a much longer strategic game, because it doesn’t generally produce immediate results. Although another thing to keep in mind is that the pace of technological development illustrates perfectly how evolutionary processes can rapidly accelerate after they reach a certain tipping point, so that is definitely something to aim for, and it’s certainly a comforting thought if you wish to spend your time advocating something which may never eventuate within the course of your lifespan.

Which brings up another point: obviously, I am drawing a fairly fine distinction here, not to mention asking you to consider endpoints in the far future that aren’t all that immediately relevant to our own lives, so these ideas won’t be of much use to people who are simply looking to porn as a way of getting off and who don’t much care about the larger significance of their actions. If that is your view then you are free to live your life that way, of course, and no one can force you to change. To be honest I am surprised you are still reading at this point. But since you’re here, I would ask you to keep in mind that these things, so easily dismissed as irrelevant, have a way of coming back and biting you in the ass. If sexuality is constructed as something which exists outside of normal culture, then it becomes associated with other things that have been relegated to that same place, which is why porn has become largely synonymous with misogyny, racism, sexualized violence, and similar concepts. Because of the way our brains categorize ideas, grouping them together when they apparently have something in common, this is not the kind of association that can be drawn without consequence (as many of our current pop culture and porn tropes will all too readily attest). Ultimately, the choice to do nothing about this problem is essentially a choice to allow it to continue along its current evolutionary path, which, to the extent that we can foresee such things, does not appear to be a path with a happy ending.

On the other hand, if you do agree that this is an extraordinarily dumb situation and that we can clearly do better, then our primary goal – regardless of whether it is accomplished through art or other means – should be to try and integrate a healthy and robust understanding of sexuality into our shared cultural values, so people don’t feel like they have to escape from everyone else or break their own moral codes just to participate in an activity which is, after all, not only the very archetypal example of a “natural” behaviour, but one which brings considerable benefits, both socially and on a more personal level.

It is difficult to define exactly what a liberated sexual culture would look like, because the only convenient reference point we have is a history of failure (which in turn served to suppress or probably even wipe out a lot of wisdom which may have been garnered in more distant historical periods). Indeed, it is akin to ancient farmers at the dawn of the agricultural age attempting to extrapolate the limits of human technological development based only on their own nascent achievements: they would have absolutely no way of knowing that twelve thousand years of cultural evolution would produce the civilization we live in today. I would guess, however, that an idealized culture would have no need for an externalized concept called “porn”, because sex would be a common and unremarkable theme in all the regular artworks and entertainment, not only rendering the concept redundant, but replacing it with something which is much more holistically fulfilling anyway. And yeah, there has been some relaxing of attitudes towards sex in pop culture in recent decades, but the general climate is obviously still fairly farcical. We don’t go to the cinema to watch movies about sex, we just have romance movies, which occasionally feature a blurry pseudo-sexual montage (which isn’t to say that romance isn’t important; obviously, sex needs context to become emotionally meaningful. But that’s just part of the story, not all of it). And more to the point, we have action movies, we have horror movies, and generally speaking, we have a culture set up to venerate another concept entirely: violence. As you would expect of a sexually-repressed culture, this has become the popular surrogate obsession. A good litmus test for these values is children’s entertainment, because this is an area where people instinctively become much more careful about the ideas they are passing on to the next generation: and indeed, not only are fight scenes commonly depicted, but attempts to sanitize these depictions usually result in entirely unrealistic scenes where “bad guys” are dispatched bloodlessly by valiant heroes who suffer no negative consequences for their actions. Compare these tropes with the arguments commonly put forward to justify real-life violence; the similarities are striking (haha, yeah, as my twitter followers would note, I was quite annoyed by that particular article). Meanwhile, of course, you’re not even allowed to hint that sex exists, let alone suggest that it is a healthy and normal activity that you can look forward to when you get older, much like getting a driver’s licence or whatever. Oh, but don’t worry, you do get to kiss someone once you’ve defeated all the bad guys and gotten married – that is, providing you’re not gay, because that doesn’t exist either.

I guess basically what I’m saying is, a truly sexually liberated culture would presumably have much the same attitude towards sex that we do towards the allegedly “justified” violence that so dominates our present-day culture.