Biology, Culture, and Behavior

As noted earlier, there are obvious biological differences between males and females. Biological differences between the sexes include distinctive muscle-to-bone ratios and how fat is stored. The differences in reproductive organs, however, are much more important, because they result in certain facts of life. Only men can impregnate; only women are able to produce eggs, give birth, and nurse infants. Throughout life reproductive hormones influence development in both males and females.

Are male and female brains different? Recent research indicates that the brains of men and women are slightly different in structure (Gur et al., 1995). For example, men show more activity in a region of the brain thought to be tied to adaptive evolutionary responses such as fighting. Women have more activity in a newer, more highly developed region of the brain thought to be linked to emotional expression. The female brain is less specialized than the male brain. Women tend to use both sides of the brain simultaneously when performing a task. Whereas men tend to process verbal tasks on the left side of the brain, women are more likely to use both sides. Women tend to use both ears when listening and men tend to use the right ear. Do such biological differences lead to differences in social behavior? This is precisely the Tennessee women’s question overlooked by biological determinists who, without evidence, assume that physical differences result in biologically programmed differences in social behavior. It is true that female babies are more sensitive to sound, probably because they listen with both ears rather than one. And male infants and children are more active in play—shouting, yelling, hitting—than females.

Biological determinists point to research that indicates men and women in dozens of different cultures (at varying stages of economic development) are associated with some distinctly different ways of behaving. For example, men and women differ in what they look for in romantic and sexual partners. Men value physical appearance more than women do. Women place more emphasis on social class and income. Men tend to prefer slightly younger mates, while women favor slightly older ones. In addition, males in general tend more toward physical aggressiveness in conflict situations (Buss, Malamuth, and Winstead, 1998). The fact that such differences appear in many cultures suggests to some people that they have a biological cause. However, we don’t yet know for sure to what extent these differences result from biology or culture, and the debate on this issue can be furious.

ТЕКСТ №8

How do sociologists view behavior?

The majority of sociologists argue that gender-related behavior is not primarily the result of biology. They look to culture for clues. In her classic study of three primitive New Guinean peoples, anthropologist Margaret Mead (1950) demonstrated the influence of culture and socialization on gender role behavior. Among the Arapesh, Mead found that both males and females were conditioned to be cooperative, unaggressive, and empathetic. Both men and women in this tribe behaved in a way that is consistent with the more traditional concept of the female gender role. Among the Mundugumor, in contrast, both men and women were trained to be “masculine”—they were aggressive, ruthless, and unresponsive to the needs of others. In the Tchambuli tribe, the gender roles were the opposite of those found in Western society. Women were dominant, impersonal, and aggressive, and men were dependent and submissive. On the basis of this evidence, Mead concluded that human nature is sufficiently flexible to rule out biological determination of gender roles. Cross-cultural research since Mead’s landmark work has clearly supported her findings: gender roles are not fixed at birth (Janssen-Jurreit, 1982; Montagu, 1998).

Case studies have also been examined on infants whose parents intentionally treated their children as if they belonged to the opposite sex. Apparently, individuals can fairly easily be socialized into the gender of the opposite sex. What’s more, after a few years, these children resist switching back. In general, research on gender identity indicates that biological tendencies can be greatly influenced by culture and society (Schwartz, 1987; Shapiro, 1990; Ridley, 1996; Sapolsky, 1997). What can we conclude from studies about male and female behaviors? In general, researchers investigating behavioral differences between the sexes have not been able to prove that any particular behavior has a biological cause. One researcher’s findings tend to contradict another’s. Any conclusions we reach should also take into account several difficulties with the research. Many studies seek to find differences but ignore the overriding similarities between males and females. To make matters worse, researchers often fail to note the variation that exists within each sex. Some men, for example, tend to be submissive and noncompetitive, and some women are aggressive and competitive. While biological characteristics exist, they can be modified through social influences. In other words, men and women can learn to be submissive or

aggressive by mirroring the behaviors of influential role models, such as parents or siblings. Also, this is a good time to remind ourselves that human behavior is the result of multiple causes.

ТЕКСТ №9

Meritocracy

Conflict theorists attempt to show that popular conceptions about the relationship between schools and society are not entirely accurate. Schools and society often touch each other in complicated and unobvious ways. In a meritocracy, social status is based on ability and achievement rather than social-class background or parental status. In theory, all individuals in a

meritocracy have an equal chance to develop their abilities for the benefit of themselves and their society. A meritocracy, then, gives everyone an equal chance to succeed. It is free of barriers that prevent individuals from developing their talents.

Meritocracy is based on competition. For this reason, sport is seen as the ultimate meritocracy. Although some sports have glaring shortcomings in this regard, sport does fit very closely with the definition of competition. For sociologists, competition is a social process that occurs when rewards are given to people on the basis of how their performance compares with the performance of others doing the same task or participating in the same event (Coakley, 1998). Is America really a meritocracy? Although America claims to be a meritocracy, sociologists have identified barriers to true meritbased achievement, such as gender, race, and ethnicity. An example (greatly simplified) is how the edu cation system favors the wealthy. Schools in wealthy neighborhoods are significantly better than schools in economically disadvantaged areas. It follows, then, that students attending wealthier schools get a better education than students attending poorer schools. Furthermore, students attending poorer schools do not learn the values, manners, language, and dress of people in more affluent schools. Because the majority of students in poorer schools are members of racial and ethnic minorities, they find themselves at a disadvantage when applying for higher-level jobs that lead to higher incomes. How do minorities perform on college entrance exams? There are related barriers to achievement faced by racial and ethnic minorities. An important one of these is lower performance on college entrance examinations. African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans have lower average scores on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) than whites. Sociologists attribute this fact, in part, to the differences in school quality noted above. And both school quality and SAT performance are related to social class. Children from upper-class and upper-middleclass families attend more affluent schools. Thesechildren also have higher SAT scores. Social class clearly affects SAT performance.

ТЕКСТ №10