Dear Earthlings:
Here's Michael's take:
Response to Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan's Mystery Dance: On the Evolution of Human Sexuality
An issue that arises for me when reading Mystery Dance and the other books
assigned by Lynn Marguiles is that I feel I at times focus too much on the
trees and miss the broader forest of her points. Having said that, I really
enjoyed this book as it presented a nice synthesis of philosophy, zoological
evolution and microbiology all of which I like. I did however have some issues
with some of the evidence she presents and manner in which she argues for her
points. On page 27 when she talks about the idea of a sexual bacterial
‘super-organism’, I find this idea very intriguing because research that has
occurred in the 20 years since this book was published has only added evidence
supporting the notion of cooperation and altruism between various certain bacterial
species that goes beyond her basic examples of their ability to recycle
each-other’s metabolites for their own use. I think this if anything is how I
view the idea of Gaia, and while the DNA exchanges that occur are the prototype
upon which sexual reproduction evolved I think Marguiles should also have
mentioned the antagonistic relationship that these organisms share as well. While
cooperation does occur, many of these bacteria are also at war with each-other,
particularly if they share the same metabolites so there is a degree of
antagonism that occurs as well. I think this should have mentioned because it
paints a fuller picture of this ‘super-organism’ and because it provides an
interesting analogy to the antagonistic war of the sexes in the reproduction of
various animals that she documents subsequently. I found she often engaged in
the same kind of chauvinistic use of biological evidence that she addressed as
what was wrong with how Social Darwinists and others utilized biology in the
past. This occurs problematically, in my mind at least, throughout the book,
but is most egregious in her discussion of the rise of the patriarchy and
phallocracy on page 54 as a consequence of the evolution of Homo sapiens. Earlier she references the
descent of Homo erectus as the
beginning of our abandonment of chimpanzee-like promiscuity towards monogamy
and the protection of females due to the physical power of men which she again
references here via her examples of early hunting by males and gathering by
females. Based on my experiences taking some anthropology classes on early man
and reading the book Born to Run, I
would disagree with her use of evolutionary biology to place the origins of the
patriarchy at this point in humanity’s existence. Homo erectus differentiated himself from the last common ancestor
we share with chimpanzees and other apes because of his ability to run. This is
the primary method humanity used throughout the bulk of its history over the
last 50,000 years to procure food. There is a greater discrepancy between the
sizes of male and female apes like gorillas than between male and female early
humans because the physical size of males was actually counterproductive for
running and males began shrinking via the selective pressure of these long distance
hunts. Born to Run also presents a
myriad of evidence of the fact that as you increase the distance of an
endurance run the difference between male and female competitors disappears.
Ultra-marathoning of the kind ancient tribes utilized to hunt created an equal
playing field between the sexes’ roles in survival unlike any seen prior to
that point in primates. Similarly, the archaeological evidence of shamanistic
rituals I encountered within anthropology also painted a picture of shared
shaman roles between the sexes, if not a slant towards female shamans. I’d
instead argue that the rise of the patriarchy began much later in human
history, only at the dawn of organized agriculture and with it organized
religion, within the last 10,000 years, where the larger physical strength of
males would present an advantage that they did not necessarily have earlier in
hunting by running animals to death.
Question: At a point in the first
Chapter, Marguiles uses her arguments about ritualistic violence inherent in males
and sperm competition to offer an explanation for gang rapes. Do you agree with
her perspective or not? Why?
Michael Maranets
Published with permission
WGSS 3998 - Ecosexuality and the Ecology of Love
Prof. Serena Anderlini-D'Onofrio
U Conn, Storrs, Spring 2013
Dear Earthlings:
Let "nature" be your teacher in the arts of love. Education is the heart of democracy, education to love. Come
back for more wonders: Students Responses to appear every Tuesday.
Book Reports to be scheduled soon, every other Thursday. Check out our summer offerings: Ecosexuality in Portland, OR, July 17-21. Info and Registration here!
Namaste,
Serena Anderlini-D'Onofrio, PhD
Gilf Gaia Extraordinaire
University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez
Follow us in the social media
Poly Planet GAIA Blog:
http://polyplanet.blogspot.
http://polyplanet.blogspot.
Website: www.serenagaia.com
Be Appraised of Ecosex Community Project PostaHouse
Become a Fan: www.facebook.com/GaiaBlessings
Author's Page/Lists all books:
YouTube Uploaded Videos: http://www.youtube.com/
