-1How Did Darwinism Influence Theories of Race in the Nineteenth Century? Charles Darwin’s work and theories on evolution, most notably in his magnum opus On the Origin of the Species, had a profound effect on the scientific community during the nineteenth century. Darwin altered views on race in a variety of ways, some negative and some positive but he provided the first contentious argument to explain variety within human characteristics that is still maintained today. His theories of evolution were controversial and influenced the ideas of others that purposefully contradicted his own. Nott and Gliddon’s work for example specifically counters Darwin’s theories concerning race but we now know theirs to be fiction.1 The work of Sir Francis Galton, Herbert Spencer and Ernst Heackel was directly influenced by Darwin, hence a number of their theories are now referred to as Social Darwinism, though this has become a somewhat derogatory term.2 Theories descended from Darwinism such as eugenics, embryology and the “survival of the fittest” have been used both to support and dismiss racist principles, such as the justification of the slave trade.3 It must be acknowledged that Darwin’s influence transcended political and ethical arguments.
According to Hollingworth objective scientific investigation was lacking for the assertions made by the variability hypothesis (Benjamin, 1975). The purpose of this essay is to explore the scientific evidence available in support of the variability hypothesis and to what extent it was used or misused in psychology. The topic of variability among men and women was first introduced by Johann Meckel a German Biologist in the early 19th century. Meckel stated that variation was greater among women than in men and that men have a greater range of ability. He therefore concluded that variation must be a sign of inferiority as it is linked to women (Shields, 1975).
For example, other needs such as reproduction and sex can also be met by sperm donors, and ‘escorts’. Marxist and Feminist sociologists have criticised Murdoch’s theory. They say that Functionalism ignores conflict and exploitation within society. Feminists see the family as being patriarchal and serving the needs of men and Marxists see the family as meeting the needs of capitalism and not the needs of the family members. According to Parsons there are two types of society; pre and post-industrial.
Macionis and Plummer (1997) highlighted the ability of new fertility treatments to allow family structures that were previously available, such as IVF. New Right theorists believe that family diversity is the result of a decline in traditional values. They see it as a threat to the traditional nuclear family and blame it for antisocial behaviour and crime. Murray (1989) suggests that single mother families are a principle cause of crime and social decay, because of their lack of a male role model and authority figure in the home. The New Right believe that state benefits should be cut and social policy targeted to discourage family diversity and promote marriage and the nuclear family.
For example, cultural feminists look to the different values associated with womanhood and femininity as a reason why men and women experience the social world differently. Other feminist theorists believe that the different roles assigned to women and men within institutions better explain gender difference, including the sexual division of labor in the household. Existential and phenomenological feminists focus on how women have been marginalized and defined as the “other” in patriarchal societies. Women are thus seen as objects and are denied the opportunity for self-realization. Gender Inequality: Gender-inequality theories recognize that women's location in, and experience of, social situations are not only different but also unequal to men's.
Popular fairy tale “Beauty and the Beast” explores different gender roles in its various versions. A gender role is a set of social and behavioral norms that are generally considered appropriate for either a man or a woman in a social or interpersonal relationship. Maria Tartar, Professor of Germanic Languages and Literatures at Harvard University argues that this well-known tale has been written primarily to state that it is indeed ‘Beauty’ who reforms the ‘Beast’ while British novelist Marina Warner argues against this claim and states that it is ‘Beast’ who brings out the wild side in ‘Beauty’. Contrary to the conventional claim of the man saving the woman or specifically the damsel in distress, much like Tartar, I too believe that this fairy tale has the stereotype reversed where the woman saves the man by civilizing him. Analyzing the gender roles of ‘Beauty’ and ‘Beast’ in Madame de Beaumont’s fairytale entitled “Beauty and the Beast” illustrates why I view women as the civilizing agent in their relationship with men.
Gender refers to culturally constructed distinctions between femininity and masculinity. Individuals are born female or male but they become feminine or masculine through complex developmental processes that take many years to unfold. For example, women usually look after babies while men are the providers. The evolutionary approach argues that gender role division appears as an adaptation to the challenges faced by the ancestral humans in the EEA. Therefore, the role differences we observe are more of a product of our biological inheritance than acquired through socialisation.
The discussion of race must involve the discussion of stereotyping in general. Race is a form of stereotyping that we as humans do to divide ourselves into groups; these groups such as race are the building blocks of our societal order. If a society is constructed in such a way, it benefits some, who are born with inherent seemingly natural advantages, while undermining other groups. People of lighter skin have advantages that they did not have to earn but have simply because they were born into a family with a lighter shade of skin. It has been scientifically proven that race has nothing to do with biology, and on the surface it appears to only be a physical factor, however there are much more far-reaching implications.
The understanding of sodomy or homosexuality was based on the violation of this collaboration, since it was not possible to procreate with two men interacting (Nesvig, 2001). Michelle Vovelle defines this territory as both ideology and mentality. In this model ideology represents the more formalized discussions that bear on a particular subject. Mentalities are less definable, more fluid, and derive from collective representations. Mentality concerning homosexuality includes popular attitudes, social customs, response to Church teachings, reaction to law, as well as beliefs, customs, and concerns of homosexual and bisexual men (Nesvig, 2001) The long-cherised assumptions of patriarchy and male-dominated sexuality have guided the historiography of homosexuality in Latin America.
The Bible? The Koran?” I don’t think what religious books say about marriage matters to an atheist homosexual but then again, I would also guess what another person does in bed would not matter to another. Why is America so closed to change? Is it that marriage has always been between a man and a woman? Why are we not able to revise the idea of marriage?