Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Gendered Political Behavior: A Darwinian Feminist Approach

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Darwinian feminists use an evolutionary framework to examine behaviors that promote survival and reproductive success. Subsequent power relations between women and men arise from conflicting reproductive strategies and social scientists ought to reconfigure their understanding of the psychological and behavioral repertoires of women and men based on their dynamic interactions throughout human evolution. This paper is an addition to the feminist literature on women’s contribution to evolution through an exploration of autonomy and leadership in egalitarian society and uses a Darwinian feminist approach to understand gendered political behavior.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alford, J. R., & Hibbing, J. R. (2004). The origin of politics: an evolutionary theory of political behavior. Perspectives on Politics, 4, 707–723.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aranoff, D., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1968). Original stakes and behavior in the prisoner’s dilemma game. Psychonomic Science, 12, 79–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, C. (1999). Hierarchy in the forest: The evolution of egalitarian behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratton, K. A. (2005). Critical mass theory revisited: the behavior and success of token women in state legislatures. Politics and Gender, 1, 97–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratton, K. A., & Haynie, K. L. (1999). Agenda setting and legislative success in state legislatures: the effects of gender and race. The Journal of Politics, 61, 658–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browne, J. (2007). The future of gender. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A. (1984). The girls in the gang. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A. (1993). Men, women and aggression. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A. (2002). A mind of her own: The evolutionary psychology of women. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.) The adapted mind (pp. 163–228). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. (1859–1967). On the origin of species. New York: Atheneum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. (1871–1981). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donovan, J. (2000). Feminist theory: The intellectual traditions. New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Draper, P. (1976). Social and economic constraints on child life among the !Kung. In Kalahari hunter-gatherers: Studies of the !Kung-San and their neighbors (pp. 199–217). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar, R. I. M. (1993). Co-evolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans. Behavioral Brain Science, 16, 681–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A., & Johnson, B. (1990). Gender and leadership style: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (1998). Are women less selfish than men? Evidence from a dictator experiment. Economic Journal, 108, 726–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elshtain, J. B. (1981). Public man, private woman: Women in social and political thought. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erdal, D., & Whiten, A. (1994). On human egalitarianism: an evolutionary product of Machiavellian status escalation? Current Anthropology, 35, 175–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk, D. (1997). Brain evolution in females: an answer to Mr. Lovejoy. In L. D. Hager (Ed.) Women in human evolution pp. 114–136. New York: Routledge.

  • Gowaty, P. A. (1992). Evolutionary biology and feminism. Human Nature, 3, 217–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gowaty, P. A. (1997). Feminism and evolutionary biology. New York: Chapman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gur, R. C., Gunning-Dixon, F., Bilker, W. B., & Gur, R. E. (2002). Sex differences in temporo-limbic and frontal brain volumes of healthy adults. Cerebral Cortex, 12, 998–1003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hager, L. D. (1997a). Women in human evolution. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hager, L. D. (1997b). Sex and gender in paleoanthropology. In L. D. Hager (Ed.) Women in human evolution (pp. 1–28). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. A. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences: Communication accuracy and expressive style. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannagan, R. J., & Hatemi, P. K. (2008). Genes and gender: An analysis of the predictive value of sex and gender on vote choice. Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Annual Meeting, April 3–6, 2008.

  • Harding, S. (1995). Can feminist thought make economics more objective? Feminist Economics, 1, 7–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkesworth, M. (2006). Feminist inquiry: From political conviction to methodological innovation. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hibbing, J. R., & Alford, J. R. (2004). Accepting authoritative decisions: humans as wary cooperators. American Journal of Political Science, 48, 62–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howell, S. E., & Day, C. L. (2000). Complexities of the gender gap. The Journal of Politics, 62, 858–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hrdy, S. B. (1981). The woman that never evolved. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hrdy, S. B. (1999). Mother nature: Maternal instincts and how they shape the human species. New York: Ballantine Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurley, S. (2007). Sex and the social construction of gender: can feminism and evolutionary psychology be reconciled? In J. Browne (Ed.) The future of gender (pp. 98–115). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hyde, J. S. (1984). How large are gender differences in aggression? A developmental meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 20, 722–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kathlene, L. (1995). Position power versus gender power: Who holds the floor. In G. Duerst-Lahti, & R. M. Kelly (Eds.) Gender power, leadership and governance (pp. 167–193). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, K. M., & Petrocik, J. (1999). The changing politics of American men: understanding the sources of the gender gap. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 864–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, C. (2003). Gender difference in committee decision-making: process and outputs in an experimental setting. Women and Politics, 25, 27–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knauft, B. (1994). Reply to Erdal and Whiten. Current Anthropology, 35, 181–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster, J. (1978). Caring and sharing in human evolution. Human Nature, 1, 82–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larimer, C. W., Hannagan, R. J., & Smith, K. B. (2007). Balancing ambition and gender among decision makers. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 614, 56–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leacock, E. (1978). Women’s status in egalitarian society: implications for social evolution. Current Anthropology, 19, 247–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, R. B. (1979). The !Kung San: Men, women and work in a foraging society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, R. B. (1982). Politics, sexual and non-sexual, in egalitarian society. In Politics and history in band societies (pp. 37–59). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Low, B. (2000). Why sex matters: A Darwinian look at human behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, C. (1987). Feminism unmodified. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, G. (2002). The sentimental citizen: Emotion in democratic politics. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson, L. (1994). Interpreting gender. Signs, 11, 79–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowell, C., & Tinkler, S. (1994). The influence of gender on the provision of a public good. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 25, 25–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okin, S. M. (1979). Women in western political thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orbell, J., Morikawa, T., Hartwig, J., Hanley, J., & Allen, N. (2004). ‘Machiavellian’ intelligence as a basis for the evolution of cooperative dispositions. American Political Science Review, 98, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortmann, A., & Tichy, L. K. (1999). Gender differences in the laboratory: evidence from prisoner’s dilemma games. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 39, 327–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1998). A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action. American Political Science Review, 92, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Power, M. (1991). The egalitarians—human and chimpanzee: An anthropological view of social organization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, C. S. (1998). When women lead: Integrative leadership in state legislatures. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, C. S. (2000). Gender styles in state legislative committees: raising their voices in resolving conflict. Women and Politics, 21, 21–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, R. Y., & Mahajan, H. (1986). Gender differences in policy preferences: a summary of trends from the 1960s to the 1980s. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 42–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, T., Seymour, B., O’Doherty, J. P., Stephan, K. E., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2006). Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others. Nature, 439, 466–469.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, T., Kiebel, S. J., Winston, J. S., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2004). Brain responses to the acquired moral status of faces. Neuron, 41, 653–662.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smuts, B. (1992). Male aggression against women: An evolutionary perspective. Human Nature, 3, 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smuts, B. (1995). The evolutionary origins of patriarchy. Human Nature, 6, 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E., & Wilson, D. S. (1998). Unto others: The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka, J. S., Panter, A. T., & Winborne, W. (1988). Dimensions of the need for cognition: subscales and gender differences. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23, 35–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, S. (1991). The impact of women on state legislative policies. Journal of Politics, 53, 958–976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, S. (1994). How women legislate. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tooby, J., & DeVore, I. (1987). The reconstruction of hominid behavioral evolution through strategic modeling. In W. G. Kinzey (Ed.) The evolution of human behavior: Primate models (pp. 183–237). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandermassen, G. (2005). Who’s afraid of Charles Darwin? Debating feminism and evolutionary theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wylie, A. (1997). Good science, bad science, or science as usual? Feminist critiques of science. In Women in human evolution (pp. 29–55). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zihlman, A. (1997). The Paleolithic glass ceiling: women in human evolution. In Women in human evolution (pp. 91–113). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zihlman, A. (1981). Women as shapers of human adaptation. In Woman the gatherer (pp. 75–120). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Celeste Condit, Larry Arnhart, Doron Shultziner, and three anonymous reviewers for providing excellent feedback on earlier drafts. I am also grateful to Laurette Liesen, Barbara Burrell, and Kathryn Coe. Our conversations influenced my thinking greatly.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Northern Illinois University, 415 Zulauf Hall, DeKalb, IL, 60115, USA

    Rebecca J. Hannagan

Authors
  1. Rebecca J. Hannagan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rebecca J. Hannagan.

Additional information

An earlier draft of this paper was prepared for the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences Annual Meeting, Bloomington, Indiana, October 25, 2006.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hannagan, R.J. Gendered Political Behavior: A Darwinian Feminist Approach. Sex Roles 59, 465–475 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9417-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9417-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation