Sex Roles

, Volume 59, Issue 7–8, pp 465–475 | Cite as

Gendered Political Behavior: A Darwinian Feminist Approach

Original Article

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.

Keywords

Darwinian feminism Gender Autonomy Leadership Political behavior 

References

  1. 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
  2. Aranoff, D., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1968). Original stakes and behavior in the prisoner’s dilemma game. Psychonomic Science, 12, 79–80.Google Scholar
  3. Boehm, C. (1999). Hierarchy in the forest: The evolution of egalitarian behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Browne, J. (2007). The future of gender. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, A. (1984). The girls in the gang. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Press.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, A. (1993). Men, women and aggression. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  9. Campbell, A. (2002). A mind of her own: The evolutionary psychology of women. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  12. Darwin, C. (1859–1967). On the origin of species. New York: Atheneum.Google Scholar
  13. Darwin, C. (1871–1981). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Donovan, J. (2000). Feminist theory: The intellectual traditions. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Dunbar, R. I. M. (1993). Co-evolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans. Behavioral Brain Science, 16, 681–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eagly, A., & Johnson, B. (1990). Gender and leadership style: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (1998). Are women less selfish than men? Evidence from a dictator experiment. Economic Journal, 108, 726–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Elshtain, J. B. (1981). Public man, private woman: Women in social and political thought. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  20. Erdal, D., & Whiten, A. (1994). On human egalitarianism: an evolutionary product of Machiavellian status escalation? Current Anthropology, 35, 175–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. Gowaty, P. A. (1992). Evolutionary biology and feminism. Human Nature, 3, 217–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gowaty, P. A. (1997). Feminism and evolutionary biology. New York: Chapman.Google Scholar
  24. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hager, L. D. (1997a). Women in human evolution. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Hall, J. A. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences: Communication accuracy and expressive style. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  28. 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.Google Scholar
  29. Harding, S. (1995). Can feminist thought make economics more objective? Feminist Economics, 1, 7–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hawkesworth, M. (2006). Feminist inquiry: From political conviction to methodological innovation. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hibbing, J. R., & Alford, J. R. (2004). Accepting authoritative decisions: humans as wary cooperators. American Journal of Political Science, 48, 62–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Howell, S. E., & Day, C. L. (2000). Complexities of the gender gap. The Journal of Politics, 62, 858–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hrdy, S. B. (1981). The woman that never evolved. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hrdy, S. B. (1999). Mother nature: Maternal instincts and how they shape the human species. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hyde, J. S. (1984). How large are gender differences in aggression? A developmental meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 20, 722–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kennedy, C. (2003). Gender difference in committee decision-making: process and outputs in an experimental setting. Women and Politics, 25, 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Knauft, B. (1994). Reply to Erdal and Whiten. Current Anthropology, 35, 181–82.Google Scholar
  42. Lancaster, J. (1978). Caring and sharing in human evolution. Human Nature, 1, 82–89.Google Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Leacock, E. (1978). Women’s status in egalitarian society: implications for social evolution. Current Anthropology, 19, 247–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lee, R. B. (1979). The !Kung San: Men, women and work in a foraging society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Low, B. (2000). Why sex matters: A Darwinian look at human behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  48. MacKinnon, C. (1987). Feminism unmodified. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Marcus, G. (2002). The sentimental citizen: Emotion in democratic politics. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Nicholson, L. (1994). Interpreting gender. Signs, 11, 79–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Okin, S. M. (1979). Women in western political thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ostrom, E. (1998). A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action. American Political Science Review, 92, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Power, M. (1991). The egalitarians—human and chimpanzee: An anthropological view of social organization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Rosenthal, C. S. (1998). When women lead: Integrative leadership in state legislatures. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Rosenthal, C. S. (2000). Gender styles in state legislative committees: raising their voices in resolving conflict. Women and Politics, 21, 21–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Smuts, B. (1992). Male aggression against women: An evolutionary perspective. Human Nature, 3, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Smuts, B. (1995). The evolutionary origins of patriarchy. Human Nature, 6, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sober, E., & Wilson, D. S. (1998). Unto others: The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  65. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Thomas, S. (1991). The impact of women on state legislative policies. Journal of Politics, 53, 958–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Thomas, S. (1994). How women legislate. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  68. 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
  69. Vandermassen, G. (2005). Who’s afraid of Charles Darwin? Debating feminism and evolutionary theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  70. 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
  71. Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Zihlman, A. (1997). The Paleolithic glass ceiling: women in human evolution. In Women in human evolution (pp. 91–113). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  73. Zihlman, A. (1981). Women as shapers of human adaptation. In Woman the gatherer (pp. 75–120). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceNorthern Illinois UniversityDeKalbUSA

Personalised recommendations