What the hell's a Feed?
Stick it in your email!
Genetic Fundamentalism
The New York Times has finally gone to the rats. Far be it for me, a guy who pretends to be an escapee from a lab maze, to complain, except an article they published ["Nice Rat, Nasty Rat", link broken] — another in a seemingly endless series about genes and behavior — is a little more absurd than most. Somehow they go from a finding about genetic factors in animal domestication to suggested causes of “human domestication”. I think that used to be called… society. Presto! Ten thousand years of history, philosophy, politics and literature are reduced to the suggested impact of “a single gene that affects the timing of neural crest cell development”. Spare us.
In a [recent post] I wailed about those who try to reduce complex human characteristics and behaviors to simple genetic factors. Since I wrote, the New York State Court of Appeals [denied rights] to homosexual couples — their decision turning largely on a notion of essential qualities lacking in gay people (namely, ability to procreate and parent), and last week a [particularly bizarre] resurrection of the debate over whether people are born gay lit up the blogs. From hypothesized “God genes”, that give rise to religious experience, to genes that make us engineers or gamblers, the search is on for the keys to our nature. But it is the obsessive debate over genetic determinants of sexual identity, specifically homosexual attitudes and behavior, that is perhaps the most persistent example of the desire to reduce people to a fundamental biological essence. Not since the Nazi obsession with eugenics and its relation to the “Jewish problem” have we seen such obsessive attention to what determines the characteristics of a class of people. The difference is that, this time, it’s the Left that embraces the idea of essential difference — with the attendant risks — and it’s the Right that argues for a more inclusive anti-essentialism.
By inclusive I don’t mean an approving or even charitable acceptance, far from it. Rather, a resistance to cede moral agency to the chromosome. Gays are not a different species; they’re just fallen members of the group we all belong to. Conservatives oppose homosexuality because they believe it is not intrinsic, that young people can be coerced into the lifestyle and thus lose the opportunity for fulfilling lives as heterosexuals. It is chosen behavior and, perforce, immoral. The other side sees homosexuality as fundamental for some, there from birth. Moral agency is no more the issue than it would be over any other intrinsic quality, like eye color. What neither side can imagine is that it’s probably neither intrinsic nor coercive. Not innate. Not chosen.
Popular Science Fiction
The history of the science itself is a rather short story. Back in the early 90’s two gay scientists, Simon LaVey, a specialist in the neuroscience of vision and Dean Hamer, a geneticist at the National Cancer Institute, strayed from their professional fields of expertise (already a worrisome sign) to engage in research that sought biological correlates of “homosexuality”. With such an obvious agenda and ill-defined purview it is not surprising that they found something. What was surprising was the eagerness with which the public embraced their tentative and suspect findings. As John Horgan, a science writer who has examined the track record of these researchers has [reported], their findings were never replicated and, at least among scientists, have largely faded from consideration. Not surprising given how wrong-headed most if not all of these studies are. Even when the personal and political agenda of the scientists involved is not so glaring, they all fail the most basic requirement of science — careful definition of that which they attempt to explain. Unlike a discrete behavioral syndrome like Tourette’s, which is invariant across cultures and historical epochs, “homosexuality” is highly variable in its expression and meaning across and within cultures and even within individuals at different times in their life. In the February 2006 issue of Current Directions in Psychological Science, Cornell psychologist Ritch Savin-Williams publishes cross-cultural and cross-lifespan data [article copyrighted, can be purchased here] showing that the incidence of “homosexuality” varies from 1% to a whopping 21% depending upon a person’s gender and how and when in their life it is defined. The attempt to discover biological substrates of such variable and diverse phenomena is futile. They’re looking in the wrong place.
Understanding human sexual orientation requires placing individuals within a cultural and interpersonal context that gives their sexual identity meaning — a psychological and sociological project. Something like psychologist Daryl Bem’s “exotic becomes erotic” [theory], which aims to explain both gay and straight orientation, is more fruitful in understanding the complex interplay between male and female gender identity and homosexual and heterosexual orientation within a given culture. Bem’s theory, which posits sexual preference as an emergent property of gender (non-)conformity, sees an individual’s self-perceived gender atypicality as the engine that drives homosexual orientation. What might cause the perceived difference between oneself and the other little boys or girls? Could be anything from traits like level of aggression and novelty avoidance to, perhaps, those arcane differences that the biological reductionists are so curious about. But, significantly, in Bem’s theory none of these factors is determinative. It’s possible that those with perceived difference might not turn out gay. It’s more open-ended, more accommodating to the indeterminate complexity of actual human experience. However, that is not to say that orientation is plastic forever — over time, as behavior and self-image coalesce into a sexual orientation, it becomes less and less likely that change is possible. Here’s a (too) simple analogy: with sufficient motivation someone could learn to walk on their hands and attempt to do so for the rest of their life — but it would not be easy and would never feel “natural”. And, of course, to entreat someone to do such a thing would be cruel. That may be news to the conservative scolds.
The Risks of Genetic Fundamentalism
Even if Bem’s theory is superseded by something better, I think the truth will end up looking very much like it. And very much unlike what currently passes for understanding of human sexual orientation. Does it matter to the culture war combatants? Unlikely. Though the science is bogus, gays and their supporters still embrace it as a given. On the other side, conservatives happily reject the biologically determinant project but also turn a blind eye to the fact that people almost never successfully change the path they are on. Richard Lewontin, a biologist and [critic of reductionism], would say that each side tries to ground their larger political vision in a vision of nature, seen through their own biases. Conservatives, raised in a culture of culpability and redemption, will reject anything that seems to threaten moral agency about matters — sexual behavior and gender identity — so central to human life.
For liberals, the appeal of the biological theory lies in its “face validity” — a theory that says you’re gay or straight from birth feels right when we remember our early childhood personalities and experiences. It also acts as a defense to the charges of unnaturalness from conservatives and, I suspect, not a little internalized homophobia — Don’t blame me for what I am, I was made this way — by Nature! But we know from psychology, like Gilbert’s [work on happiness], that memory is a notoriously unreliable gauge of our past experience and attitudes. And the “I can’t help it” defense is politically regressive because it implicitly accepts that homosexuality is something that one would change if one could. While there are certainly practical downsides to homosexual orientation as it currently exists these are not caused by homosexuality per se, but rather by social intolerance and the concomitant lack of sufficiently robust social structures supporting happy healthy homosexual lifestyles. And that is rooted in fear and loathing of what is perceived as unnaturally different and threatening.
This is the great risk of embracing a biological fundamentalism when it comes to sexual orientation, intelligence or any number of other complex human characteristics — it can backfire badly by fostering rigidity in the definition of what it means to be human and can promote in-group/out-group stereotyping and ghettoization. We’ve seen in Nazi Germany the dire consequences of ghettoization — also in our own country’s struggle with racial segregation and again in the 1980’s with AIDS. The feverish spread of that disease through the gay ghettos was as much a sociological phenomenon as a biological one. What was the radical AIDS political movement of the 1980’s and 90’s but an extraordinary attempt to remind the larger society of the humanity of those in a ghettoized subculture?
We are more than our genes. More even than our brains. Remember that the next time you read an article in a Big Important Newspaper about some nasty old rats.
Posted in Politics, Science 07/27/06 | 
Email this | Comments (28)
Share/Save this: 
It’s all about the CHEMISTRY baby. That’s where we’ll find many of the answers that we are currently looking for to explain much of our own behavior. Studies on our brains point this out again and again but many scientists continue to lean towards a genetic answer. Your right, it’s not in the genes. They provide the playing field but chemistry provides the players.
Comment by Jeffery Faulk — July 28, 2006 @ 2:27 am
I think it will eventually be determined that ‘outright’ homosexuals respond to pheromones of their own gender as heterosexuals respoind to the opposite. In between is a fuzzy spectrum. And I believe this development occurs during prenatal development as a response to hormonal interactions between mother and child.
Comment by Sam Grove — July 29, 2006 @ 11:18 am
Could it be that throughout all studies historically in science are repleat with the confounds of instead of Male V Female, it should have been those with the Male attraction v. Female attraction irrespective of the attractees gender. Could such a resorting of data maybe shed light on ANYTHING?
Comment by C.A. — July 31, 2006 @ 8:20 am
This is one of the most balanced articles I’ve read on the subject. Social concepts as “gay” and “straight” are too rigid to explain sexuality. Otherwise, how does one explain prison sex? Or an inidividual coming out later in life? Or involvement with the same gender while in one’s 20s and then marrying the opposite sex in one’s 30s? Maybe as Gore Vidal said, there are no such things as homosexuals, just homosexual acts. The focus might need to move away from “science” as proof and to the social realities we all are aware of.
Comment by Aris Manekinides — July 31, 2006 @ 6:48 pm
As a geneticist, I have to say that though this article correctly rants against reductionism, it also assumes that all of genetic science is fairly encompassed by the popular press, which is itself a reductionist take. Practicing geneticists do not assume that genotypes determine phenotypes, even in single gene disorders. Take Marfan syndrome as an example: the same mutation in different members of a family can be expressed very differently in each individual. Fetal development, environmental exposures and yet to be discovered genetic and epigenetic factors together yield a pretty large envelope of possibilities. Determinism may have sex-appeal as a trope for the popular press, but it has little interest to those who delve deeply into genetics.
Comment by peter thom — July 31, 2006 @ 11:12 pm
The comments here bring different perspectives and solid information which compliment a well-written piece. I have a science degree and am a grad student in theology; I relate both to moral and to scientific arguments. I’m also old enough to remember the ascendency of behaviorism. Which I thought underestimated rats, let alone humans. In addition, there was an assumption of the superiority of the administrator of behavior modification. The geneticist above is presenting an authority of education and experience, something beneficial to society. But corporate-driven research, which is corrupting the tradition of scientific exchange, may push the agenda in favor of either chemical or basic genetic explanations for human behavior. Look at the enormous profit for the contemporary behavior mod drugs– from depression to the vague condition of social anxiety. All pushed by TV ads, with little discussion of what this means for the health of our nation. I am a transgendered gay person. (which means I was born biologically female, transitioned to male, and am attracted to men) I want the right to determine for myself who I am and how I encounter the world. It is neither ethically nor scientifically sound to advocate reductionism. Even rats deserve better.
Comment by C. Rafi Simonton — August 1, 2006 @ 7:19 pm
I get your point but I think you may have misunderstood the article. The “human domestication” that the authors of the study posited would likely have been a prerequisite for any sort of society at all, and probably come well before things like literature and philosophy were even possible. If the theory were true (and I’m not convinced either), then the evolutionary trend leading to “human domestication” would probably have predated even agriculture. Nor are politics and the humanities being dismissed as factors or agents in the rise of civilization; an explanation that considers both evolutionary psychology and culture is not impossible.
Comment by hale — August 2, 2006 @ 1:23 am
Thanks to all who have left thoughtful comments on the article. Peter, I think we’re on the same page — I’m not tarring all geneticists with the reductionist charge, just those like Hamer who stretch the limits of reasonable inquiry by treading in areas better suited to other disciplines (like psychology).
Rafi, your perspective is invaluable — I hope you are blogging about issues that have affected you in your life (I’d sure read it). And Hale — guilty as charged, I was engaging in a little rhetorical hyperbole to make a point about the popularization of science that sees us as “gene machines” — but stranegly enough I can no longer find the article in question on the NY Times site. The [link] I had now goes to another article and a search on their site turns up nothing. Hmmmm.
SD
UPDATE 2:00p Thanks upstate guy for letting me know they fixed the link on the Times site. I’ve put it back in the article. Thanks for the kind comments, too.
Comment by Sprague D — August 2, 2006 @ 7:18 am
I just clicked on the link to the article and it works, you have to log into the NYTimes site though. It’s a free registration, but if you don’t want to use your own info you can use the generic dailykos info: username: dailykos@dailykos.com
password: dailykos
That said, I’m not sure how long NYT keeps articles online for free access.
I love the points you’ve made and the comments here as well. Great stuff. I especially like the point about the profit-driven motive behind finding genetic or chemical “reasons” behind social behaviors.
Comment by upstate guy — August 2, 2006 @ 12:45 pm
Hale –
Human “domestication” would not “have been a prerequisite for any sort of society at all,” unless you’re claiming hunter-gatherer cultures have no “sort of society at all.”
Comment by Warmongering Lunatic — August 3, 2006 @ 2:05 pm
Oh Gawd where to begin. I don’t have the energy left to actually form a series of connected, flowing arguments so I’ll just have to go point by point.
>>”desire to reduce people to a fundamental biological essence…” (etc) well first off demerits for invoking the Nazis which is so passe in any intellectual discourse. Arguing that homosexuality is more nature vs. nuture is not reducing to a fundamental biological essense, it’s trying to explain one, very specific, easily definable trait: attraction to the same sex vs. attraction the opposite sex, is generally NOT a choice. What you are saying would be akin to saying a study proving left handers giving birth to left handers is reducing a whole group to a “fundamental biological essense”. (fyi I’m gay and have a lesbian aunt on my mother’s side – yes – just an anecdote) I can tell you gay men and lesbians come in all shapes, races, intelligence levels, hair colors, etc. etc. So there is no “fundamental essense” other than this one trait…and therefore it’s got absolutely NOTHING to do with eugenics.
>>“homosexuality” is highly variable in its expression and meaning across and within cultures and even within individuals at different times in their life…the attempt to discover biological substrates of such variable and diverse phenomena is futile
This is a question of how you define homosexuality. You inadvertantly go on it contradict yourself, oops:
>>Understanding human sexual orientation requires placing individuals within a cultural and interpersonal context that gives their sexual identity meaning — a psychological and sociological project…
exactly. A male’s attraction to males has probably remained at a fairly constant level throughout histories and cultures. It’s the WAY THE CULTURE RESPONDS TO THAT that “matters” ultimately for the lives of gay and lesbians. The biological substrate has nothing to do with it…it’s always going to be there. I could just give another anecdotal example: think about the incidence of homosexuality in high European Royalty…I’d say there are two or three most famous examples – which i’ll leave it to dear readers to investigate…well 3 out of the 200 or so high ranking members of European Royalty over the past 500 years equals about the percentage I think is the true rate of homosexualty…1% and no more than 2%. (yes, I’m not one of those 10% crazies)
Comment by Josephine Baker — August 5, 2006 @ 1:58 am
Josephine, since you raise the issue, how do you define homosexuality?
Comment by John Porthman — August 8, 2006 @ 4:40 pm
John. Biological: same sex sexual attraction and arousal, exclusive or strongly preferential
Social: as I say, lots of things: moving to San Francisco in the 1960s, joining the Sacred Band of Thebes in Ancient Greece, wisely investing in Dupont Circle real estate in the early 90s, writing Maurice, marrying a passive aggressive beard to protect your career in politics, coming out to your football team in late 1990s Massachusetts and having your team sing a village people song to you,joining the miltary and then becoming a gay basher, etc. etc. etc. My point being that the macro-social definition is all over the place because how people respond to such a taboo and readily hidden thing is so variable.
There is an important corollary to the above involving the relationship to power and sex, but that’s another bedtime story.
Comment by JB — August 14, 2006 @ 8:22 pm
Josephine,
What I was trying to ask was, how does the definition of homosexuality affect the merits of arguments, like those in the article we’re commenting on, against its being biologically determined? Those arguments look pretty good to me, however homosexuality is defined.
Comment by John Porthman — August 21, 2006 @ 8:37 pm
its sad to say in America people have forgotten the father your lord and instead have adopted government and science as your new father and mother
the answer is simple confusion of any kind is of Satan he deviates and misleads and lies and in America he has us in hypnotic stupor where we live for nothing and aim toward nothing since death is the beginning the flesh is temporary but your spirit is eternal funny that simon lavey the scientist mentioned in this article is the founder
of the church of Satan im not kidding google his name youll find him. we live in a Satan filled propaganda society they put the toxin fluoride in the water that makes you more docile dont believe
me again google fluoride poisoning and there is videos on you tube people need to wake up and discard all this confusion and concentrate on self
and salvation we all feel God in our hearts but why do we ignore that fact he is coming back so soon and the time is near im not trying to scare anybody but search the net look at whats happening
all around you not much time left find God in your
room in your house you dont have to got to church
he is in your heart all you need to do is look closely.
Comment by carlos — May 28, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Carlos, thanks for commenting.
And, by the way, it was *Anton* LaVey who founded the Church of Satan — not Simon LaVey. Talk about propaganda…
Comment by SD — May 28, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
Carlos, I love the Lord Jesus with all my heart, You are just another person out there with an opinion, no real facts, just your own perception. There are thousands like you out there trying to sale there point of view. It was interesting reading,I will give you that, but seeing how you have never been a gay person, you couldn’t possibly understand anything about it. Sure you can say I have a degree and and all the other vanity ridden importance,but it doesn’t make you right. Just a comment and opinion from myself, probly no better than your article.
Comment by Tucker — June 2, 2007 @ 11:18 am
What’s amazing to me is that religious fundamentalists claim homosexuality is a choice and a sin, therefore we are obligated to choose to be heterosexual.
Whether or not hetersexuality is genetic or not is no way to make public policy unless we want to take a que from the Nazis and deny civil and human rights to those who are not genetically blond-haired and blue-eyed.
Religious fundamentalists fail to acknowledge that being a religious fundamentalist is most certainly a choice. so it is equally valid for me to say to them, “Give up your hateful “fundamentalist lifestyle” and join a church that preaches love and acceptance of all people regardless of sexual orientation or “preference.”
I won’t demand that religious fundamentalists give up their “fundamentailist lifestyle” when they stop claiming they have the right to make their “fundamentalist lifestyle” the law of the land, thereby forcing all of us to obey the rules of their lifestyle whether we agree with them or not.
Comment by Geoff Staples — June 8, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
The Bible is correct – in ALL things!
Comment by Silverback — June 9, 2007 @ 5:40 am
I would just like to say that I am 19 and gay. All my life Ive been told it’s wrong and for most of my life I have tried to hide me sexual identity and supress the urge. I have felt shunned and hated when one of my friends found out I was gay he abandoned me. Believe me being gay has caused me alot of problems I am also a devout christian and because of this during my high school years I hated myself for being gay and not being able to turn straight. So I ask you who choses to do this to themselves?
Comment by LightandLove — June 12, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
Goeff,
Fundamentalists probably can’t give up their beliefs because of fear — in a world that’s hard to understand or even frightening, rigid beliefs can offer comfort. Sadly, even if those beliefs dehumanize others.
L&L,
Thanks for commenting. I remember from my own teen years it can be very scary and lonely to see yourself as different. But you are certainly not alone. And don’t let church doctrine stand between you and a loving relationship with your god. Jesus preached love, not hate.
Comment by SD — June 12, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
first of all. I like the same sex. Honestly i dont know if it was my choice or if i was born with it. but heck its ME not you so why care about it right? i dont make a huge deal about what kinda foods you like. doing huge studies seeing if u chose to like brocolli or u were born like that. i think its all blown out of proportion. love whoever u want =)
Comment by James — June 17, 2007 @ 2:31 am
James,
Agree 100%. It shouldn’t matter a bit to anyone else what you like. Alas, there are public policy implications of personal matters (equal rights, etc.), so these issues need to be discussed in as open and non-ideological a way as possible.
Comment by SD — June 17, 2007 @ 9:44 am
Interesting conversation, I think I might have to get in this one. First of all, being raised in a christian home then having a divorce & remariage to a very nonchristian home, I found myself in my early 20’s about as far from God as possible. Then a girl came into my life and led me back into the “church atmosphere.” While being with this girl for 5 years, I dedicated my life to finding out if God really existed or not, who He is and what He wants. So I don’t write a novel here, I can say a few things with no uncertainty.1. Im gay. 2. God exists. 3. He wrote the Bible from genesis to revelation as our Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth. 4. I would be fighting the battle for my soul against this body if I were black, brown, male, female, strait, gay, or anything in between. I’m fighting a spiritual battle and I suggest we all put some time into researching what we believe and more importantly why. What can we base our faith,”or lack therof,”on. If you want excuses not to believe, you’ll find some. On the other hand if you want reasons to believe you won’t believe what the Lord will show you. Jesus said”ask, and it shall be given you;seek and you shall find;knock and it shall be opened to you.”
Comment by HS — July 7, 2007 @ 2:35 am
[...] When I was looking around the forums, I saw this at the top in one of those mini-advertisements: Genetic Fundamentalism | Diary of a Rat Take from it what you will, the man has a point. Stop blaming that you were given the genes from [...]
Pingback by Is Homosexuality a sin? - Anime Online — July 16, 2007 @ 12:05 am
The devil can be very deceitful. You cannot be a true christian and support homosexuality. Yes, Jesus preached about love and acceptance. However, he also condemned homosexuality. You cannot pick and choose what you think is true in the bible and what is not true according to your lifestyle. Because then you are ignoring God’s word. You’re being prideful, and if your a christian you know you should not be self-righteouss. For example, i lie, but i know its wrong because the bible says its wrong. God does not hate liars, nor does he hat homosexuals…he hates SIN. He hates homosexualty and lying. If your constantly commiting homosexuality, you are living in sin. There is a difference between living in sin and committing a sin. I just ask you to pray and sincerely ask Jesus for guidance. Put pride aside and humble yourself in front of the lord. I love you all. GOD BLESS YOU
Comment by thomas — July 16, 2007 @ 2:45 am
I am fairly certain that the Bible is critical of Gays. I am investigating the origins of the translations.
I am also absolutely certain that the drive to be GBLT is relentless and absolutely irrisistible.
Gwen
Comment by Gwen — July 20, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
[...] not have been born with the trait. At the same time, some studies of a “gay gene” have been debunked as being biased and lacking concrete evidence, supposedly because the scientists themselves were [...]
Pingback by Proposition 8 - It’s Not Exactly Cut and Dry | Stay N' Alive — October 27, 2008 @ 4:42 am