Human language can be used to transfer a veritable host of different messages, and there can be no doubt that each one of its variegated applications was instrumental in driving it to its present state of unfathomable complexity. I propose that the combination of high maternal mortality and low female iron stores contributed substantially in propelling human language into the stratosphere of animal communication.
Parallel with speech’s sexual-selection function, language was undoubtedly proving its merit in social relations, toolmaking, child-rearing, and hunting. Once human speech had jump-started, any tiny mutation that came along afterward and incrementally improved speech survived to make it to the next generation. Thus, fluency became the signature feature of the human species.
Steven Pinker, extolling the wonders of human language, observes that information is the sole commodity that a person can give away and keep at the same time.28 I would add that sexual pleasure is also something that a person can confer on another and personally enjoy simultaneously. The linkage between sex and language can be further divined by noting that the English language tacitly acknowledges that sex was the primary force behind the evolution of speech. I doubt that it is mere coincidence that the word “intercourse” has two common meanings, only one of which refers to speech.
Each of us is a combination of masculine and feminine traits.
Chapter 15
Anima/Animus
He who knows the male, yet cleaves to what is female,
Becomes like a ravine, receiving all the things under heaven. [Thence] the eternal virtue never leaks away.
—Lao Tzu1
The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances. If there is any reaction, both are transformed.
—Carl Jung2
Psychiatrist Carl Jung introduced a valuable metaphor when he made the distinction between the masculine animus and the feminine anima. He further divided each category into a light and dark side. For example, loyalty, heroism, and protection are masculinity’s nobler aspects; cruelty, violence, and bullying represent its shadow side. He made similar dichotomies between traits we commonly associate with the feminine. Love, generosity, and compassion illuminate its light side; cunning, masochism, and passive aggression represent the anima’s dark aspect. Using Jung’s analogy, every individual’s psyche, regardless of sex, possesses both a feminine side (anima) and a masculine side (animus).
As we would expect, women have, in general, a better-developed anima than animus; the converse holds for men. In any given society, the proportions of these two gender characteristics vary from individual to individual. A similar categorization holds when comparing one culture with another.
Suppose that it were possible for a team of statisticians to tabulate the exact percentages of the anima and animus coexisting within each individual ofa community and then plot these results on a graph. The dots would trace out two overlapping bell-shaped distribution curves, one curve for each sex. Out at one extreme on the male curve are the few men who seem to be devoid of any feminine aspect. At the other extreme is the minority of men whose feminine side is greater than their masculine. Similarly, there would be a small percentage of women out on one edge of the female curve whose personalities expressed their animus more prominently than their anima. At the opposite extremity would be those women who seem to be entirely feminine without a trace of the masculine. The majority of people would cluster toward the center of the curve, manifesting both an anima and an animus in generous proportions. Most people would acknowledge that under certain circumstances they have, or know others who have, exhibited the best and worst aspects of the feminine and masculine.
A hypothetical distribution curve of anima-animus ratios within a population of women.
A hypothetical distribution curve of anima-animus ratios within a population of men.
By identifying the anima-animus duality, Jung created a useful way to envision human nature. He pointed out that the stunning advancement of the West for the last two thousand years was inspired principally by the animus. Working within the framework of cultural psychology, Jung called attention to the glaring lack of a familiar Western symbol denoting balance comparable to the East’s yin-yang circle. Evolutionary psychologists rarely comment on Jung’s contributions, because there is at present an academic war sputtering between these two disciplines. At the risk of being attacked in the noman’s-land between the two sides’ forward positions, I would like to raise a few questions concerning Jung’s dichotomy.
Is the anima-animus duality common across the evolutionary spectrum? Or is the human species the most prominently psychically split? Did the two-personas-in-one-person arrangement evolve long ago because, in some way, it furthered the survival of some individuals of the human species? Is there a physiological basis for Jung’s assertions? Could it be simply a function of testosterone and estrogen?
For the sake of argument, let us assume the masculine-feminine dichotomy has its roots in a biological adaptation mediated by gene mutations. What selective pressure might have encouraged the emergence of such a split personality in this one species?
I take for granted the understanding of how sexual intercourse shuffles the chromosomal deck and that the fifty-fifty random linking of an XX and an XY creates the conditions for the nearly equal debut in the labor-and-delivery room of boys and girls nine months later. I also assume familiarity with the numerous studies showing that administering testosterone to a male or a female animal of any species will make the recipient more aggressive and dominant. The correlation of femininity and estrogen is not as clear-cut, but the preponderance of evidence points to a similar feminine-behavior-enhancing effect.
Among various species, there are few males that exhibit strong feminine qualities, yet all females possess generous proportions of both masculinity and femininity. A mother’s ferocity when her babies are threatened can be compared to the most aggressive male display. Few alpha males would dare tangle with an angry mother protecting her brood. Predatory females such as lionesses, tigresses, and leopardesses kill their prey as mercilessly as any male. Domesticated felines appear to enjoy toying with their captured prey before bringing the Totentanz* to its inevitable conclusion. Among wild pigs, some deer species, lemurs, and elephants, the female, not the male, is dominant. The others in her pack, troop, or herd, both males and females, look to the alpha female for leadership. The presence of both an anima and an animus coexisting in one animal has a long tradition among the females of all higher animals.
The most extreme example of a female with balls, literally, is the spotted hyena. The female is fiercer, larger, and more dominant than the male. Typically, a female leads the pack and is the more aggressive hunter. Her circulating testosterone is so high that she has external genitalia resembling a scrotum and penis, making it nearly impossible for all but a few specialists to determine the sex of a hyena from a cursory inspection. Globular fat deposits mimicking the appearance of testes round out the deception.†
Should anyone doubt the propensity of testosterone to incite aggression, consider this. Hyenas often conceive twins that are each born with a full set of teeth. The pups, having been marinating in their mother’s testosterone throughout their gestation, immediately engage in mortal combat after birth until one defeats and kills the other. There are only a few other species in which immature siblingcide occurs; there is no other known mother that has such high testosterone levels.‡
Is there a male vertebrate’s anima that would correspond to the female’s hyena’s animus? Although infrequent, examples exist. A male emperor penguin sits for months on his mate’s egg, protecting it from the subzero temperatures of the Antarctic. During this time, he forgoes eating. He engages in this trying and selfless act because the female, having initially sat on her egg for a long stretch, has dangerously depleted her body’s fat and nutrient stores. She must abandon her perch to replenish her reserves or she will die. At the moment of her forced departure
, the male promptly takes over. Should he leave his station for even an instant, the chick within its shell will freeze. Typically, the male loses half his body weight in performing this traditionally female task.* After the fledgling has hatched and grown, however, it is nigh unto impossible for an observer to tell whether the male emperor penguin cares about the fate of his offspring.
The largest majority of instances in which the male shares the burdens of child-rearing occur in birds. Only 10 percent of males of mammalian species exhibit this kind of nurturance, and only 3 percent of male mammals enter into monogamous relationships. When males of either phylum help the females feed and protect their young, the males’ concern for their helpless offspring rarely includes other fatherly behaviors. The most one could say about these sporadically helpful dads is that their anima intermittently appears and disappears.
For the majority of male animals, interest in females rarely extends beyond sex. From the male’s observable behavior, he does not seem to express concern or curiosity about a female’s state of health, happiness, or economic security. When she is sick, he does not appear solicitous. When she is injured, he does not appear to be helpful. If she finds food, he will frequently take it away from her. And when she has little ones, he expresses little or no interest in them even if they are his.
Prior to mounting her, the typical mammalian male does not take into consideration her physical, emotional, and mental fitness to raise the offspring that he is about to engender. Either he hasn’t a clue as to the purpose of sex, or he flat-out doesn’t care. He zeroes in on the part of her anatomy that interests him and rarely lets his attention stray from it.
In the majority of species, foreplay, to be distinguished from mating dances and displays, is nonexistent. For those in which it appears that a male is behaving somewhat tenderly toward the female he is about to mount, his solicitude would be judged woefully inadequate by human standards. One of the few exceptions is the occasional male chimpanzee who will spend extensive periods grooming a female, even though she is not in estrus, in the expectation that she will favor him the next time around—a strategy that is usually successful.
Among the 270 species of primates, only a handful can be called monogamous. The most notable example is the gibbon.† A couple’s connubial comity, however, stands in contrast to their unprimatelike lack of sociability. Gibbons do not form social groups larger than couples, and each pair expresses extreme hostility toward any other strange male or female. Although monogamous, gibbons are relatively asexual: Females come into a short period of estrus only once every two or three years. Primatologists conjecture that the only way gibbons survive is that two members of the opposite sex declare a lifelong truce. This cease-fire does not extend to their young for very long. As soon as a young gibbon can take care of itself, the parents drive it away. Other than a temporary nuclear family, there is little in a gibbon couple’s life-style that can be compared to any other primate’s.
In other monogamous mammalian species, such as wolves, coyotes, and prairie voles, each member of a pair bond seems to take a genuine interest in the welfare of the other. At the death of one, the other grieves. But these examples are few and far between. Generally, among social mammals, males are fissiparous—that is, they form and dissolve temporary coalitions and alliances periodically, as they fight among themselves to establish dominance. Females with their offspring associate in groups with the other females. The nuclear-family unit for the majority of mammals is a mother and her young. Evolutionarily speaking, fatherhood is a very recent—and wobbly—development.
Most male mammals exhibit precious little anima. Take, for example, the lion. With his circular ruff of mane and imposing stature, a male lion exudes the pith of masculinity. A mature male lives for the moment that he can challenge the alpha lion and defeat him in a thunderous fight. Sometimes he enlists allies to accomplish the dethronement, but these cabals are usually temporary. Not uncommonly, one usurper takes over the pride and gains sexual access to all of its females.
His first act upon achieving this much-sought-for victory is to find and kill all of the pride’s cubs. Instinct has built in this cruel (to us) behavior, because it increases the chances that the victor will pass his genes along to the next generation. Despite the attempts of lionesses to protect them, the cubs are defenseless. As he dispatches one cub after another, the new king remains indifferent to the cries of their mothers. Their little ones’ deaths cause all the lionesses to come promptly into heat.
Driven by her powerful sex drive, a lioness approaches the recent murderer of her young and proceeds to “sleep with the enemy.” Observers have reported up to fifty mountings with a single lioness within a pride of twenty females, each impatiently waiting her turn. Lionesses return repeatedly, urgently demanding another encounter. The alpha male, with or without allies, is visibly harassed and loses weight, but he never flags. Becoming the alpha male of any species always boosts a male’s testosterone levels, and he appears eager to rise to the occasion.
The leonine sexual act is not tender. He mounts her roughly and thrusts mightily. The entire affair is over in less than a minute. His penis contains a small barb at its tip, which ensures that it will not become dislodged during his bumptious pistoning. When the lion withdraws, the lioness cries out in evident discomfort. His response to her distress is to bite her on the back of her neck, presumably to hold her still.
Though lionesses are chiefly responsible for bringing down a group kill, the alpha male feeds first and has the choice of the most delectable parts. So selfish is he that if one of his young sons encroaches on his prerogatives the alpha may kill him. A survey of other males of other mammalian species reveals that charity, mercy, tenderness, and nurturance, the characteristics traditionally associated with the feminine, are in meager supply. One does not pair the words “fuzzy,” “affectionate,” and “friendly” with bulls, stags, or boars.
Humans share many attributes with other social mammals. Males ally with males, and females bond with other females. A mother and her children remain the stripped-down nucleus of the nuclear family. However, men behave very differently from other social animals in several fundamental ways.
A professional wrestler, bulging with visible testosterone, can change a baby’s diapers with the utmost tenderness. A Marine Corps drill sergeant may weep watching a touching film. A samurai can compose exquisitely sensitive haiku poetry. Hitler, the grotesque epitome of the hypertrophied dark side of the animus, adored dogs and little children.
Men (with very few exceptions) possess the capacity for love, empathy, kindness, and compassion. A feeling of awe in the presence of magnificent natural beauty swells the heart of a fierce warrior as much as it lifts the soul of a caring mother. The question arises: Why do males of the human species have such a well-developed feminine side?
A cursory review of any history text confirms that the human male would win any contest when pitted against any other animal for his ability to perform—nay, pleasure in performing—the most vicious and sadistic acts against other members of his species. No other animal tortures its own for the pleasure of it, and no other animal runs torture experiments on other animals. And the human male can sustain such acts of cruelty for incredibly long periods.
How is it, then, that this same male can be found engaging in the most charitable acts of kindness to strangers? He can tend to an ailing wife, an elderly mother, or a disabled child with the utmost solicitude. And he can sustain his pathos over a substantial span of his life. Mirroring his high standing in the torture category, he exceeds every other species’ males in the “empathy” department by a similarly wide margin.
No male of any other species can match a human male’s penchant for sadism.
Many would argue that these behaviors are entirely a function of culture. Boys can be taught kindness and charity. Warrior cultures, like the Spartans of classical Greece, inculcated their boys with the exact opposite values. Though there can be no doubt
that culture plays a significant role in personality development, there is, I believe, a more fundamental neuro-rewiring scheme underlying these two extremes.
And no male of any other species can match a human male’s capacity for tenderness.
Assume for the sake of argument that the cruelty-kindness ensemble is the result of changes that occurred to Homo sapiens’ nervous systems at the dawn of our species. Assume also that the modules necessary for each behavior pattern evolved because they increased Homo sapiens’ survival and reproductive potential. What would have compelled Natural Selection to design such an anomalous male? Why so cruel? Why so kind? The simple one-word answer is: sex. The savagery-charity antipodes were parts of a two-step human-male mating dance, the first step of which required steely-hearted dispassion and cruelty.
Homo sapiens inherited a male primate’s nervous system, wired for over fifty million years to react to danger as would a typical prey animal. In a rather abrupt makeover, Homo sapiens had to switch sides, so to speak. The stalked became the stalker as meat protein increasingly became part of his diet. Millions of years after his direct ancestors developed a taste for meat, Homo sapiens discerned meat’s power as an aphrodisiac. Goaded by his sex drive, he had to be crueler in order to stalk, chase, and kill more elusive and dangerous prey. The benefit to him was not more meat to eat, but more meat to trade.
Lacking the usual predatory pro-forma weaponry with which to kill, he needed to supplement his puniness with a combination of cleverness and raw savagery. Cold-bloodedness became an indispensable feature of his armamentarium.
Sex, Time, and Power Page 26