Let's posit that Homo sapiens is very nearly an obligate social animal. We're not quite at the level of bees and ants, but certainly we could not sustain the species in great numbers without our social structure. So, what are the mechanisms that make us social animals? Obviously, the primary mechanism is language - thus the "socialization," which is mediated by language dominates our social behavior.
But the second mechanism, and arguably the original mechanism, is sexuality. Unlike most mammals, Homo sapiens pursue and are receptive to sex year-round (pursuit and receptivity being categories from animal behavior), rather than having seasonal "ruts" and estrus. Thus sex can be a mechanism of human socialization, as indeed we see in our behavior to this day (behaviors ranging from pair-bonding to prostitution make sex a social medium). Although it is by no means a clear corollary, the observed behavior of bonobos (Pan paniscus, our closest genetic relative) show that species engaging in homosexual social behaviors as well as heterosexual, suggesting that a broadening of sexual behavior may increase social bonding in primates. This would offer an excellent explanation of how it is that homosexuality (which would seem, on its face, to be anti-heterosexual and therefore anti-reproductive) could be an evolutionary advantageous behavior.
I believe that macho-style institutions actually suppress heterosexual bonding. But what they primarily do is repress homosexual bonding, encouraging males to become more violent and competitive. The effects of this could be two, one counter-intuitive. First, with less male-female sex and no male-male outlet for sexuality, the males of a given "clan" or self-recognizing social group of Homo sapiens, are more likely to do such things as go out and steal young females from other clans and commit rape on females of other clans. This would tend to increase the genentic population of those clans that have repressed homosexuality. We see this kind of behavior in primitive societies such as the Yanomami for whom war and girl-stealing are one and the same.
The perverse effect is that clans unable to use the full range of their sexuality for social bonding must increase their use of language-based socialization to keep the war-like, macho behavior from destroying the clan bond. Indeed, so much of human law and ritual during the long period of misogynistic, homophobic human history has been based on the idea of mediating conflict and keeping society together. This mechanism for coping with violence through language has been a positively adaptive behavior, allowing Homo sapiens to engage in behaviors that tend to increase our numbers and yet retain and even strengthen our social bonding in an effort to control aggressive, male behavior through language-based socialization.
If this were a true theory it would tend to predict that groups of Homo sapiens that perceive themselves to be under threat would tend to be more misogynistic and homophobic than groups of Homo sapiens that see themselves as having peace and plenty. Indeed, that is what we tend to see. Sexual liberalization is very much associated with times of peace and plenty in human myth and history. The Pill and Roe v. Wade, which freed women from the dangerous physical consequences of pregnancy and therefore allowed them to be equal sexual actors, are associated with the advent of the greatest time of plenty in human history - the post WW2 period. This period has also been associated with broad RE-acceptance of homosexual behavior.
I see sex as a bonding behavior. Therefore I reject the Balkanization of people into "gender" groups according to their sexual practice.
On 11/24/05, Arash <arash at riseup.net> wrote:
> >the reinforcement of our society's macho-style to preserve heterosexuality.
>
> Omitted a word, I meant macho-style institutions.
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>