[lbo-talk] Matriarchy/Patriarchy

[KJ]

On 5/31/06, W. Kiernan <wkiernan at ij.net> wrote:
> If you're going to use the metaphor "hard-wired" (what? you mean there
> ain't a literal mesh of copper wires up in my skull?) then the
> distinction's between "hard-wired" (behavior due to "instinct," whatever
> that is, but it's a biological something humans have in common with
> deer, armadillos, other mammals) and "software" (_human-only_ behavior
> contingent upon the interplay of verbal concepts).  The practical
> difference between "hard-wired" and "soft" would be, if a persistent
> mistake or undesirable tendency in society is driven by instinct, then
> nothing less than genetic manipulation will going to change it in the
> long run, and short of that your best bet is to build social
> institutions to contain and minimize the inevitable damage caused by
> that instinct.  On the other hand if that social problem is only an
> issue of the usage of words, then perhaps by a purely intellectual
> effort - thinking more clearly, resculpting the language, "catapulting
> the propaganda" - one can actually _defeat_ the problem.

It's beginning to look more and more like "hard-wired" and "soft"
(taken more broadly than just contingent upon interplay of verbal
concepts but including social arrangements, relations, etc.) aren't
separated by some big wall. The new embryology is linking up with
evolution; it looks like the old nature/nurture debate was just
badly/wrongly formulated. There may be genes predisposing to violence,
but the expression of those genes are dependent on the "soft"
environment; minus the "right" environment, they don't get expressed.
More and more results are coming out indicating the centrality of the
"soft", and the pliability of the "hard". So, we are "hardwired" to be
responsive to the "soft".

kj khoo