Holmstrom - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Holmstrom, “Do Women Have a Distinct Nature?”

Philosophy 224Slide2

An Operative Suspicion

Holmstrom

begins by noting that women have good reason to be suspicious of attempts to

specify a distinct, feminine nature (to

essentialize

them)

esp. when that essentialism is biological in nature.

After

all, the presumed norm

of such

attempts is usually a masculine one.

Even

when there is talk of

“different

but equal

,”

the fact remains that the characteristics usually attributed to the two sexes are evaluated differently (289).

She makes the important observation that

if there are differences, they are differences from one another, not from one standard/ideal

.Slide3

Metaphysical Realism

Given this suspicion,

Holmstrom

is going to dispute the conclusions of

sociobiologists

like Wilson.

In

a

move

that

we saw in Bracken’s discussion of race,

in refusing a basically empiricist approach,

Holmstrom

takes up a quasi-rationalist

position.

She offers a version of

metaphysical

realism

: essences

exist as

underlying

law-like

structures with an important explanatory

function.

She

explains how she's using the term essence by referring to biology, in particular the theoretical disagreements motivating different taxonomic schemes (290-1). Slide4

Social Forces

The essences

Holmstrom

specifies leave

a great deal of room for the influence of social forces, and on this basis,

Holmstrom

insists that, though there are fundamental differences between men and women, these differences are determined primarily by social forces (290)

.

Holmstrom

recognizes that the question of the relation between nature and behavior ultimately settles on the psychological (the

“interface” between

the two

.)

What

she wants to know is,

“Are

there psychological differences between men and women

?” and

“

What

is the source of these differences

?”Slide5

2 Questions

After noting some conceptual limitations of many studies of this issue (statistics, differences relative to similarities, theoretical suppositions),

Holmstrom

answers the first question by accepting

without

argument

the claim that there are a significant number of

general personality differences between men and women.

The second question gets most of her attention. Acknowledging the speculative character of her assertions,

Holmstrom

argues that these differences are caused by predominantly social factors rather than biological/genetic ones. Slide6

Justification

In support of her claim,

Holmstrom

points to a number of justifying resources.

First, she highlights a range of experimental

results (295

) which offer confirmation of the significance of social factors.

Second, she looks to the findings of anthropology which reveal

significant cross-cultural differences in

sexed personality

.

The conclusion of this analysis is that we

have clear evidence for social determination, and no clear evidence for significant biological determination

Read summary and inferences (296-7).Slide7

Sex/Gender

This analysis leads

Holmstrom

to a distinction that has been crucial for

feminism

: the

sex

/gender distinction (298).

Holmstrom

goes on to provide a possible theoretical foundation for her analysis (historically and socially specific forms of human nature/ woman's nature)

.Slide8

Implications

What are the implications if there are real, socially determined differences?

Not every women has to embody

the feminine type.

Indeed, rather than there being a type, the ‘nature of men and women’s is best understood as a

"cluster concept

.”

This approach makes it much easier

to understand

the (relatively) frequent disconnect

between sex and gender

(for example, as experienced by transgendered

individuals).

There are no

evaluative implications of

the differences that can be specified between the male and female nature clusters.