This is a no-frills and more substantive version of an article by
me that will appear in the media soon. It explains from the perspective of
evolutionary psychology the societal disapproval of marriages between older
women and younger men, the hook being the uproar over 36-year old Priyanka
Chopra’s marriage to 25-year old Nick Jonas. I think this would be a good
introduction to anyone curious about the extremely powerful field of
evolutionary psychology. The underlined sentences will assist the TL;DR types.
#PriyankaChopra on Twitter is a
good barometer of how a lot of people feel about a woman marrying a man 11
years younger to herself. Expectedly, liberal backlash has condemned and
dismissed this as ‘patriarchy’ of the unwoke. No matter how well-intentioned,
the problem with liberal backlash is that it assumes purely social roots to the
institution of patriarchy. The liberals neglect, even hound, those who try to
point out patriarchy’s obviously biological/evolutionary roots, which are well
explained by evolutionary psychology. The implicit assumption, sadly, is that
anyone attempting to do so is trying to justify patriarchy. In defence of the
critics, they’re wary of the dubious pseudoscience that has been used in the
past to shore up eugenics and male superiority, leading to untold horrors.
However, given that we learn from our past, there is no reason to continue
shutting down perfectly tenable scientific explanations. If anything, knowing
the biological reasons behind patriarchy will allow us, as a society, to deal
with it more effectively.
Before embarking on the
discussion, readers must keep in mind three things: one, natural selection –
the evolutionary force that shapes human behaviour – cares about one and only
one thing: transmission of genes down the generations, that is, having the
maximum number of children for every couple;
two, in fulfilling its aim, natural selection drives individuals to
behave in a manner which will help them find the best possible mate(s); three,
natural selection doesn’t choose or design the environment we live in, it only responds to the given environment such
that we’re driven to find the best mate(s).
A strong indicator of something
having biological/evolutionary roots is its presence across cultures,
geographies and ethnicities. Seen from that angle, in a large majority of
marriages that happen globally, the man is older than the woman. For example,
in US, a nation far more liberal than most others, men are older[i]
in 64% marriages and women are older in just 23%, whereas they’re of a similar
age in the remaining 13%. This trend holds for the still more liberal
Scandinavia. It’s commonplace across the world for women to be attracted to
older men, and for men to eye young women. It’s evident that the roots of this
trend are embedded deep in human biology.
Given the first fact about
natural selection mentioned above, it’s not difficult to see why cohabitation/marriage
in the hunter-gatherer era happened between older men and younger women: because
women’s reproductive shelf life is much shorter than men’s, the men
preferred[ii]
younger women as wives to allow birth of more children. Women, on the other
hand, preferred[iii]
older men because they remained fertile even at later ages and the time
allowed them to rise in status and resources, and thus become better
protectors-providers.
In those times, given that
physical attractiveness and child-birthing capabilities were a woman’s greatest
assets, a man’s marriage to an older woman was considered a waste of his
genetic potential. For a woman, a younger husband usually meant a feeble
protector-provider. Thus, older women and younger men mutually discounted each
other as marriage prospects.
Though circumstances in the
modern era might have changed drastically – women have far more to offer,
marriage is hardly done only for procreation, the role of men as
protectors-providers matters much less and can certainly be fulfilled by
younger ones – human emotions, endowed to us by natural selection in the
hunter-gatherer era, haven’t undergone nearly the same metamorphosis. Seen in
this light, it’s not entirely surprising that the ‘animal spirits’ sometimes
unleash themselves in ugly ways, which is what, in most cases, accounts for the
behaviour of those expressing disapproval of Chopra-Jonas marriage.
Interestingly, the animal spirits
can be unleashed even against younger female and much older male pairs, which
is another evidence of its biological roots. One only need dig up the storm of
tweets castigating Milind Soman for dating a woman nearly three decades
younger, to be sure of this. The logic behind this outrage is exactly the same:
a woman marrying a much older man, nearing the end of his reproductive life, is
wasting her genetic potential. Though Soman was seen as the predator in
this case, men usually take only half the blame for wasting the genetic
potential of much younger women because these women – now often pejoratively
called ‘trophy wives’ – have over the evolutionary past consented[iv]
to such relationships, given the huge resources at the disposal of some much
older men. In case of older female-younger male pairing, my guess is that
usually the female is considered the predator while the male is let off as the
gullible prey. I’ve tried to find an explanation for this in evolutionary
psychology, but haven’t found anything concrete. Maybe it’s a straightforward
case of men asserting their historically superior physical and political power
over women, which would make for a classic case of social patriarchy. An expert
would be able to reason out better, though.
It’s important to note that
though natural selection dictates our behaviour, it works quietly without making
humans conscious of itself. In other words, most of those who outrage
against Chopra’s marriage to Jonas, or Soman’s to Ankita, don’t precisely know
the reason for doing so, but act on an impulse. This explanation
counters the notion of an all pervasive, carefully-knit and sustained social
patriarchy, in favour of one that’s built into the environment in which these
people find themselves. This environment is such that in order to succeed –
that is, find the best mates – unconsciously practise patriarchy over
egalitarianism. That’s not at all to say social patriarchy doesn’t exist.
It does, and significantly so – the youth are deeply influenced by the actions
of the elderly and the influential in their community. For example, taking
selfies, an act unmatched in abhorrence by all the patriarchy that the world
could muster, is a purely social phenomenon which implicitly teaches people
that partaking in it enhances their chances of evolutionary success, and has
hence spread like a virus.
On the other hand, what accounts
for the behaviour of those who support Chopra-Jonas marriage? Are these
superhumans who have overcome natural selection and magically developed altruistic
qualities? The answer is an emphatic no. This happens simply because they
have managed to build for themselves an environment in which natural selection
promotes altruism and empathy as the emotions that help genes thrive. In other
words, this environment – driven by an emphasis on increasing standards of
living, which has brought about participation of women in the economy and countless
other associated benefits – promotes altruistic and cooperative folk over the
non-altruistic and vindictive ones. To succeed here, if you had to choose
between emulating JRD Tata and Arun Gawli, I would strongly suggest the former.
Indeed, altruistic emotions are more important to transmission of genes than
aggressive ones, which is why the arc of human civilization bends towards peace
and egalitarianism.
The far more interesting
question is, how was this environment – one that encourages low birth rates, in
clear contrast to the aims of natural selection – built? This is often the great evolutionary mystery to those who are
curious about evolutionary psychology, and a gloat to those who are dismissive
of it. To the disappointment of the latter, there is an explanation available:
natural selection, to drive us towards making babies, instilled us with the big
O. It is in seeking this pleasure, and not babies themselves, that we end up
making them. Using our highly advanced brains – also a gift of natural
selection – we have found ways to enjoy the big O without worrying about the
babies, thus outsmarting natural selection. Alas, being ‘evolved’ doesn’t come
without its fair share of irony.
On the opposite end of the
spectrum, those who find themselves in the clutches of patriarchy have not been
able to create this noble environment. This is not to suggest giving a clean
chit to those who troll Chopra and Jonas, because some people caught in this
environment have still been able to deploy their mental faculties to select the
right emotional response, going against the grain. In evolutionary
psychology parlance, each individual follows what’s called ‘status hierarchy’,
a natural order in which individuals unconsciously arrange themselves as per
their capacity to attract the best mates. Of course, the hierarchy is not
written in stone and keeps shifting, but to expect someone lower down to upend
it is a bit much.
In a considerable majority of cultures,
it’s highly likely that the right kind of nurture can provide the right
environment, and thus bring out the right nature. It’s important to keep
reminding ourselves of the struggles that some of the most liberal modern
societies required before they reached where they are today. This, instead of
blaming everything on the apparently incurable social patriarchy and denouncing
completely those suffering from it, should be the emphasis of aspiring changemakers.
[i] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/whats-the-average-age-difference-in-a-couple/
[ii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_disparity_in_sexual_relationships#Male_preference_for_younger_females
[iii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_disparity_in_sexual_relationships#Female_preference_for_older_males
[iv] https://bit.ly/2OnUR32
thanks for sharing
ReplyDelete