Laws of Attraction: Biological Basis or Cultural Construction?

This post is inspired by a comment made by a student in my current Cultural Anthropology course.  There was not enough time to provide sufficient feedback on this topic within the scope of the class, so it is being addressed herein.

While giving a lecture in one of my courses, a student told a story about how in his travels abroad he found that foreign men were particularly drawn to one of his companions, a blonde haired woman, and would not leave this companion alone.  He described her as not what most American men would consider attractive (as she was not thin and did not have a clear complexion), and he supposed that these foreign men were biologically attracted to this blonde woman because she was “different” from their biological norm.  His opinion was that humans are biologically attracted to others who are different from themselves.  He further cited how American men are attracted to Asian women, who are different from themselves.  And while there are some common notions that would support this idea (e.g. “opposites attract”), are we, as human beings, truly attracted to those who appear different from us?  Are we really in control of our own destinies when it comes to choosing a mate?

This idea intrigued me, and I went on a fact finding mission to thoroughly examine this student’s ideas.  I immediately sought insights from fellow anthropologists, psychologists, social scientists, scientists, and others (ranging in education levels and scholarly and real world experience), and they inundated me with literature, opinions, and scholarly evidence on the topic.  And overwhelmingly, the answer was No.  There is little to no biological evidence to support this idea.  One individual pointed out that some of the “biological” evidence is flawed because the results are not culturally universal (i.e. not found across all cultures).  My own investigation led to the same conclusion.  Furthermore, some studies failed to demonstrate how the results could ultimately be supported (e.g. a suggested article http://m.guardiannews.com/science/2010/jun/04/men-blonde-women-attractive begs the question of how can these conclusions ever be verified if the groups in question cannot, in fact, be questioned). 

So if attraction is not biological, then what?  Why can it not be cultural?

There are several studies and pieces of evidence that demonstrate the power and influence of culture on who we fall in love with.  Studies demonstrate that several cultural/social factors, such as geographical closeness, ethnicity, race, religion, age, social class, values, and personality, have more of an effect on us and strongly influence who we fall in love with.  An observation of popular American culture supports these notions.  How many popular television shows depict (real or fictional) couples where one is of one race and the other of another race?  Our families also greatly influence who we fall in love with.  We may be attracted to a “bad boy” or “bad girl” but would we really bring them home to meet our parents?  Are we actually going to settle down with that individual?

Also, we, as humans, have a long history of changing values when it comes to beauty standards (Beauty over History 1, Beauty over History 2).  From curvy to skinny and pale to tan, beauty standards have varied throughout time.  And beauty standards vary by culture, as well.  Some cultures prefer women to be bigger or curvier, while others prefer skinny or athletic (see this article that demonstrates that a low waist-to-hip ratio is not a cultural universal: Nature Article).  

But what about my student’s observation?  It was no doubt a real situation, but is it common?  Many cultures do elevate paler hair, eye, and skin tones as being more important, and these traits are further associated with power and prestige.  We elevate these same traits in our culture (based on the popularity of blonde hair dyes, blonde actresses & models, Barbie dolls, etc.).  This association in other cultures is attributed to globalization, and the appearance of individuals with these characteristics having more power, prestige, and beauty.  The proliferation of American cultural goods (e.g. pornography, popular television shows, advertisements, etc.) furthers these ideas.  As well, several individuals (ranging from scholars to non-scholars), myself included, volunteered their personal experiences that corroborate this view.  But what about my student’s counter argument regarding American men’s fascination with Asians?  An examination of popular notions about Asians demonstrates that many people believe Asians are smart, traditional, and sexually alluring.  A quick google image search of “Asian women” will demonstrate this latter point (as compared to similar searches for “white women”, “African American women”, or “Native American women”).  Where we get these ideas is a matter for another (later) blog post, but these ideas are again rooted in cultural and historical views.  

All of this ultimately demonstrates that people are not attracted to difference as so much as people associate specific meanings and ideas to particular physical characteristics-be they different or similar-and they are attracted to those meanings.  So the conclusion to the title question of this post is that culture-be it good or bad, fair or unfair-drive the “laws of attraction”.    

Dumpster Diving: The Dirty Truth Behind Archaeology (Part 1 of 3)

Bull whips.

Tomb raiding.

Shooting at Nazis.

Being shot at by Nazis.

Running from giant boulders.

Eating monkey brains.

There are many things said about archaeologists, much of which is untrue (I will neither confirm nor deny if I or any of my colleagues have eaten monkey brains or similarly interesting delicacies).  The popular media has taken great liberties in presenting the field of archaeology to the general public, and this portrayal has been beneficial but also harmful.  Countless numbers of individuals (and several archaeologists) have been inspired by these shows, enrolling in anthropology and archaeology classes and programs and ultimately pursuing archaeology careers, but others have chosen different routes in regards to their peaked interests, turning instead to purchasing looted artifacts or becoming the perpetrators of the destruction of archaeological sites and cultural heritage.  The following blog posts will specifically explore (1) what archaeology is and is not, (2) the harmful effects of looting, and (3) what you should do if you encounter a potential artifact.

(1) What Archaeology Is & Is Not

Despite popular belief, archaeology is not all about glamorous, monumental sites that are easily discovered.  In fact, archaeologists can be classified as the professional garbage collectors for past groups since ultimately what is found through excavation is the discarded refuse of ancient groups. As archaeology is the branch of archaeology that focuses on the human past, the primary goal is to understand how past peoples lived and adapted to their environments.  Archaeologists explore these avenues of research through various means, be it through studying material culture (e.g. pottery and textiles), bones (e.g. human & animal), food stuffs (e.g. plant remains, animal bones, iconography), and more.  Archaeologists utilize a variety of avenues of study in order to learn more about past groups based on the specific questions they seek to answer. 

Archaeologists use systematic methods in the pursuit of their research goals, starting with the survey of an area.  The purpose of the survey is to discover any potential archaeological sites (places of past human occupation and/or manipulation).  Surveys have evolved over the years, but traditional walking surveys and newer technologically advanced surveys are readily used depending on the situation and availability of said technology.  Archaeologists look for specific pieces of evidence (e.g. artifacts and features-nonportable elements of sites) during the survey to determine if and where exactly a site may be located.  Once a potential site has been located, archaeologists will perform a series of test excavations or a specific type of test excavation to determine if the evidence discovered during the survey was accurate, as well as to ascertain more specific information about the site. 

Once a site has been discovered and verified, archaeologists begin their excavations.  Excavations are slow, tedious processes because everything is potentially and/or can be considered evidence of past occupations.  Remember, features are the nonportable elements of sites, so they can be and often are destroyed in the excavation process and cannot be brought back to the lab for further analysis.  They are still incredibly important.  So archaeological excavations are conducted slowly.  Dirt is carefully brushed and scraped away, and artifacts and features are photographed in-situ (in place, the exact location of discovery), possibly illustrated/drawn, and collected (as applicable).  Everything is systematically recorded through detailed notes, photographs, drawings, and more.  Interpretations are made both in the field and in the lab, and these interpretations are presented at conferences and in various publications as part of the dissemination of knowledge.

Archaeology is NOT clean, the easiest or sexiest job, exciting everyday, full of amazing, earth shattering discoveries, or for everyone.  It is the exact opposite of looting when done properly given the steps that must be taken in preserving and recording information and the integrity of the site, whereas looters usually do a smash and grab job.  And they horde their finds, make no inferences of them, and furthermore, many actually fake their discoveries in order to turn greater profits.  Archaeology is not about monetary profit but intellectual profit instead.  Everyone benefits from archaeological investigation due to the knowledge about our collective human past that is gained.

Be sure to stay tuned for parts 2 & 3.  Coming soon to a computer near you!

In the time of chimpanzees, I was a monkey: Dispelling the "We're Descended From Monkeys" Myth

One of my favorite songs is Beck's Loser.  The first line of the song is: In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey.  It sounds fairly nonsensical, but given what anthropologists have learned about human evolution, the lyric is very fitting for the song.  As well, it is very pertinent to the topic I am going to discuss.  There is a popular notion that humans evolved from monkeys, but this notion is very false.  I repeat: HUMANS DID NOT EVOLVE FROM MONKEYS!  To understand where this notion comes from, one must first understand how evolutionary relationships are understood and tracked.  Scholars understand these relationships through a system known as taxonomy, a system of classification based on similarities and differences of species (Feder and Park).  You can think of taxonomy as a family tree that identifies the relationships among species, with those farther up the classification scheme being more distantly related than those closer to the bottom.

Carolus Linnaeus is considered the father of taxonomy as he is responsible for creating the first taxonomic categories (Class, Order, Genus, Species).  This original taxonomy was expanded to include Kingdom, Phylum, and Family later.  All organisms are placed within this taxonomy based on their evolutionary relationships to the remainder.  The full taxonomic classification for human beings is as follows:

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primata
(Suborder: Anthropoidea)
(Infraorder: Catarrhini: Apes-e.g. Chimpanzees and Gorillas-& Humans) 
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: Sapiens

Humans, apes, and all non-human primates share a common ancestor, yes, if we look at all of these species collectively under the order Primata (hence why we're all primates).  But this common ancestor is the equivalent of saying that you're closely related to anyone descended from your great-grand parent(s).  Not sure about you, but I usually refer to those individuals as second cousins and we never exchange gifts at family holidays (not even cards).  Hardly close family.

Within the order Primata are suborders and infraorders.  The human evolutionary lineage branches into the Anthropoidea suborder and the Catarrhini infraorder, which demonstrates a close evolutionary relationship with apes such as chimpanzees and gorillas, but NOT a direct evolution from them. Catarrhini species share several characteristics in common, such as similar number of types of teeth (e.g.  molars and premolars), closely spaced and downward facing nostrils, and sexual dimorphism (body size differences based on sex), which again demonstrates a close relationship.  

Humans (Homo sapiens) branched off from other non-human primates around 5 million years ago when the family Hominidae was formed (further distancing us, humans, from our non-human primate cousins).  Scholars still haven't figured out the exact species that started the Hominidae family (the founding father or mother so to speak), although there are several contenders (a discussion for a different blog post).  But what is certain is that we are not descended from monkeys, although we are related to them somewhere distant in our "family tree".

So based on this information if we look back at the Beck song and the line: "In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey," it may be a little more clear as to why Beck was referring to himself as a monkey in the time of chimpanzees, although many anthropologists would be loathe to call all other nonhuman primates losers.

Anthrop*Ology: Starting with the Basics

Anthropology is a very broad discipline, which allows for the distinctive, comparative, cross-cultural study and creation of unique perspectives for understanding societies and cultures around the world.  The formal definition of anthropology is "the study of human species and immediate ancestors",  as defined by Gezon and Kottak in their text, Culture.  This definition is by no means the only one available, and students and scholars of anthropology may offer different definitions or interpretations if ever asked.  For the purposes of this blog and to remain consistent with course material, definitions will come from Dr. Boston's course materials and texts.  

The discipline of anthropology began as one meant to study nonindustrialized cultures that had limited interactions with "Western" cultures, but the discipline has grown and developed over the decades to one that is considered the comparative science that extends to all societies-ancient and modern, simple and complex.  

Anthropology is a holistic discipline that covers four fields: 

• Cultural (study of human societies and cultures)
• Linguistic (study of language from an anthropological perspective)
• Biological/physical (study of human biological diversity both in the past and present, including but not limited to the study of primates, hominids, and modern populations)
• Archaeological (study of past human cultures through their material remains)

Anthropologists study humans from one or more of these various different fields.  For example, I focus my studies and research on bioarchaeology, which utilizes approaches in biological/physical anthropology as well as archaeology.  I chose this approach as I believe it allows more flexibility and a great understanding in the study of humans in the past, particularly from biological and cultural perspectives.  

Anthropology is a rich discipline that allows for the holistic study of humans, societies, and cultures.  The applications of anthropological perspectives and methods are numerous and invaluable not just to anthropologists but anyone working with humans.  In other words, anyone and everyone can learn something from studying and using anthropology  in their daily lives, and many already are.  It is my hope that as you read these posts you will not only learn more about anthropology but gain a better understanding of the world around you and the utility of anthropology in your daily lives-professional or personal.