Geodakyan’s Evolutionary Theory of Sex
Geodakyan’s evolutionary theory of sex – a theory that explains sexual dimorphism, the quantitative ratio of the sexes, psychological and social differences between the sexes, and related phenomena. The theory was proposed in 1965 by Vigen Geodakyan, Doctor of Biological Sciences and geneticist.
According to V. Geodakyan, the transition of human beings from predominantly biological to predominantly social evolution sharply accelerated the pace of development. Having acquired an unprecedented ability to transform the environment, however, human beings are also compelled to change themselves. Thus, a feedback system emerges between humans and the environment, accelerating evolution. In the author’s view, the application of the evolutionary theory of sex should be productive in the comprehensive study of human beings, especially in addressing social problems (Geodakyan, 1994).
Belonging to the same species, Homo sapiens, determines the unity of the male and the female within the biological world. However, the existence of reproductive anatomical and physiological differences between men and women gives biodeterminist theorists grounds to argue that each sex has its own bioprogramme, functions as the bearer of a specific genetic code, and therefore has its own biological role, which in turn determines a number of social characteristics.
Change and preservation are the two main opposing parameters of the idea of evolution. Both the environment and human beings evolve. Yet the environment is always larger than individual biological systems. For this reason, changes in the surrounding world determine and dictate human development. If destructive information comes from the environment, such as epidemics, cold, heat, or predators, the system must maintain an informational distance from the environment in order to preserve its own stability and resilience. At the same time, the surrounding world is also a source of useful information that orients human beings and indicates how they must change in order to survive and satisfy their needs. In this case, the system must remain in close contact with the environment.
According to V. Geodakyan’s evolutionary theory of sex, the division into male and female sex – that is, into conservative and operative components of the human biological system – is a solution to the conflict between simultaneous change and the preservation of necessary information. The scholar notes that if two flows of information are distinguished – the generative flow, which transmits genetic information from generation to generation, from the past into the future, and the ecological flow, which transmits information from the environment, from the present into the future – it becomes clear that the two sexes participate in these flows differently.
In the evolution of sex, at different stages and levels of organization, a series of mechanisms emerged that consistently ensured a closer connection of the female sex with the generative, conservative flow, and of the male sex with the ecological, operative flow. Thus, compared with the female sex, the male sex is characterized by a higher mutation rate, lower additivity in the inheritance of parental traits, a narrower norm of reaction, higher aggressiveness and curiosity, a more active exploratory tendency, risk-taking behavior, and other qualities that “bring it closer to the environment.” All these characteristics purposefully place the male sex on the front line of evolution and ensure its predominant acquisition of ecological information.
In addition, long periods of pregnancy, higher mortality during childbirth, breastfeeding, and care for offspring among women in effect increase the effective concentration of male individuals in society, turning the male sex into an “excess,” and therefore “cheap” and “experimental,” sex, while the female sex becomes scarce and more valuable.
As a result, the law of natural selection acquires different emphases. It acts primarily through representatives of the male sex, since the male sex is more risk-active, “excessive,” and “cheap.” The male population is thus reduced; however, a tendency toward polygamy allows men to reproduce subsequent generations fully and to transmit to them the necessary genetic information that reflects the state of the environment at a given moment. Consequently, the genetic information transmitted through the female line has a representative character, since it is based on the conservative component of the evolutionary process, whereas the genetic information transmitted through the male line has a selective character, since it is based to a greater extent on the law of natural selection.
Biodeterminist theorists explain the emergence of psychological differences between men and women in a similar way. A broader, more adaptive, and more plastic norm of reaction to environmental changes allows women to leave zones of discomfort through conformity, learning, re-education, and adaptation. For men, a narrower norm of reaction to environmental change makes this path impossible. Only resourcefulness, ingenuity, risk-taking, and decisiveness can ensure their survival in uncomfortable conditions. In other words, the woman adapts to the situation to a greater extent, while the man overcomes it by finding a solution: discomfort stimulates development.
This is why, according to this theory, men are more successful in solving new and unconventional tasks that require active search, while women improve and refine these solutions. When it comes to mastering new types of activity, language, or writing, two phases may be distinguished: first, search and mastery; second, consolidation and improvement. According to the theory, the first phase is more characteristic of men, and the second of women.
Innovation in any sphere, as a result of biological and social evolution, is attributed to men. The male half of humanity is said to have been the first to master all professions and sports. Even knitting, in which women’s dominance is now unquestionable, was invented by men in thirteenth-century Italy. Men also occupy the avant-garde position in susceptibility to certain diseases and to most social vices. The male sex is more often affected by “new” diseases, or so-called diseases of the age, civilization, and urbanization, such as atherosclerosis, cancer, schizophrenia, AIDS, as well as by social vices such as alcoholism, smoking, drug addiction, gambling, crime, and so on.
Thus, according to Geodakyan’s theory, sexual dimorphism is provoked precisely by the dual character of evolution: simultaneous change and the preservation of information necessary for development.
In an aggressive natural or social environment, the process of the unification of the sexes does not occur, since in any extreme conditions – earthquakes, famine, wars, diseases, migrations, repressive traditions and customs – differences between the sexes become more visible. Men become more masculine, and women more feminine. In this case, each sex realizes its own genetic programme within the unified process of evolution: the conservative programme, associated with women, and the operative programme, associated with men. The mission of men is to receive information from the environment, test it on subsequent generations, and pay for it with their own health and life (Geodakyan, 1990).
In a stable environment, where there is no need for constant radical change, conservative tendencies become dominant. In this case, society’s need for the male sex is reduced, and sexual dimorphism is therefore expressed to a lesser degree. Physical strength, endurance, activity, risk-taking behavior, and curiosity, which are so necessary under uncomfortable conditions, lose their relevance and significance in a stable natural and social environment. It is on this basis, according to biodeterminist theories, that the phenomenon of the unification of the sexes emerges.
According to biodeterminist theorists, the male sex functions as a buffer or protective zone around the female core. However, if there is no threat from the environment, the need for protection disappears. In such a case, from the standpoint of biodeterminism, the male sex has no specific benefit for humanity as a biological species. From this perspective, the process of the unification of the sexes is nothing other than the simultaneous feminization of men, who in comfortable conditions are deprived of an active evolutionary position, and the masculinization of women, who gradually study and master the new spheres of life activity previously opened by men (Shevchenko, 2011).
References:
Geodakyan, V. A. (1990). Evolyutsionnaia teoriia pola [The evolutionary theory of sex]. Priroda, 8, 60–69. [in Russian].
Geodakyan, V. A. (1994, June 1–4). Muzhchina i zhenshchina: Evolyutsionno-biologicheskoe prednaznachenie [Man and woman: Evolutionary-biological purpose]. In International conference: Woman and freedom. Paths of choice in a world of traditions and change (pp. 8–17). Moscow. [in Russian].
Shevchenko, Z. V. (2011, May 26–27). Problema unifikatsii statei: Biolohichna ta sotsialna skladova protsesu [The problem of the unification of the sexes: The biological and social component of the process]. In Materialy I Vseukrainskoi naukovo-praktychnoi konferentsii [Proceedings of the First All-Ukrainian Scientific and Practical Conference] (pp. 93–101). Ostroh: National University of Ostroh Academy Press. [in Ukrainian].
Leave a Reply