The Structure of Explanations and Counter-Explanations of Homosexuality

Fabrizzio Mc Manus

Laboratory of Social Studies of Science, Faculty of Sciences, UNAM, Mexico City, Mexico.

DOI: 10.4236/ojpp.2012.24035                

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to revisit an ongoing controversy within the so called “Science Wars”; more specifically, I will address a particular topic within the “human nature” debate: the ontological and epistemological status of homosexuality. I claim that, in this particular chapter of the “Science Wars”, we are continually left in an explanatory impasse even when more data are collected, more rigorous experimental techniques are developed, more subtle arguments are offered and more pluralistic narratives are told. My diagnosis of the source of this impasse leads me to the conclusion that here we are dealing with a structural problem that cannot be solved with an elaboration of new models and theories that maintain an on- tology and an epistemology that are no longer suited as an explanans of human nature in general, and homosexuality in particular. Nevertheless, my analysis of the structural features of the biological explanations and the constructivist counter-explanations also leads me to the belief that, although biologists do not fully understand the intricacies of subjects, neither constructivists understand the facticity of evolution and the challenge that it implies. If so, then the subject might be the right target of explanation. And, if so, constructivists might be right about the uniqueness of human homosexuality as a modern, western phenomenon explainable in terms of subjectivities and identities that mold and are molded by desires and institutions. But, if they are, evolution is not expendable because now we are facing a most intriguing question: How is that we humans became subjects?

Keywords

Homosexuality; Human Nature; Philosophy of the Subject

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Bagemihl, B. (1999). Biological exuberance: Animal homosexuality and natural diversity. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
[2]	Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of “sex”. New York, NY: Routledge.
[3]	Byne, W. (1994). The biological evidence challenged. Scientific American, 270, 50-55. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0594-50
[4]	Craver, C. (2007). Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. London: Oxford University press.
[5]	Daston, L., & Galison, P. (2010). Objectivity. Brooklyn, NY: Zone Books.
[6]	Dean, T., & Lane, C. (2001). Homosexuality and psychoanalysis. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
[7]	DeLamater, J., & Shibley, H. J. (1998). Essentialism vs social constructionism in the study of human sexuality. The journal of Sex Research, 35, 10-18. doi:10.1080/00224499809551913
[8]	Derrida, J. (2008). The animal that therefore I am. New York, NY: Fordham University Press.
[9]	Dickinson, N., Paul, C., & Herbison, P. (2003). Same-sex attraction in a birth cohort: Prevalence and persistance in early adulthood. Social Science & Medicine, 56, 1607-1615. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00161-2
[10]	Esteban, J. M., & Martínez, S. (Eds.) (2008). Normas y Prácticas en la Ciencia. Mexico City: UNAM-IIF’s.
[11]	Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. New York, NY: Basic Books.
[12]	Ferla, L. (2004). Gregorio Mara?ón y la apropiación de la homosexualidad por la medicina legal brasile?a. Frenia, 4, 53-76.
[13]	Foucault, M. (1977). Historia de la Sexualidad. Mexico City: Siglo XXI Editores.
[14]	Griffiths, P. E., & Gray, R. D. (1994). Developmental systems and evolutionary explanation. Journal of Philosophy, 91, 277-304. doi:10.2307/2940982
[15]	Griffiths, P. (2011). Our plastic nature. In S. B. Gissis, & E. Jablonka (Eds.), Transformations of lamarckism: From subtle fluids to molecular biology (pp. 319-330). London: The MIT Press.
[16]	Habermas, J. (1999[1981]). Teoría de la Acción comunicativa. Racionalidad de la acción y racionalización social. Bogotá: Grupo Santillana.
[17]	Hacking, I. (2001). Degeneracy, criminal behavior, and looping. In D. Wasserman, & R. Wachbroit (Eds.), Genetics and Criminal Behavior (pp. 141-168). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139173162.006
[18]	Hamer, D., Hu, S. Magnuson, V., Hu, N., & Pattatucci, A. (1993). A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation. Science, 261, 321-327. doi:10.1126/science.8332896
[19]	Haraway, D. (1989). Primate visions: Gender, race, and nature in the world of modern science. New York, NY: Routledge, Chapman and Hall, Inc.
[20]	Hebb, D. O. (1953). Heredity and environment in mammalian behaviour. The British Journal of Animal Behaviour, 1, 43-47. doi:10.1016/S0950-5601(53)80053-5
[21]	Heidegger, M. (1971[1927]). El Ser y El Tiempo. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
[22]	Hu, S., Pattatucci, A. M. L., Patterson, C., Li, L., Fulker, D., Cherny, S., Kruglyak, L., & Hamer, D. (1995). Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females. Nature Genetics, 11, 248-256. doi:10.1038/ng1195-248
[23]	Hull, D. (1965). The effect of essentialism on Taxonomy: Two thousand years of Stasis I. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 15, 314-326. doi:10.1093/bjps/XV.60.314
[24]	Hutchinson, G. E. (1959). A speculative consideration of certain forms of sexual selection in Man. American Naturalist, 93, 81-93. doi:10.1086/282059
[25]	King Dávalos, P. (2008). De las normas implícitas en las prácticas lingüísticas a las normas implícitas en prácticas epistémicas. In Esteban & Martínez (Eds.), Normas y Prácticas en la Ciencia (pp. 61-80). Mexico City: UNAM.
[26]	Kirby, J. (2003). A new group-selection model for the evolution of homosexuality. Biology and Philosophy, 18, 683-694. doi:10.1023/A:1026321628276
[27]	Kuhn, T. S. (1977). Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice. In T. S. Kuhn (Ed.), The Essential Tension (pp.320-339). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[28]	Latour, B. (1992). Ciencia en Acción. Cómo seguir a los científicos e ingenieros a través de la sociedad. Barcelona: Editorial Labor.
[29]	Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[30]	LeVay, S. (1991). A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men. Science, 253, 1034-1037. doi:10.1126/science.1887219
[31]	LeVay, S., & Hammer, D. (1994). Evidence for a biological influence in Male homosexuality. Scientific American, 270, 44-49. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0594-44
[32]	Longino, E. H. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
[33]	Mara?on, G. (1960). Ensayos sobre la vida sexual. Madrid: EspasaCalpe.
[34]	Marks, J. (2012). Evolutionary ideologies. In A. Poiani (Ed.), Pragmatic Evolution: The Applications of Evolutionary Theory (pp. 297- 312). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[35]	Martínez, M., & Moya, A. (2011). Natural selection and multilevel causation. Philosophy & Theory in Biology, 3, e212.
[36]	Mayr, E. (1993). Proximate and ultimate causations. Biology and Philosophy, 8, 93-94. doi:10.1007/BF00868508
[37]	Mc Manus, F. (2009). Rational disagreements in phylogenetics. Acta Biotheoretica, 57, 99-127. doi:10.1007/s10441-009-9072-2
[38]	Mc Manus, F. (2010). La Homosexualidad a la luz de la Filosofía de la Ciencia: Mecanismos Biológicos, Subjetividad y Poder. PhD Thesis, Mexico City: UNAM.
[39]	Mc Manus, F. (in Press). Las Bases neuroendocrinas de la Homosexualidad y la atomización mecanística del cuerpo.
[40]	Millikan, R. G. (1984). Language, thought, and other biological categories: New foundations for realism. London: The MIT Press.
[41]	Muscarella, F., Fink, B., Grammer, K., & Krik-Smith, M. (2001). Homosexual orientation in males: Evolutionary and ethological aspects. Neuroendocrinology Letters, 22, 393-400.
[42]	Oyama, S., Griffiths, P., & Gray, R. (2001). Cycles of contingency: Developmental systems and evolution. London: The MIT Press.
[43]	Pillard, R. (1997). The search for a genetic Influence on Sexual orientation. In V. A. Rosario (Ed.), Science and Homosexualities (pp. 226- 241). New York: Routledge.
[44]	Poiani, A. (2010). Animal homosexuality: A biosocial perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[45]	Prieur, A. (2008). La casa de la mema: Travestis, locas y machos. Mexico City: PUEG-UNAM.
[46]	Rahman, Q., & Wilson, G. (2003). Born gay? The psychobiology of human sexual orientation (Review). Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 1337-1382. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00140-X
[47]	Rendall, D., & Di Fiore, A. (2007). Homoplasy, homology, and the perceived special status of behavior in evolution. Journal of Human Evolution, 52, 504-521. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2006.11.014
[48]	Rieppel, O. (2005). Modules, kinds, and homology. Journal of Experimental Zoology, 304B, 18-27. doi:10.1002/jez.b.21025
[49]	Roof, J. (1992). Hypothalamic criticism: Gay Males studies and male feminist criticism. American Literary History, 4, 355-364. doi:10.1093/alh/4.2.355
[50]	Rosario, V. A. (1997). Homosexual bio-histories: Genetic nostalgias and the quest for paternity. In V. A. Rosario (Ed.), Science and Homosexualities (pp. 89-107). New York: Routledge.
[51]	Roughgarden, J. (2004). Evolution’s rainbow: Diversity, gender, and sexuality in nature and people. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
[52]	Roughgarden, J. (2009). The genial gene: Deconstructing Darwinian selfishness, cooperation and the evolution of Sex. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
[53]	Rouse, J. (1994). Engaging science: How to understand its practices philosophically. New York, NY: Cornell University Press.
[54]	Rouse, J. (2002). How scientific practices matter: Reclaiming philosophical naturalism. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
[55]	Savic, I., Berglund, H., & Lindstr?m, P. (2005). Brain response to putative pheromones in homosexual men. PNAS, 102, 7356-7361.
[56]	Savic, I., Berglund, H., & Lindstr?m, P. (2008). PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects. PNAS, 105, 10273-10274. doi:10.1073/pnas.0407998102
[57]	Schmitt, F. (Ed.) (1994). Socializing epistemology: The social dimensions of knowledge. New York, NY: Roman and Littlefield.
[58]	Sober, E., & Wilson, D. S. (1998). Unto others: The evolution of psychology and unselfish behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[59]	Sterelny, K. (2001). The evolution of agency and other essays (Cambridge Studies in Philosophy of Biology). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
[60]	Striedter, G. F. (2004). Principles of brain evolution. Sunderland, MA: Sinauers Associates, Inc.
[61]	Sullivan, N. (2003). A critical introduction to Queer Theory. New York, NY: New York University Press.
[62]	Swaab, D., Chung, W., Kruijver, F., Hofman, M., & Ishunina, T. (2001). Structural and fuctional sex differences in the human hypothalamus. Hormones and Behavior, 40, 93-98. doi:10.1006/hbeh.2001.1682
[63]	Vidal, F. (2006). The sciences of the soul: The early modern origins of psychology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
[64]	Weiss, G. (1999). Body images: Embodiment as intercorporeality. London, UK: Routledge.
[65]	Wilson, D. S. (2005). Evolutionary social constructivism. In J. Gotts- chall, & D. S. Wilson (Eds.), The Literary Animal: Evolution and the Nature of Narrative (Rethinking Theory) (pp. 20-37). New York: Northwestern University Press.
[66]	Winther, R. (2006). On the dangers of making scientific models onto- logically independent: Taking Richard Levins’ warnings seriously. Biology and Philosophy, 21, 703-724. doi:10.1007/s10539-006-9053-7
[67]	Winther, R. (2009). Character analysis in cladistics: Abstraction, reification, and the search for objectivity. Acta Biotheoretica, 57, 129- 162. doi:10.1007/s10441-008-9064-7
[68]	Yamamoto, D., Ito, H., & Fujitani, K. (1996). Genetic dissection of sexual orientation: Behavioral, cellular, and molecular approaches in Drosophila melanogaster. Neuroscience research, 26, 95-107. doi:10.1016/S0168-0102(96)01087-5