Summry

Leaving the complex and debatable position of the psychoanalysis outside, we would obtain the soundest knowledge about male desires from science. But what a pity that male desire and behaviour is an issue rather neglected by the scientific world. The vacuum created in this area due to the lack of scientific studies is filled by activities of knowledge like ideology, literature and art, religion and mythology etc..

With the effect of the efforts of women to emancipate and claim for equal rights with men in the social-public area until recently “social” aspects of sexual identity, i.e. the “social sex” (gender) has gained a priority in both the formation of the popular consciousness and the social science discourses. While social sciences were investigating the “social sex” (gender), medicine and biological sciences under the influence of the equality atmosphere defended the view of keeping the sexual differences in a rear plan. During the equality paradigm period, investigators from various science branches who considered consciousness and social behavior to be derived from biology weren’t inactive too, anyway. There was no delay in the reflection of today’s so called postmodern view with its predominating “difference” which has replaced the “equality” concept of the modern period to science and medicine. Probably with the help of the atmosphere supplied by the postmodern view which considered difference more important than equality, so called the “biologism” concept began to raise its voice.

*Associate Professor, MD, Ankara Research and Educational Hospital, Chief of the 1st Psychiatry Clinic

**This paper was be presented on the “Philosophy and Sex” session in XXI. World Congress of Philosophy

The Reflections of Postmodern Difference Concept on Science From Equality to Difference

Leaving the complex and debatable position of the psychanalysis outside, we would obtain the soundest knowledge about male desires from science. But what a pity that male desire and behaviour is an issue rather neglected by the scientific world. The vacuum created in this area due to the lack of scientific studies is filled by activities of knowledge like ideology, literature and art, religion and mythology etc..

Our sexual identity has two components: the “born-with (biological) sex” and the “social sex (gender)”. With the effect of the efforts of women to emancipate and claim for equal rights with men in the social-public area the until recently “social aspect of sexual identity, i.e. the “social sex”(gender) has gained a priority in both the formation of the popular consciousness and the social science discourses. As a result of this emancipation and freedom movement of women which only seems to be a struggle for legal rights the (biological) sex was pushed backwards both in social life and in science, and the body and mind were only treated as simple biological substrates of gender.

While social sciences were investigating the “gender”, medicine and biological sciences under the influence of the equality atmosphere defended the view of keeping the sexual differences in a rear plan. During the equality paradigm period, investigators from various science branches who considered consciousness and social behavior to be derived from biology weren’t inactive too, anyway. There was no delay in the reflection of today’s so called postmodern view with its predominating “difference” which has replaced the “equality” concept of the modern period to science and medicine. Probably with the help of the atmosphere supplied by the postmodern view which considered difference more important than equality, so called the “biologism” concept began to raise its voice.

The first radical studies came along with the studies which showed that the right and the left brain hemispheres are responsible for different functions of human behaviour: in this way, the “single dominant hemisphere” theory which was a paradigm in brain research for years began to retreat. Scientific studies which relate the right hemisphere to female behaviour and the left hemisphere to male behaviour, symbolized the onset of a new paradigmatic period in the brain researches. This new paradigm became hastily dominant augmenting its power by the knowledge obtained until that time from other science branches that the difference in male and female behaviour is biological in origin.

After the studies concerning the functions of the hemispheres had proved that male and female brains are functionally and even structurally different and that this difference comes from the exposure of the brain to sex hormones the “(biological) sex” began to be at least as important as the “gender”. Furthermore, our new knowledge concerning the sex-related difference in the brain functions and structure included also the thesis that we can build a reliable basis for our knowledge concerning the “gender”. In this way the knowledge generated on behalf of equality could suddenly function as a proof for difference. The comprehension of the sex-related difference in the brain functions and structure had enough power to change our knowledge about how the “gender” is formed by the family and the society and to supply our knowledge with a biological base (1-4).

Our today’s scientific view tells us that male and female brains are anatomically and functionally totally different. This scientific concept is also reflected onto the social area; attributes brand-new contents to male and female desires; makes very important contributions to the new male-female relations during their shaping process. The scientific knowledge alone couldn’t have been transferred to social life and couldn’t become so important for our lifes if it had remained within its sound and rigid science producing limits. There should have been some mediators transferring this scientific knowledge to popular conscience. These mediators both interpreted this scientific knowledge for the benefits of the society and prepared the society for a major change. They detached the knowledge generated by science in a certain context and valid for just a limited sampling from its context and universalized; the content of female and male desire (having been mysterious during the whole history of mankind (!)) was deciphered by means of science and said that this requires the development of new and obviously realistic male-female relations. Thanks to these mediators the concept that males and females are basically so different as if they come from different planets rapidly settles into popular science. Thus, if they have problems between them and want to solve them, they have fýrst to understand and admit this difference.

Within the aspects of this new paradigm the male and female desire acquires new contents; from this point of view answers are sought about what men and women desire. Thus, the man desire which was up to now pushed backwards in the scientific literature due to the struggle of the women, now begins to become an agenda. It seems that the today’s valid answer to what men desire will appear from the analysis of the words of those who participate in the formation of the popular conscience on this issue.

Attempts are made to explain the affective and behavioural differences between male and female sexes by using the notion about the coordination between the two brain hemispheres (1). It is now accepted with certainty that women are more successful in verbal jobs and that they are more capable of verbalizing their feelings when compared to men. A universal debate also exists on the issue that women are better communicators: in the poligamic society of ancient times while men were wandering around looking after women to mate and fighting with each other, women were around the house caring for their family; supporting the young babies and teaching them to survive. Those are issues requiring high communication skills .

There also a difference between men and women’s skills of listening and differentiating words from (general) noise. While men are doing it with only their right ears, both ears of a woman are able to perform the same function synchronously.

It was shown in many studies that men can use maps with ease. Men can effectively perform spacial rotation in their brains. While women use important points to locate places men make use of length and directions.

Recently, among all those differences between men and women the difference in emotional relations is the one that attracts most attention. While women seek promising and definite emotional relations, men avoid them; women share their feelings with their friends whereas men think of this as an ill-mannered announcement. Is this just a perception issue? And if so – where does this perception come from?

The fact that women have to communicate with the children while raising, get ahead their advantages in verbal functions. Men like to build a hierarchy everywhere - from their military unit to the office they work in. Men regard war as a means to establish a communication with others or as the first step in the way to a friendship. Women use their emotional and verbal abilities as efficient weapons and avoid games requiring (physical) force (1, 5-7).

The scientific efforts related to the features of men’s desire have increased due to the recent tendency of the scientific world and medicine to focus on “biologism” and on “the difference between sexes”. This change in the scientific world and medicine is probably due to the transition from the “equality” concept of modern times to the postmodern “difference”-based era. The new paradigm focusing on biologism and difference presents many proofs showing that men and women’s brains are structurally and functionally different; and the differentiation of men and women’s behaviour is said to be due to these differences. The scientific statements concerning the content of man’s desire are limited to the findings of the scientific world related to man’s behaviour.

But science also takes important roles in to legitimize and the formation of the ideologies of the social experiences in today’s world. The new scientific concept stating that desire content of sexes differentiates according to their brain structures is transferred via some mediators to popular conscience and contributes to its re-formation. The psychotherapy, counseling and guidance services, and the books written by the guidance and counseling guruhs and read all over the world are among the formators who undertook the most basic roles in the new shaping of popular conscience and accordingly, of male-female relations. The functions of the psychotherapeutic, guidance and counseling services in the formation of popular conscience is relatively difficult to be expressed but those functions are obviously expressed in the books of the guidance and counseling guruhs.

References

1. Blum D. Sex on the Brain. Penguin Books: Harmondsworth, Middlesex; 1997.

2. Kosslyn Sm, Gazzaniga MS, Galaburda AM, Rabin C. Hemispheric specialization. In: Zigmund MJ, Bloom FE, Landis SC, Ronerts JL, Squire LR, editors. Fundamental Neuroscience. San Diego: Academic Press, 1999: 1521-1542.

3. Murphy D.G., DeCarli C., McIntosh A.R., and et al. Sex differences in human brain morphometry and metobolism: an in vivo quantitative magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography study on the effect of aging. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1996; 53 (7): 585-594.

4. Passe T.J., Rajagopalan P., Tupler L.A., and et al. Age and sex effects on brain morphology. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 1997; 21 (8): 1231-1237.

5. Benbow CP., Benbow RM. Biological correlates of high mathematical reasoning ability. Prog Brain Res1984; 61: 468-490.

6. Elster A.D., Dispersio D.A. and Moody D.M. Sexual dimorphism of the human corpus callosum studied by magnetic resonance imaging: Fact, fallcy and statistical confidence. Brain Dev 1990; 12: 321-325.

7. Shaywitz BA., Shaywitz SE., Pugh KR., and et al. Sex differences in the functional organization of the brain for language. Nature 1995; 373: 607-609.