This post is a bit different then the others as I would like to make some social commentary related to metaphysics. ( For all of the two people who may read this blog, do not worry; this is likely the only post dedicated to such commentary).
Sam Harris, a best-selling scientist and one of the "four horsemen" of the New Atheist movement, has gotten into hot water over many issues, most recently his take on Islam. This post, however, concerns his take on why so few women are, in his own words, "active atheists", that is people who read atheist books, go to atheists conferences, or "rally around atheism as a political identity". His answer ,essentially, was that the New Atheist movement (which includes writings by Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins) has been perceived as aggressive and uncompromising; such a tone is not as attractive to women as it is to men, so the genders are disproportionately represented.
Sam Harris made the initial controversial remarks (he later expounded on them in a blog post) in response to a journalist who asked about the disparity and the fact that it has raised questions about sexism within the atheist community. I think that pursuing such an explanation for the disparity is wrong-headed and not getting at the truth. One reason I believe this is that the atheists are not the only group in the "God debates" that contain a gender disparity. In a Q&A by William Lane Craig, he makes the observation that Christian apologetics (the intellectual defense of the faith) seems to have much more interest for men than for women. He says the observation of this disparity is based on "an enormous amount of experience in speaking on university campuses, at apologetics conferences, and in classroom teaching" (WLC 2013). His tentative explanation of this disparity is that women tend to be more interested in the "relational" while men tend to be more interested in the "rational". Not surprisingly, Craig, like Harris, received some backlash.
Nevertheless, neither Harris nor Craig have pointed to sexism or discrimination in their community and the fact that this disparity exists in both communities is, to my mind, evidence against this "prejudice" hypothesis.
Moreover, the disparity in these two communities echoes the lack of women in an other field: academic philosophy (especially metaphysics). According to Philosophers Magazine, only 18% of full-time academic philosophers in leading universities in the U.K. are women, and one cited report suggests a similar percentage in the United States. Moreover, in the same piece, one professional female meta-physician is quoted saying "I've never did a formal study, but my impression just from being around is that there are more women who do ethics and history, and definitely fewer doing philosophy of mind, language, metaphysics, or logic".Interestingly enough, the Philosopher's Magazine piece quoted academics giving explanations remarkably similar to both Craig's and Harris'. According to the article, academic philosophy seems to be steeped in an aggressive, adversarial culture; in one department one member of the staff took records of wins and losses- a win being seminar where the members of the department defeated a visiting speaker. Moreover, in line with Craig's explanation, one psychologist said that men's minds tend to be "systematizing" while female minds tend to be "empathizing".
A convergence of evidence seems to suggest that women are generally less interested in philosophy, particularly metaphysics, than men (the topic of God being one of the three main topics of metaphysics). The point that I'd like to press, however, is that it is wrong-headed to seek explanations that make "prejudice" or "discrimination" the predominant factor in explaining the disparities found in these groups. How plausible is it that atheists, Christians, and professional philosophers are systematically discriminatory? Isn't it more plausible that there is something in the nature of these philosophical activities that, generally, seems less attractive to women than it does to men? Why exactly it is unattractive to women, I think, is speculative and there are more plausible explanations than others. However, as Thomas Sowell argued forcefully in his book "Intellectuals and Race", it is wrong-headed to view disparities within institutions, groups, or activities as constituting prima facie evidence of discrimination. At the very least, other explanations should be rigorously considered.
So, Harris and Dr. Craig may have been a bit politically incorrect and probably should have chosen a better choice of words. But they shouldn't be shut down; They have recognized an unfortunate reality and are seeking the truth in trying to explain it. For that they should be commended, not condemned.
EDIT: I realized, by reading the original post, that I've not made it clear enough how unsatisfactory I find both Dr. Craig's and Harris' explanations. Even though I believe they are on the right track in terms of offering an explanation that is not a result of prejudice or discrimination, I think these explanations must be made more precise and nuanced to be accurate.
In the case of Harris, I don't think it's enough to say that women are underrepresented among active atheists because the activity is too "aggressive". After all, as far as I know, women are perfectly well represented in political activism, which can be very uncompromising, vitriolic, and aggressive, especially when concerning sensitive issues such as abortion. Harris should have mentioned the fact that according to a large body of surveys, women tend to be more religious then men, as according to one survey 70% of self-identified atheists in the United Sates are men. That being said, the article in Philosopher's Magazine, made me doubt my initial skepticism of the Harris explanation since, as noted, the adversarial nature of academic philosophy was entertained as an explanation for the under-representation in professional philosophy. However, I still think more nuance needs to be invoked in this kind of explanation. Perhaps, women are generally more turned off by aggression concerning the specific issue of God or the spiritual. Even among atheists, there may be more sympathy for spiritual views among females than for males. This may be speculative, but my point is I don't think Harris' explanation is sufficient by itself.
In the case of Craig's explanation, more nuance should be invoked since taking Craig's explanation on the face of it implies that women are irrational beings, which is understandably offensive. I would say that while women are generally more attracted to the "relational" than men, women are also generally attracted to different kinds of rational activities. For instance, women tend to have better verbal skills, such as learning a new language, and tend to be better at grammar. Thus, Craig can say that apologetics isn't the kind of rational activity that women tend to be attracted to.
Thus,though Craig and Harris' explanations likely contain some truth, by themselves are insufficient and require more work to be accurate,
LINKS:
http://philosophypress.co.uk/?p=615
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/im-not-the-sexist-pig-youre-looking-for
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-feminization-of-christianity
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-secular-life/201409/why-are-women-more-religious-men
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/anthropology/v1007/jakabovics/mf2.html
No comments:
Post a Comment