1. On what grounds have feminists critiqued Darwin’s theory of evolution? What kind of an approach to critique does Grosz suggest instead?
Feminists have traditionally resisted any recourse to the question of nature. This is because it is regarded primarily as a kind of obstacle against which we need to struggle. Grosz explains that while feminists may have had good reason to object the methods of the study of biology, which have inherently had paternalistic, patriarchal and racist undertones, since we are our biology, it is necessary to understand it. Without being able to give an account of that biology and its interconnected nature with our social, cultural and political life, we are not fully able to place feminist theories in any larger landscape. Furthermore, Grosz mentions some feminist scholars that have made tentative approaches to Darwin’s writing but have not fully allowed feminist theories to be transformed by Darwinism. Janet Sayers, for example, has been noted as significant in her analysis of Darwin’s theory of evolution as a model of open-ended becoming, which could be useful to feminists looking at social and political implications. However, she is vague and ends up leaving these implications unanalysed. To counteract this, Grosz argues that feminists need to put their own theories at risk by confronting them with Darwinian concepts and frameworks in order to improve and strengthen their power.
2. Describe the interrelated workings of the three principles of evolution that Grosz explicates from Darwin. What is the role of sexual or artificial selection in relation to, and as part of, natural selection? Does sexual selection mean that ‘culture’ is already part of nature?
Grosz explicates the concept of natural selection from Darwin, making sure to define it as a principle of preservation of the fittest only in the most appropriate existences in given and changing circumstances or situations, rather than the final and definite “winners” of the evolutionary struggle. From this, she adds the variations of artificial and sexual selection in order to fully comprehend the process. Grosz defines artificial selection as another version of the same principle; only as a selective breeding of life forms with the introduction of human-led selection criteria. As an offshoot of natural selection, she introduces sexual selection, which she argues has an evolutionary advantage over lifeforms that are hermaphrodite due to the increased probability of variation. Despite this, its role is complicated as while aesthetics such as bright feathers on a bird can improve sexual selection and have evolved for this purpose, they have a negative effect on the overall chance for the birds survival as they made the animal more vulnerable to predators. Sexual selection, therefore, is not straightforward, and it can be said that a degree of ‘culture’ exists in nature surrounding personal taste and what is viewed as ‘attractive’ for the species.
6. How does Darwin explain the descent of races and what does this explanation imply for our understanding of races as biological and/or socially constructed categories?
According to Grosz, Darwin explains the descent of races as linked very closely to the process of sexual selection. Personal taste or preferences of slight individual variations such as eye colour, that could not yet be defined as belonging to a single ‘race’ are said to have caused a seemingly mindless and automatic process of evolution into different groups. This inherently contradicts natural selection, which argues a more regular and predictable approach to evolution over time. This explanation of randomness based on personal preference for appearance implies that our understanding of races is, for the most part, making up for our confusion to why we see difference in the human species. Therefore, according to Grosz, we have constructed social categories based on what we believe are ‘biological’ differences to make sense for the lack of sense in the process of sexual selection.