Heather Pringle,
Intersections (226-234)
Trevor Barry
English 112
Hilary Turner
17 October 2001
1
In her journalistic, documentary-styled essay, Heather Pringle interviews a series of anthropologists, psychologists, biologists and social scientists about their researches in the field of human courtship and procreation. Among the field’s authorities she found the general consensus to be that natural selection, not culture, shapes human mating patterns. Her sources claim that modern humans do not differ greatly from other mammals or our prehistoric ancestors with respect to reproductive practices. Throughout her investigations however, she did not speak to any engaged, married, or divorced couples about love.
Pringle’s essay starts off with a scene in a metropolitan pickup bar, where her interviewee sits and observes the wistful flirting of eager young singles. The essay goes on to identify these human “courting” processes to be analogous with the simpler mating rituals of the animal world. The theories presented to Pringle are drawn from numerous researches, surveys, and historical accounts. They suggest that the human animal has a very distinct, genetically determined natural instinct. One that conforms to Darwinian thought of evolution, and the survival of the fittest. Love however, is an entirely different condition, unexplained by any of these theories.
Some of the surveys conducted showed that young men, much more than young women, would happily consent to casual sex with a stranger. Moreover, other studies found that like animals, male humans have an affinity for younger, prettier, more fertile women; while female humans were more concerned with maturity, success, and confidence. Indeed, these findings are undeniable phenomena of the human experience. However, it is unfathomable to expect the same men who were surveyed to be equally as willing to hop into the sack if they knew it was the intent of the woman to get pregnant. Nor is it intelligible to believe that women only fall for those men who are financially and emotionally stable. As has been my experience: I have seen far too many virtuous young girls end up in the wrong hands. Likewise, there is no debating the existence of
2
chemicals and drugs that can alter the regular decision-making process of those taking them, however, these changes are simply temporary reactions. Science cannot control a human’s emotions, albeit they may produce the physical reaction of “leaping into the air like popcorn.” The main fallback of Pringle’s sources are that most of them, like Helen Fisher, are “unwilling to accept traditional views” of human behaviour. Moreover, they are equally unwilling to discover anything that would oppose their theories. Yet, they all can’t seem to understand “the hallmark of the human animal… that we form these pair bonds.” Shouldn’t it seem evident by this fact, a fact which they researched and found was universal, that civilised human beings are above the subsystems of nature? We love. We marry.
Apparently other animals do make bonds as well, like the foxes mentioned in the article. However, these bonds are only temporary – they last until the kits are raised, and the father is able to father again. Such cycles of mating are not normal in human society, nor are the fairly random choices of partners that foxes make. People are far more sophisticated. Humans are highly social, civilised, and cultural beings. If the professionals listed in Pringle’s essay had studied, or had Pringle interviewed married couples, there would be a whole new realm of information to include. When choosing a life-long “pair bond,” people are far and beyond the animal world. A young man, looking for a suitable wife will much sooner marry a level-headed trustworthy bride than a perfect ten with surprises ahead. Women may be a little more inclined to resemble their animal counterparts by choosing a reliable groom. Yet, the one single thing that separates us from the animals is love. In the perfect human world, young lovers marry, multiply, flourish, and live with deepest regard for their spouse and children “till death do [they] part.” Love is a unique and beautiful natural phenomenon, which defines the human element. Unfortunately however, in today’s world, romance isn’t always perfect. Unlike the animal world, where having multiple
3
partners, and males living to donate sperm is a positive habit that diversifies the gene pool, in the human reality divorce is a negative and all-to-frequent occurrence.
Human’s “pair bonds” were not designed to separate. If they were, break-up and divorce or the experience of a crush unrequited would not bring about such negative sentiment. The human ability to survive as the fittest is a result of our ability to be a society with culture, art, science, government, language, sport and more. It is this feature which keeps us the fittest, keeps us at the top of the evolutionary latter, and explains why we have no relatives of the homo genus.
The blind can love, the deaf can
love, the crippled and the challenged can love. In return, all of these people can be loved. Human nature cannot be supplied merely from
our genetic code. The dynamics of
Mankind’s psyche, heart and soul disallow such a simplistic attitude towards
the emotional, solicitous, and social disposition of our race. We are a product of our environment,
not simply our blueprint of pentose and phosphate particles. Although we cannot deny our natural,
primitive properties, we must realise that Homo sapiens does not have an
answer key. Everything presented by
Heather Pringle in her essay “The Way We Woo” is well founded and
scientifically sound. However, it is
imperative that we understand that human life cannot be completely mapped out
by theories. In the case of courting,
there is more to it than meets the eye.
Love is eternal and cannot be dissected. Ask your grandparents to explain why they are still together –
long after their ability to mate has ceased.
Or, ask yourself whether you would marry every attractive member of the
opposite sex you’ve met. Either way,
you’ll find that our weaknesses in habit are our strengths in heart.