麻豆传媒

In Duels and Duets: Why men and women talk so differently, John Locke鈥檚 evolutionary arguments are flawed and he oversimplifies sexual differences

IN PLATO鈥橲 Meno, Socrates guides a slave boy through geometric analysis to demonstrate that knowledge is really recollection of what one already knows. Yet Socrates then reminds us that while the boy鈥檚 eventual answer is correct, he does not understand geometry 鈥� he does not know why he is right.

Empirical science often yields reproducible results that we cannot readily explain. Research on language differences between men and women is one such case. Women seem to use language more for social interaction while men more often use it to convey information. Variances in vocabulary and grammatical choices have been observed across ages and cultures, and in both spoken and written media. This also appears in emails, instant messages (IMs), and text messages. Male IMs tend to have a more spoken character, for example, while IMs sent by women reveal more traits of written language, including longer turns of phrase and fewer contractions.

But why? Many linguists have hesitated to conjecture, though the likely suspects have been differential socialisation and access to power. Any suggestion of a biological origin has been met with fury, especially from feminist linguists. In steps John L. Locke. Under the banner of evolutionary biology, he proposes to explain why gender differences exist in language.

His story goes like this. After our ancestors came down from the trees, an important division of labour set in 鈥� still seen in our primate forebears 鈥� whereby men did the heavy lifting (hunting) and used their superior strength (later coupled with verbal braggadocio) to attract the best females for mating. Women bore and reared the young. Locke further argues that because women required help in giving birth, since human heads are too large to pass easily through the birth canal, other females needed to offer social support.

Once human language arose, says Locke, these specialised functions were encoded into the linguistic fabric. Men, the duellers in real life, also became linguistic duellers. Women, who harmonised with female peers, became linguistic duetters. Locke concludes that these social roles have 鈥渆ntered the genome鈥� and therefore account for linguistic differences we observe today.

To build his case, he leads us on a romp through literature from a plethora of disciplines, including primatology, anthropology, psychology and even classical literature. Early in the book, Locke chastises linguists for failing to embrace an interdisciplinary approach, rendering them incapable of addressing the 鈥渨hy鈥� question. Not asking 鈥渨hy鈥�, Locke continues, makes for poor science.

There are two fundamental flaws in his argument. First, it is often unclear what relevance the particular studies he cites have for his main thesis, or for his gender-based explanation of the origin of human language. Second, Duels and Duets repeatedly indulges in overgeneralisation, ignoring the messiness that is human reality. Time and again, Locke declares that males do this and females do that, as if all humanity can be neatly divided this way. Some examples (italics are Locke鈥檚): 鈥渢he male disposition is to duel鈥�; 鈥淭here is something within women that senses or places a value on vocal coordination鈥�; or 鈥淗istorically, women have consistently sought men who could take care of them鈥�.

鈥淟ocke declares males do this and females do that, as if humanity can be neatly divided this way鈥�

Universally? What of the Dalai Lama, Joan of Arc, Queen Elizabeth I? Or women with children who are heads of households (constituting 19 per cent of all households with children in the US and almost 50 per cent in South Africa)? What about the millions of men and women who have never cohabited, much less married? And what about same-sex relationships 鈥� of which Locke makes no mention? His portrayal of all men as physical and derivatively linguistic strong-men, and all women as mothers and coffee-klatchers, does not ring true.

Locke is to be applauded for asking why so many men and women speak (and write and IM) differently from one another. Unfortunately, while the data he cites show some interesting constant conjunction, his reductionist theories are of little use in establishing causation.