Women’s Studies hr. Forum, Vol. 6. No. 6. pp. 621-632. 1983. Printed in Great Britain. 0277-5395/83 S3.00+ .OO Pergamon Press Ltd. RE-FUSINGNATURE/NURTURE zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWV NANCY TUANA Philosophy Program, University of Texas, Dallas, Texas 75080, U.S.A. Dichotomy-from the Greek, a cutting in two. A division into two mutually exclusive classes having contradictory marks. One such dichotomy which I believe to be at the heart of a world view which is both oppressive to women and racist is the dicho- tomy between nature and nurture. In this paper, I will argue that this distinction is metaphysically linked to a cluster of dichotomies: sex/gender, female/male, essence/accident. I will begin by dis- cussing some historical examples of the ways in which the nature/nurture dichotomy was employed to support biological determinism. I then attempt to uncover the metaphysical presuppositions under- lying traditional versions of this dichotomy. At this point it becomes possible to illustrate the crucial relationship between the nature/nurture dichotomy and the sex/gender dichotomy. I then turn to alternative interpretations of the nature/nurture dichotomy, arguing that any interpretation which treats nature and nurture as dichotomous is an incorrect and, in our history, pernicious representa- tion of the world. In the process of rejecting such interpretations an alternative view will unfold, a view which refuses this division. THE TRADITION: SOCIAL ABUSES OF THE NATURE/NURTURE DICHOTOMY TO SUPPORT BIOLOGICAL DETERMINISM According to the tradition, all characteristics of human beings (and other living things) are seen as a function of either nature or nurture. This dichotomy is at the root of numerous other dichotomies: biology/culture, innate/learned, inherent/acquired, genetic/environmental. The nature/nurture dicho- tomy has been part of the grounding of a variety of theories of biological determinism; that is, biology (nature) necessarily determines individual charac- teristics and thus sets the limits of possible behavior, such characteristics being seen as inherited, as inborn. In addition, perceived variations between groups (races, sexes, the insane, criminals, etc.) are interpreted as the result of biological, inherited, differences. This line of reasoning is extended to social structures arguing that particular social struc- tures had their origins in the facts of biology, and were thus a reflection of biology. Theories involving the thesis of biological deter- minism have had a long history. I will highlight a few examples of this history. Prior to Darwin’s theory of evolution, justification for biological determinism came from two different schools of thought: mono- genism--origin from one source, and polygenism- from many sources. Monogenists argued that humans originated from the creation of Eve and Adam. Current races were then seen as products of degeneration from the perfection of that initial creation. It was believed that the races had degener- ated to different degrees-the darker the color of one’s skin, the higher the rate of degeneration. Defenders of this view include Etienne Serres (1960). Polygenists believed that the races were separate species descending from different origins. Certain races (it is easy to guess which) were then seen as naturally inferior to others. Supporters of polygeny included the philosopher David Hume (1965) and the famous naturalist Louis Agassiz (1850). By the late 19th century through the early 20th century, more sophisticated versions of biological determinism were developed which were based upon evolutionary theory. It was held that in the late 19th century that facial configuration, and in par- ticular skull size, were indicators of an individual’s evolutionary developmental level. One of the most famous proponents of this view is the clinical surgeon Paul Broca (1861). Those groups of people with smaller skulls were believed to be at a lower stage of evolution. Furthermore, intelligence was seen by such determinists as correlated with such evolutionary stages. That is, those races with smaller skulls would be of lower intelligence because their brains would not be as highly evolved. Louis Pierre Gratiolet (1856) argued that the skull sutures of black babies closed earlier than those of white babies, and closed from front to back rather than the back to front closure hypostasized for white babies, thus accounting for smaller brain size, especially of the frontal regions, and thereby entailing lower intellectual abilities. Within races there was an additional correlation between brain size and intelli- gence. Women, having smaller craniums, were seen as biologically inferior to the men of their races, 621