The Evolutionary Psychology of Creation

There’s a fascinating article out by Psychology Today, “Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature,” by Satoshi Kanazawa, Ph.D. and the late Alan S. Miller Ph.D, a professor of social psychology, both authors of Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters: From Dating, Shopping, and Praying to Going to War and Becoming a Billionaire-- Two Evolutionary Psychologists Explain Why We Do What We Do (damn, that's a mouthful).

Although the introduction states that, of course

"Human behavior is a product both of our innate human nature and of our individual experience and environment,"

this article emphasizes the biological influences on human nature as opposed to the usual nearly sole focus on environment and socialization. As it states, "evolutionary psychologists see human nature as a collection of psychological adaptations that often operate beneath conscious thinking to solve problems of survival and reproduction by predisposing us to think or feel in certain ways."

[Aside to say that I had drinks with an old friend last night and was reminded of one of my favorite of HIS favorite things to say: "Human behavior is wonderfully predictable." I'm gonna have to steal that.]

Now, I find a lot to agree with in evolutionary psychology, although I view it as a more of a small spark that has ignited and perpetuated the chain of the social traditions we experience in our environments. I would think that even if very little our ancient ancestor's biological motivators remained lurking somewhere in our DNA today, we'd still see those original motivations echoed down through the generations of social and environmental influence and into our current behaviors. But what do I, the uneducated barbarian, know? Anyway...

Some of the article's ideas aren't particularly palatable to our sensibilities. It even offers a disclaimer of sorts at the onset:

"The implications of some of the ideas in this article may seem immoral, contrary to our ideals, or offensive. We state them because they are true, supported by documented scientific evidence. Like it or not, human nature is simply not politically correct."

I resist the urge to say "duh" here. I mean, when we examine ourselves honestly in the mirror, do we not see parts of our own personal and individual- or perhaps not as individual as we may wish to believe- nature which may also seem "immoral, contrary to our ideals, or offensive," let alone anything but politically correct. Is one of our very identifiers as evolved humans not our ability to see such insights and consciously live in a way that we believe upholds our ideals, choosing how we act on our biological urges rather than blindly being slaved by them? Are we not contributing members of civilized society because we are able to learn, understand, and follow the rules- formal or informal- such as the sometimes productive and sometime counter-so, at least in my opinion, standard our media currently lumps together under the silly and near-meaningless term 'politically correct' enabling us to function without complete anarchy? But again, what do I, the uneducated barbarian, know? Anyway...

The article attempts to answer a wide variety of questions ranging from the relatively innocent to the not so. Why do men- gentlemen or otherwise- prefer blonds? (Because they have no taste, obviously. Just kidding, that's my brunette tinged opinion, not that of some Ph.D. Actually because men prefer young women because they're generally healthier than older women, and natural blond hair tends to darken with age, thus men who gravitate toward blond women are acting on their unconscious urges to mate with younger, and therefor perceived healthier, women.)

While I found the entire article interesting from my general curious point of view, one question- or more accurately, its corresponding biological explanation- was of specific interest. The paragraph (point number seven, if you're referencing the article) begins "What Bill Gates and Paul McCartney have in common with with criminals" and goes on to explain the respective age-crime curve and age-genius curves in men, both essentially the same phenomenon, caused by natural and sexual selection.

"A single theory can explain the productivity of both creative geniuses and criminals over the life course: Both crime and genius are expressions of young men's competitive desires, whose ultimate function in the ancestral environment would have been to increase reproductive success."

Right. This explains why not only the propensity for risk-taking, such as tendency to commit crimes, but all other behaviors which are both public and costly, peak in late adolescence and early adulthood, at least with regard to males. According to the article, "The relationship between age and productivity among male jazz musicians, male painters, male writers, and male scientists—which might be called the 'age-genius curve'—is essentially the same as the age-crime curve. Their productivity—the expressions of their genius—quickly peaks in early adulthood, and then equally quickly declines throughout adulthood. The age-genius curve among their female counterparts is much less pronounced; it does not peak or vary as much as a function of age." Thank goodness, I thought, because I'm 25 and praying that I haven't already passed my productively prime, but fortunately for me, I'm a woman...

Which brings me (finally) to my primary point. This section of the article ends with the following:

“The similarity between Bill Gates, Paul McCartney, and criminals—in fact, among all men throughout evolutionary history—points to an important concept in evolutionary biology: female choice.

Women often say no to men. Men have had to conquer foreign lands, win battles and wars, compose symphonies, author books, write sonnets, paint cathedral ceilings, make scientific discoveries, play in rock bands, and write new computer software in order to impress women so that they will agree to have sex with them. Men have built (and destroyed) civilization in order to impress women, so that they might say yes.”

Again, need I say “duh” here? Disturbing but realistic newsflash of the day : Many of the things that men do are, at some level, motivated by the desire to impress women in order to reproduce with them. Sigh. I get that, really I do. It can be extremely annoying when one is interested in whatever a man are doing but don’t desire to reproduce with that particular man at that particular time (which is the case so often!), but, yes, I get it.

However, I’ve been pondering something for nearly a year now. I did a large art piece on a related topic. I’ve attempted to discuss it with others. (I say attempted, because it seems to be one of those topics that always ends up leading into 1,001 side discussions and thus never really gets discussed itself.) If men do all those things “in order to impress women so that they will agree to have sex with them,” then why do women do them? What motivates women to compose symphonies, author books, write sonnets, paint cathedral ceilings, make scientific discoveries, play in rock bands, and write new computer software? To impress MEN (or other women, I suppose) so that they will agree to have sex with them? Hang on… excuse me… I’m trying to climb back up in my chair from which I fell during the bought of hysterical laughter brought on by the mere thought.

From the perspective of evolutionary psychology (only), it would be counter intuitive for a woman to devote herself to creating art (or to composing symphonies, authoring books, writing sonnets, painting cathedral ceilings, making scientific discoveries, playing in rock bands, or writing new computer software). From the perspective of evolutionary psychology, women would be driven to locate and attract the more desirable mate to father their children and protect and provide her and, more importantly, her new offspring. By devoting herself to other activities, she would not only have less time and energy to devote to this priority, but she would be less likely to obtain the mate of her choice because his evolutionary psychology would be motivating him to mate with the woman most likely to spend her time bearing and caring for offspring, not the mate most likely to be running around painting or writing or what have you. Right?

Now, before everyone jumps down my throat, I’m speaking from a purely biological perspective, and I’m just thinking out loud here. I consider myself a feminist, that is, I believe that women have the right to have opportunities equal to those possessed by men. I’ve worked in male dominated fields. I’ve been the only woman on some crew or another an done just fine. I certainly in no way am advocating that women shouldn’t do what they please, nor would I ever want to even think about a reversion to eras prior to the women’s rights movement.

Fortunately, in our society today, woman are now enabled to create because we simply want to. But WHY do we want to? Certainly not just because we can. Where does this desire come from? Why, why, why? What, what, what motivates women to create? Anyone?

Early this year, I did some work in which the idea was to explore a gender role reversal of the muse concept, asking the question what is the equivalent of the tradition male artist/feminine muse for today’s female artist, if such a thing even exists. When I showed the work, several people asked me if I had, in the process of creating the work, quote/unquote “found my muse.” (Even people other than the drunk, middle-aged men misguidedly using it as a pick-up line since some of them apparently read “All Woman Art Show” as “Hot, Available, Artsy Chick Buffet,” ahem.)

Did I find my muse? Yeah. I did. Sort of. On one level, my muse is masculine, sometimes, although there isn’t a specific male I consider my muse. In some of my work, I explore my fascination with masculine qualities and energies, which are so unlike my own, and my muse, if you will, for this work is a general composite of the men I know, an essence of what makes them work differently from I. But really, my muse is I myself. It’s a matter of looking in the mirror. The entire construct of a muse is different for me than the traditional portrayal of the male artist with his glorious, inspiring female figure to gaze upon. I don’t gaze in the mirror and become inspired by myself in that way. The reflection, if you will, is typically more of an inspiring mess than the inspiring harmony of a muse. I suppose my motivation to create art is a response to my own conflict, questions, thoughts, bla bla bla whatever, and whether it’s an attempt to find answers, a way of inflicted my brand of order on the chaos, an element of control, or something else entirely, I have no idea.

Nor do I have any idea how to really feel about this conclusion. I’m not sure that I want to create only introspective work.

Regardless, the “what motivates women to create” question still doesn’t have a cut and dried, or remotely fundamental, answer for me.