Fatherhood is on a topic that is difficult to understand from a biological and ethological perspective. It is rarely seen in the animal kingdom. Although the article sets a scene for fathering in early civilization, it seemed to have neglected many factors in its speculations. In ways it made fatherhood into something selfish and controlling, and I found that to be an oversimplified way of concluding a complex phenomenon. One lesson to be learned is that speculating on prehistoric times makes one prone to projection and quick to satisfying conclusions.
Evolutionary History of Fathers
The article begins by showing how nearly all animals, primates too, do not have fathers. They are either absent, indifferent, or worse, manipulative. Most of our assumptions of fatherhood in the animal kingdom is anthropomorphizing. The author, Sebastian Kraemer, gives an example of gorilla fathers carrying their infants, not as a father, but because it prevents the father from being attacked. This becomes a central point, in the hypothesis that fatherhood is nothing more than a selfish performance.
The article mentions the well-supported phenomenon that males typically benefit from short-term mating strategies while avoiding commitment to the children. This of course is not strict, because of the adaptation of pair-bonding strategies. Even males can benefit from pair-bonding, in humans the tendency depends on the current social niche. This was facilitated partly by year-round mating behaviors and concealed fertility in women’s biological evolution.
Kraemer also reminded us that the males typically hunted, a high-risk task, while the women would have foraged, which was safer and more reliable. This is in line with the fact that men are more likely to be left out of the mating pool, and resort to more risky behavior. The article does not talk about this risky behavior as being a selective pressure that was selected for by women.
There is also suggestion of this period was an egalitarian society, and that was a virtuous accomplishment. This seems more like speculation, but if it was true, cooperation would be from desperation in the face of a dangerous wilderness and the inability horde resources because they would spoil. What would have looked like egalitarianism was most likely sharing as a means to ascend the social hierarchy, as a social currency. This would probably result in one having higher chances of mating. But those left out of that pool, either become cheaters or die.
Early Culture, Tool-Making, Naming, and Domestication
“Living in a space defined by hand-built walls, rather than by pre-existing horizon and sky, altered forever the ways in which human beings thought about the world, and spurred the process by which things, qualities, and processes were named, and later owned. The naming of people in particular made it possible for them to have a new kind of “personality,” and to be remembered and revered after they were dead. It gave continuity and even immortality to otherwise ephemeral beings, a continuity previously available only to women and their daughters, through childbirth.”
At this time women probably became horticulturalists, which occupied them for longer, and gave men a smaller role in which they then had more time to play, think, or take greater risks. Many men then became herders, but also shifted to larger-scale agriculture.
“Agriculture had become a bigger and more intensive business, requiring more labor, and consequently more children. Women were therefore more in demand for producing babies, but no longer central to the production of raw materials for food. Men were now in control, and for the first time there was the opportunity to amass personal property in the form of large agricultural surpluses, livestock, and, of course, women and their offspring.”
This is seen by the author as a theft of the means of production, rather than something that was a benefit to all, with some drawbacks. I do not think it is clear how we should judge these events.
The realization of the male’s role in conception, lead to an elevating of males into conscious fatherhood. This is seen in the tracing of the deities going from primarily animal, nature, or female to a father-creator.
“At first [the male deity] was a mere youth who was a sexual plaything for the queen. Later he becomes a young king, but is kept in his place by his short reign, which ended each year with his ritual sacrifice. Finally there appears a wholly new type of powerful male, the father-king who creates the world and all the living things in it, giving them names in the process. This promotion records a similar shift in the status of men in early civilizations.”
So far, I have little complaint, and I enjoyed to see how agriculture, civilization, property, and fatherhood all came in sequence. Already there is so much to think about that it is overwhelming. I think at this point the speculation and the projection of values gets raised a bit higher.
Final Thoughts and Objections
I want to be brief on my criticism because there is such a good summary of what these ancient and prehistoric times may have looked like, and I would suggest that people look at other perspectives on these events before concluding how Kraemer concludes.
He writes that it was men’s realization they were part of conception, that gave them illusory power and greater envy of women’s larger role in childbirth and rearing. I think this is worth thinking about as a factor, but at points the writing degenerates into a sort of conspiracy where men, got together to steal power from women.
“What began as an awesome respect for woman and her mysterious insides was turned into an attack.”
I think this can be true in some sense, but it lacks the balance of evolutionary strategy particularly regarding the social niches that the early humans reside in. Is it pair-bonding or tournament style mating?
“Men as fathers are handicapped as long as they remain in thrall to the inflated god-king, who inspires in the ordinary mortal a hollow performance of parenthood, stripped of its maternal qualities. Whether disguised as idealization or revealed as contempt, fear and envy of the woman continue to be prevailing forces.”
I agree that fathers can take a mothering role, and probably should. But the claim here is that fathering is unnatural and likely just a selfish performance. According to some biologists, how fathers act “does not count as parenting behavior at all since it is not necessary for the infant’s survival.” But if that is true, parenting which prepares the child for society is not parenting. I doubt these conclusions for many reasons, but with the rise of civilization the father’s role may be facilitating socialization and preparation for culture, but it is certainly not unimportant.
The rise of civilization, fatherhood, and patriarchy are such big topics that I will not expect any author to summarize them in a short article. I do expect someone to treat the subject with humility and hesitate to draw vitriolic conclusions. I highly recommend reading this even though I do not agree with some of Kraemer’s conclusions.
