Blake, what do you mean that “most primitive societies practice what is essentially infanticide from neglect, particularly of female children”? Where did you get that impression?
The only examples I can recall for female infanticide (as opposed to general infanticide) are from decidedly unprimitive societies, if by “primitive” you mean hunter-gatherer societies. China and India come to mind, both societies having a lot more social complexity than, say, the Aka or the Mbuti of central Africa. Which is to say that it’s in “civilized” societies where girls tend to be devalued so much that their lives are actually worth less than those of boys.
My original remarks were from the conversation about the book, when I went to my journal to find the discussion points, all I found was the quote from the paper (I have not read the paper, I was quoted that passage in email as part of the continuing discussion)
*Mother Nature: A History of Mothers, Infants, and Natural Selection should be required reading for anyone who happens to be a human being. In it, Hrdy reveals the motivations behind some of our most primal and hotly contested behavioral patterns–those concerning gender roles, mate choice, sex, reproduction, and parenting–and the ideas and institutions that have grown up around them. She unblinkingly examines and illuminates such difficult subjects as control of reproductive rights, infanticide, “mother love,” and maternal ambition with its ever-contested companions: child care and the limits of maternal responsibility. Without ever denying personal accountability, she points out that many of the patterns of abuse and neglect that we see in cultures around the world (including, of course, our own) are neither unpredictable nor maladaptive in evolutionary terms. “Mother” Nature, as she points out, is not particularly concerned with what we call “morality.” The philosophical and political implications of our own deeply-rooted behaviors are for us to determine–which can be done all the better with the kind of understanding gleaned from this exhaustive work.
Hrdy’s passion for this material is evident, and she is deeply aware of the personal stake she has here as a woman, a mother, and a professional. This highly accomplished author relies on her own extensive research background as well as the works of others in multiple disciplines (anthropology, primatology, sociobiology, psychology, and even literature). Despite the exhaustive documentation given to her conclusions (as witness the 140-plus-page notes and bibliography sections), the book unfolds in an exceptionally lucid, readable, and often humorous manner. It is a truly compelling read, highly recommended. --Katherine Ferguson *
And it could easily be argued that the accidental or not so accidental smothering (remember, just because one woman confesses, doesn’t mean several other did it intentionally or unintentionally and iddn’t confess it) was also post partum depression of one sort or another. Hard to diagnose from this far out.
And I never meant to imply (though I apparenlty did) that co sleeping wasn’t the norm then or now … just an interesting splot of history where things got bad enough legislation popped in.
And I should amend that co sleeping today is safe, too, though you should use tools/situations appropraite for it. Not on, say, an underfilled water bed with thick comforters.
Co sleeping works for a lot of my family … it just doesn’t happen to work well enough with me, so we’re coming close … a hammock that can be right next to the bed to keep us in hearing.
Well, bugger, what’s Azar Gat doing in an anthropology journal? I’d thought he was just an historian/political scientist, especially after reading his book on European military thought.
Anyway, Blake I tend to be suspicious of purely functionalist explanations of human behaviour, cultural materialist or evolutionary. I’ve just gotten Part 2 of Azar Gat’s article and another scholar’s response to Gat’s position, and also Gat’s reaction to this response. Email me if you’d like a copy of them, they help put Gat’s position into perspective, especially R. Brian Ferguson’s criticism of Gat’s emphasis on ecology. Funny how we seem to end up in the same threads.
Mynn, what exactly are you saying, with regards to the original question? I’ve checked around, and the practice that you refer to is called over-lying, where parents “accidentally” smothered their babies, back in the 18th century. Those were deliberate acts, probably done to reduce the burden on the parents. I doubt accidental smothering would happen so often that parents wouldn’t simply stop sleeping with their kids.
There’s also another example of European infanticide, and that’s the foundling hospital, where “killing nurses” or “she-butchers” actually kept their (large) expenses down by practicing infanticide.
To return to the question asked by Surreal, natural selection acts on individuals first and foremost. Parents killing their offspring can improve their fitness by committing infanticide, for all the reasons that toadspittle outlined. It may not be beneficial to the species, but it is beneficial to the individual.
Sinungaling I am also more than a little suspicious when it comes to Gat’s reasoning. However I seee no reason to doubt the figures for infanticide, or at least implied infanticide, he cites. The conclusion that male ratios were kept high by infanticide and gender specific neglect seems solid enough.
Sorry, Mynn, I was objecting to the fact that you were making it sound like those deaths infant deaths were mostly accidental, when they really weren’t. Yes, they were clearly infanticide.
Surreal that is perhaps best naswered by reading the article I linked to. It’s a complex question, but basically it’s what I said earlier: males are more valuable than females to a primitive culture. In addition high male death rates would result in a major imbalance of fertile males to females if nor crrected. This would in turn lead to an inability of the community to survive, as well as promoting overpopulation.
Sorry to go so off topic, but the co-sleeping trend really bothers me. Mynn, you sound like you almost feel guilty that your child isn’t sleeping in your bed, because your whole family is saying that co-sleeping is wonderful. Your child is actually much safer than theirs, and would be safest of all in a crib (perhaps a crib near your bed). A crib has been built to be safe for babies, your bed hasn’t been, and no amount of careful preparation of that bed can make it as safe as a crib. The idea that you’ll be somehow “aware” of the baby all night is also a myth, parents do accidentally roll over and crush the baby, with nothing subconscious or intentional about it. On average, one baby dies every week because of co-sleeping:
As for infanticide, genes aren’t just passed down in a direct line. If my siblings have children, but I don’t, many of my genes will still be passed down. So in a small village or hunter-gatherer community (where everyone is related), having the most healthy babies survive and receive nurishment and attention from everyone would also mean that the genes of everyone in the village would last another generation and be passed down. That might be why an instinct (and it is an instinct, talk to anyone who’s had to protect the runt of a puppy litter from its mother) for infanticide of weak mammals has been passed down.
I’ve always wondered about this nightmare situation: you have a wonderful child that was very much wanted, the doctor tells you that your child has an inherited disease that will cause a slow and painful death before his first birthday. Do you let him die slowly, encased in plastic, with tubes around him? Or do you somberly bring him home and make sure that he dies peacefully before his disease ever causes him a moment’s pain? I think I’d have to go with option 1, but I wonder if that’s cowardice or hope.
The co sleeping trend worries you, but you’ve noted that in non industrialised nations they don’t have the same problems? So what worries you?
What worries** me **simply in that it’s not always done correctly here, with our super floofy comforters and soft pillows.
No amount of preparation can make it as safe as a crib? Cribs aren’t all that safe themselves. Though they are safer than bad cosleeping. There are a number of co sleeping beds that can be added to the adult bed that keeps up a small barrier to keepthe adults from rolling onto the kid, to keep the kid from being wedged between the bed and the wall, to keep the kid from falling off of the bed. I’ve seen damn little reports indicating that co-sleepers designed to go on or next to an adult bed are any more dangerous than a bassinette or crib next to an adult bed.
I don’t know about feeling “guilty” or not about co-sleeping … since this kid is still attached to me, I’m not in a position to answer that question. Ask me again in 32 days.
As for my earlier statement, that co sleeping isn’t for me … it isn’t. We have an extremely soft bed, lots of pillows and blankets … we could get rid of them all, and “sleep” with the kid, getting no rest at all. But the way we toss and turn, in addition to all those soft items, makes us not a good candidate for co sleeping. Which is fine with me … I know how heavy we sleep and I wouldn’t want to have to worry about endangering the kid. That’s like saying I should feel guilty because I can’t have a “natural” childbirth and “have” to be induced. Or my mother should feel guilty that I had a lack of enyzmes in my guts at birth, making it certain that I would die of starvation if she insisted on trying to breastfeed exclusively. Or make another friend feel guilty for feeding her child formula when her thyroid condition made her dry up within days of birth. No reason to feel guilty … the situation is what it is, and we’re making the best choice for us.
Some of the reasons the hammock is the best choice for us (and I decided on it long before I’d completely discarded the idea of co-sleeping because we weren’t good candidates for it) is because it meets all the needs we have, and to us seems safe for the child, more soothing, and allows natural positioning for his sleep. It also gives us the flexibility of a bassinette, without the flat head problems people get from using a bassinette or crib. He can also sleep in it for a significantly longer time (1 year) than a bassinette or Moses Basket.
As far as guilt goes for the scenario of a dying child … I don’t have an answer. Hopefully I never will. But having just watched a friend lose her 8 day old son, I will say that it appears that even the healthiest appearing of kids just up and die sometimes. He was in his crib, he’d had one episode of apnea, then apparently a second (autopsy results aren’t back yet). Maybe if he’d been co sleeping or closer to his parents bed (side car sleeper or bassinette) it would have happened anyway … and then she’d get grief for being an evil co sleeper. Who knows.