Hi Jason,

 

  To understand these issues, IMO, we really need a working theory of sex and gender and human nature/personality. To do that, you need to realize that one of the biggest errors is that people think of this in terms of two domains (i.e., biology versus culture or nature versus nurture). There are, in fact, THREE domains that need consideration, which are: 1) biophysiology (i.e., biological sex, which includes the basic architecture involving chromosomes, genitalia, hormones and the like corresponds more to Life); 2) evolved psychological architecture (i.e., the aggregate human nature differences between human masculine and feminine psychic energies, which corresponds more to Mind on the ToK, and is informed by Behavioral Investment Theory and the Matrix in the Unified Framework), and 3) socially constructed systems of justification that legitimize what boys/men and girls/women ought to be (i.e., the particular cultural theory/ideology of what gender is and should be corresponds more to Culture and framed by JUST in the UF).

 

  For Jung, animus and anima are evolved psychological natural archetypes of masculine and feminine. Specifically, he believes there was a dialectic between them; and that people have a dominant and counterbalancing force. Thus, for me, as a fairly typical male with a more masculine psychic architecture, I also have “anima”, which a feminine force that exists in dialectical tension with my more conscious masculine identity—the fact that I am a therapist who takes care of vulnerable people would be an example of my “anima”. Animus is the masculine side of a traditional feminine woman.  

 

  The issue then is: What are these evolved architectures? What gives them their force and how do we understand them in relationship to biophysiology and in relationship to the sociocultural construction of reality? That is a question I have given quite a bit of thought to and the Unified Framework offers, IMO, a pretty clear theory along these lines. That is, the larger architecture of the Unified Theory can help us with a theory of human sex-gender. The first thing it says is stop with the “biology versus society” dichotomy, and realize that we are talking about three domains of Life, Mind, and Culture as forces shaping the behaviors we are studying in either any particular individual or in aggregates of people (which, BTW, is too often confused).

 

  There are good reasons to believe that part of the architectural difference is that women will be more “feeling” and men more “thinking”. But first, let me move to the relational differences.  You brought up the Influence Matrix. This is key to understanding aspects of the evolved mental architectural differences between human males and females at the aggregate level of analysis (or collective unconscious). In the map provided by the Unified Framework, the Matrix is, indeed, connected to the human Experiential System. Specifically, it is an extension of the experiential system to the “process dimensions” of the relational system. That is, the Unified Framework argues that humans have a “relationship system” that grows out of the more basic experiential system that allows us to frame, track and navigate the self-other field/landscape that we are in. The Matrix maps a key part of that system, namely the process dimensions (I can explain more about what this means exactly).

 

  The Matrix plays a key role in understanding the evolved architecture of human male and female psyches. One of the big differences in the ways human male and human female architectures are organized pertains to the dynamic interplay of self-in-relation-to-other. In short, the human female (again at the aggregate level) is more relationally “other-oriented” in terms of dynamic process, whereas the human male is, relatively “self-oriented”. There are many reasons for this, but the most basic reason has to do with mothering versus fathering and the reproductive dynamics associated with being a human male v. female. It is important to realize that, as mammals, we have been mothers and fathers much longer than we have been humans, and being a mother is a fundamentally different set of relational problems than being a father. All of this sets the stage for understanding the evolved collective unconscious architectures associated with human male and female psychic energy tendencies at the pre-cultural, aggregate level of analysis.

 

I think I will end here for now. If folks want blogs on understanding gender from a unified framework approach, see attached list of blogs. In particular, I recommend the blogs on gender differences in religiosity, which is one of the great mysteries in gender psychology. I think the UF does a nice job resolving that and at least turning it from a mystery into a problem that makes sense at a number of levels.

 

Best,
Gregg

 

 

      

 

 

 

 

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1