Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Truth in Explanations for the Rise of Human Monogamy

Checklist
[x]Draft [x]Final [X]Draft [x]Final [x]Draft [x]Final [x]Draft []Final
 * [x] Decide topic
 * [x] Decide disciplines and create outline
 * [x] Introduction
 * [x] Biology section
 * [x] Sociology section
 * [] Tensions/conclusion
 * [x] References
 * [x] Add links to wiki-pages
 * [x] Add images, graphs etc. where suitable
 * [] Double-check with marking criterion

Assessment info
Word count: 1,200 words (references and image captions are not included) Deadline: each member of the group should download a copy of the Wikibook chapter as a .pdf file and submit it via Moodle by 5pm on Monday 14 December.

Marking rubric:

Content	50%: An excellent discussion of an issue in an example of interdisciplinary work. Of clear interest for stakeholders or students thinking of entering the field. (how can we can show this... maybe bring up some real-life examples?)

Guidance: Identifying tension between disciplinary perspectives means identifying where people working in one discipline fail to agree with people working in another discipline. This need not mean that they disagree; it may also be that they are unaware of each others’ work.

Writing	10%: Excellent writing, with few to no grammatical errors or moments of awkward phrasing. (this shouldn't be hard – run through Grammarly and check each others' writing)

Guidance: Note also that good interdisciplinary writing is, by definition, able to communicate effectively to a non-specialist. The best pieces are likely to feature short, clear sentences comprised of simple words and phrases. In particular, make sure you explain any specialist terminology.

Research and referencing 10%: Flawless or nearly flawless referencing, with an appropriate range, number and quality of works cited. (let's make it clear for each other in the google docs notes which are our own words and what is copy-pasted from sources (put in quotation marks) so we don't accidentally plagiarise)

Guidance: the key is for you to establish whether a source is trustworthy and to justify your usage in cases where its trustworthiness may not be obvious to a non-specialist reader.

Contribution 30% (Individual) Regular, thoughtful, precise and relevant contributions, which play an important role in the development of the project. A courteous and professional tone throughout. (it's a lot easier to write on WhatsApp but just remember to add the discussions to here as well so it is recorded)

Guidance: your marker will be evaluating your contribution to the chapter based on the edit history of the chapter and on the comments on the Discussion page. Where any contributions are not obvious from those sources, you may want to document them on the Discussion page.

Initial meeting (Zoom) 20/11/20
Attendance: Selma, Alina, Vivianne


 * All members enjoyed topics of Truth, Evidence, and Power; not too keen on History as it easily becomes descriptive
 * Brainstormed issues of interest: truth in our reality/simulation theory (do we live in a simulation? computer science, physics/mathematics, philosophy, religion), truth/power & the British Royal Family (what is legitimate power? political, cultural, economic, psychological etc.), music therapy, polygamy (evolutionary biology, psychology, sociology, religion)
 * Polygamy seems to have the most potential for interdisciplinary tension: research more until next meeting

Second meeting (in-person after ATK seminar) 23/11/20
Attendance: Selma, Alina, Vivianne


 * Agreed on the topic of human relationship structure – but the suggestion was made to focus on the current norm of monogamy rather than polygamy to enable wider discussion about norms and truth (still the same debate)
 * Identified central conflict between the disciplines' ideas of truth: Biology, as a natural science, adopts a positivist, empirical correspondence perspective on truth, in which the truth they seek to generate mirrors reality/the natural world; sociology, situated in the social sciences, assumes a constructivist approach to truth
 * To resolve: Only using the two disciplines of biology and sociology and presenting them as radical opposites risks creating false binaries – perhaps a third discipline such as psychology could help bridge them and add more nuance? However, that also means we cannot go into as much depth into each discipline. Arguments in psychology may also be too similar to those in biology. The suggestion was made to instead subsections to disciplines, e.g. communist and feminist perspectives in sociology, for added nuance.


 * Just to add to the outcomes of this meeting: After some research, we found that there was actually not as much interdisciplinary tension on the question of whether monogamy in humans was ‘natural’ as we expected. This is because arguments within biology were indefinite and conflicting – there was substantial biological evidence for both polygamy and monogamy in humans. To overcome this, we resolved to shifting the discussion of reasons why monogamy is so prevalent and dominant over polygamy today, allowing us to identify a clearer interdisciplinary tension in terms of truth.--Banksy2020 (discuss • contribs) 02:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Third meeting (WhatsApp group call) 7/12/20
Attendance: Selma, Alina, Vivianne
 * Finalised title: Truth in Explanations for the Rise of Monogamy in Humans
 * Finalised sections: Introduction, Biology (Evolutionary Biology, Neuroscience), Sociology (Marxist perspective, Feminist perspective), Conclusion/Tensions
 * Divided up work based on which areas we were most interested in researching more about
 * Following our ATK seminar about Truth in Kat's lecture we were prompted to think about how the different perception of Truth as objective/subjective in our chosen disciplines contributes to tensions. E.g. if scientific truths must be universal for all humans and societies – how do scientists explain the existence of cultures/communities where monogamy is not the norm?
 * Deadline to finish individual sections: Friday 11th; use the weekend to edit, polish, add references and visuals

Fourth meeting (WhatsApp group call) 10/12/20
Attendance: Selma, Alina, Vivianne


 * Agreed all drafts to be finished by tomorrow – on track!
 * Images/graphics? Couldn't find much relevant stuff on Wikimedia Commons, will look further but agreed it might be unnecessary if it doesn't add any value to the article
 * Discussed how we can allude to tensions throughout the whole article and not just in the conclusion: decided we can do this by discussing jealousy in both neuroscience & feminist sections
 * Discussed truth tensions we've identified so far to consider addressing in the conclusion: essentialist vs constructivist truths, causal explanation vs justification, objective vs subjective truth, material vs the immaterial world
 * Discussed... writer's block – it's so frustrating!!! Shared some tips on how to overcome: turning off phone, taking a break, trusting that it'll go away eventually :')

Fifth meeting (Whatsapp group call) 13/12/20
Attendance: Selma, Alina, Vivianne
 * All drafts completed - worked towards reducing our word count and rewrote some sentences which were unclear in explanation. Only minor edits were made as the bulk of the work was done
 * Discussed how to upload pictures from Wikimedia commons - decided there weren't many relevant pictures we could add that related to our topic so we decided to leave it with the marmoset
 * Aimed to have a final to submit by the end of the day, referencing still needs to be done for some parts of the conclusion

Neuroscience
Alina: have a look at p. 148 in this: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09589236.1997.9960678?needAccess=true It is written by a feminist scholar but she raises an interesting tension between the biological essentialism vs social construction of feelings of jealousy – whether it is natural or learned. Maybe you can address the neuroscientific explanations in your section and I discuss the sociological explanations in the feminist section? Vkwzw (discuss • contribs) 18:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you, looks very relevant. This seems appropriate for neuroscience (instead of Alina's section on evolutionary biology.) I have found a neuroscientific study on the connection between jealousy and monogamy, here https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2017.00119/full, and will try to include a brief mention of it in my section, so that we have an even more direct disciplinary tension. --Banksy2020 (discuss • contribs) 19:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Vivianne, here's an insightful piece on jealousy from a sociological perspective, if needed, to contrast with the neuroscientific take. It's in the 'The Western Romance Tradition' section. https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=841115116081095113017023088123092119104072028038038067092083096030020083011087002104028060057106119006096107008019084080089104007055040087041066069006027093126027017029007125083028068025120028066090121087118114086125066118071014015030123123026089081&EXT=pdf --Banksy2020 (discuss • contribs) 22:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Selma – had a read and it was super-useful!! Incorporated the ideas about jealousy in romantic vs platonic love into my draft on the google doc if you want to have a look.Vkwzw (discuss • contribs) 22:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks great!--Banksy2020 (discuss • contribs) 23:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Evolutionary Biology
1. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2019.00230/full#h5

2. https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mmperry/fgp_rev10_jet.pdf

3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0140175079900010

4. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/205770.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A1919abcf6f7440a939a12eeeee7ffc2d

5. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep32472

Initial Ideas
1. a) Cooperative breeding

b) Paternal care

c) Kin discrimination

2.

a) Survivorship in the monogamous convention is always greater than survivorship in the serially monogamous convention (Page 12)

b) Important to not generalise completely to contemporary family (Page 18)

3.

a) Survivorship in the monogamous convention is always greater than survivorship in the serially monogamous convention (Page 4)

b) Paternal care (Page 6)

4. Ecologically imposed monogamy (Page 5)

5. Doubts notion of paternal investment as a cause for monogamy - growing evidence suggests that paternal care evolves only after monogamy becomes established in a population (Page 1)

Final Thoughts
According to evolutionary biologists, monogamy is favoured over polygamy for the following reasons:

1. Survival is greater in monogamous relationships, ecologically imposed monogamy

2. Paternal care (counter argument = paternal care evolves only after monogamy becomes established in a population)

3. Cooperative breeding Jigamaree (discuss • contribs) 19:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

General
Biologists adopt a correspondence theory of truth, where they produce knowledge mirroring the reality that exists. To do this, they use empirical and 'objective' evidence, to argue that monogamy is the natural form of sexual relationships in humans. Contrarily, sociologists take on a constructivist theory of truth, in which they recognise that truths are constructed by humans' forms of representation, language, social forces, norms and values, specific to different societies and cultures. They use this version of truth to argue that human forms of sexual relations are flexible - can be both monogamous and polygamous-, and monogamy being the present dominant form across the majority of cultures is a social construction: not essential or fixed, rather subject to change.
 * The question of whether monogamy is an inherent or natural trait in humans could be framed in terms of truth, roughly along these lines:

What are your thoughts on this outline, and which discipline do you think we could incorporate as a potential intermediary or for an added tension? --Banksy2020 (discuss • contribs) 16:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Intuitively, psychology feels like a potential bridge between the two disciplines (e.g. discussion whether feelings of jealousy etc. is natural or learned behaviour) but I wonder if it might be too similar to arguments in biology? There has also been research about mononormativity in some more obcsure discipline such as feminist studies; have a look at this one: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/684238. Some interesting quotes from it...

“I define biopossibility as a species- and context-specific capacity to embody socially meaningful traits or desires...I intend biopossibility as a tool for naturecultural thinking”

“so ... is there a monogamy gene?” As they say in the lab, there is always a “quick and dirty” answer. Mine is that it depends on how you define both gene and monogamy.”

“Biopossibility allows us to apprehend behaviors intelligible as monogamous and nonmonogamous, and the processes we understand as their molecular substrates, as one set of culturally and historically mediated expressions of our creaturely capacities in a naturecultural world.” Vkwzw (discuss • contribs) 01:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The concepts of the ’naturecultural’ and ‘biopossibility’ in the paper you sent are very interesting, and could potentially be used as a means of synthesising our two conflicting disciplines at the end? Or, it could be an added nuance to the sociological section, as it is an active criticism of scientific production of truth.
 * Wiley implies that science and sociology/arts are not two, independent, irreconcilable oppositions, but rather connected and dependent, a function of each other. She states that, ‘while feminists have theorized monogamy as a powerful social norm, scientists study monogamy as a mating system or strategy. Monogamy’s normalized status cannot be disentangled from its scientific naturalization.’ Here, she presents the correspondence truth sought by the discipline of biology as culturally embedded, itself a means of socially constructing monogamy as a norm.


 * Wiley explains that ‘scientific knowledge is based on the scientific method and is objective, that is, value neutral and therefore universal and reproducible.’ She then states that this approach to truth allows only for the scientific study of what already is, that which can be measured, thereby ‘excluding from the realm of scientific inquiry phenomena that cannot readily be understood in terms of their component parts. Science as such thus demands conceptualizations of natural phenomena that minimize the complexity of its objects: here, monogamy.’ Here, she presents scientific truth as limited, necessitating reliance upon political and social ‘conceptualisations’ - she presents scientific knowledge production as politicised.


 * Sarah Harding adds to this, stating science’s employment of ‘weak objectivity’ is a result of it ‘starting, inevitably, from the questions, concerns, and interests of scientists (people) and the institutions of which they are a part.’


 * Haraway describes a ‘naturecultural’ world in which nature and culture have coevolved. She, too, seeks to falsify the nature/culture binary which distinguishes between ‘nature’ and ‘culture’ as discrete spheres.


 * Barad – ‘agiental realism’ resolving tension between ‘realism’ and ‘social constructivism.’ Depicts science as a ‘material-discursive’ practice. Scientific study, producing knowledge, interacts with the world by studying it.

--> Naturalising claims about monogamy makes them ‘real.’


 * Perhaps this is something for us to discuss in our next meeting. --Banksy2020 (discuss • contribs) 13:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

So I'm wondering whether a limitation in a particular explanation from evolutionary biology is a good transition to the sociological explanations. Should I indicate another discipline's pov might be helpful (and in that case which one) or just carry on with another explanation from evolutionary biology? Jigamaree (discuss • contribs) 23:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Whilst I think we should focus on outlining where the disciplinary tensions lie clearly, it's definitely relevant to mention the potential weaknesses of the explanations if there is substantial contention around them. So maybe briefly adding something like 'Whilst there is some contention, the main consensus within evolutionary biology is...' Hope that helps a little. --Banksy2020 (discuss • contribs) 00:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good, thank you. After reading through the last explanation, I've found it links pretty well with the general consensus anyway. Jigamaree (discuss • contribs) 00:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

It looks like it's coming together well. I've made some comments on the Google Doc about shortening the length of sentences esp. conclusion to better convey what we're trying to say.

Update - I'm happy with the changes, definitely think it's easier to understand now. We're so close to having the perfect word count, I've made some more suggestions for where we could cut down. A couple of things to think about:

- are we planning to add any more pictures? not sure there are any relevant ones on commons

- we should make sure all our referencing is consistent, I think there is still some we have to do for the conclusion

- we should link any key terms and have species' names in italics Jigamaree (discuss • contribs) 16:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Had another look for images on Wikimedia Commons and couldn't find anything suitable so don't think we need to bother with any more – the cute marmoset should be enough :) had a look at references and since we all used the same generator the style is consistent! added links to some key terms throughout the article & all species are in italics now. Selma will upload the final conclusion from the google doc with references and then we are good to go! If we end up having words to spare I might use it to add a concluding sentence to the feminist section linking their critical approach to jealousy back to their constructivist approaches to truth, as it ends kind of abruptly now... but no worries if not.Vkwzw (discuss • contribs) 10:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Title ideas
Truth in monogamy in humans Truth in the normalisation of monogamy in humans Truth in the normalisation of monogamous human relationships Truth in explanations for monogamy in humans Truth in mononormativity Truth in explanations for mononormativity Truth in foundations to mononormativity

Which one do you guys most naturally incorporates the issue of truth? I think I prefer "Truth in explanations for mononormativity" – highlights what Selma said earlier that we should focus on the different disciplines' appeals to Truth in their explanations for why monogamy has come to be naturalised, as opposed to a discussion about whether monogamy is natural or not. Vkwzw (discuss • contribs) 01:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree that our title should reflect our emphasis on discussion of reasons why monogamy has become so prevalent across human societies, instead of its ‘naturalness.’ However, I think the use of ‘normalisation’ or ‘mononormativity’ presume that monogamy is a function of norms/are socially constructed, already lending it to the sociological perspective more so than the biological. In a project depicting differing perspectives, it may be better to use more impartial terms in the title. An example could maybe be ‘Truth in the Rise of Monogamy’? --Banksy2020 (discuss • contribs) 02:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I agree – the term mononormativity was coined in gender studies so is loaded with certain assumptions and we might something more "disciplinarily neutral"... Maybe ‘Truth in Explanations for the Rise of Monogamy’ then? It might be a bit lengthy but does keep the focus on appeals to truth in the discussion about monogamy, rather than truth in the phenomenon of monogamy itself. Vkwzw (discuss • contribs) 16:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I think in our next meeting it would be useful to define which specific form of monogamy we will discuss. In my research so far I have come across 'sexual monogamy', which demands both sexual and romantic exclusivity, 'social monogamy', which includes only romantic exclusivity, taking into account extracouple sexual experience. There is also 'serial monogamy', which demands both sexual and romantic exclusivity, but recognises that people may have more than one monogamous relationship in their lifetime. Whilst sexual monogamy is the societal expectation, social monogamy is also common. According to Wiley, in the paper Vivianne posted previously, 'extrapair copulations are increasingly assimilated within scientific definitions of monogamy.' In this way, it could be more relevant to our inquiry. Which one do you think is most appropriate?--Banksy2020 (discuss • contribs) 02:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Referencing
Here's the citation generator I used for the sandbox – worked really well! Think it would be good if we do all references using the same tool so that they are consistent: https://www.citethisforme.com/vancouver/source-type Vkwzw (discuss • contribs) 22:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Drafts
Hi guys! I've added the feminist section & a draft conclusion to the article page so you can go ahead and edit.Vkwzw (discuss • contribs) 23:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Will do! I've added my drafts of the introduction and sections on neuroscience and Marxism, too. Feel free to make any suggestions. Looking forward to seeing it all come together. --Banksy2020 (discuss • contribs) 23:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Put my draft up with the referencing! Let me know if there's anything that needs changing. Jigamaree (discuss • contribs) 19:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * All looks great!!! See edited versions on the google doc – I didn't change anything in the content, only cut down on words. Also, each section is now under the allocated word count so that means we can afford a slightly longer conclusion!Vkwzw (discuss • contribs) 19:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Do we all feel satisfied with how it's looking at this point? Are we ready to submit? --Banksy2020 (discuss • contribs) 13:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep I'm happy with it! Good job guys ;) Vkwzw (discuss • contribs) 13:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks great! Let's submit it :) Jigamaree (discuss • contribs) 13:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)