A Critical Introduction to Psychology

40 Jan De Vos

But to make sure, in the Hockenbury et al. (2015) textbook, this kind
of “neurosexism” is actually criticized. Referring to Jordan-Young and
Rumiati, they state: “the hardwiring paradigm erases the effect of the social
world in producing sex/gender differences, so that sex/gender hierarchies
appear natural.” A bit further this argument that we need to consider
“environmental factors” is stated as follows:

[B]iological factors themselves are strongly influenced by

environmental factors, ranging from the food we eat to the stressful

circumstances we experience...Thus, sex differences in structures or

function might well be the result of the different life experiences of men

and women, rather than the cause. (Hockenbury et al., 2015, p. 72)

Here we have a ‘critical’ perspective, leaving space for environment
and experience. But is this not yet another naturalization and
essentialization? Even if it brings back sex to the social, this is done by
referring in the last instance to biology: the environmental factors that
influence the biological ones mentioned are food and stress situations
(remember the fight or flight biology): a critique hence of biologistic
arguments.
How, then, could we bring in a true criticality? Let me hereto consider
the following “recap” exercise from the Feldman (2015, p. 67) textbook:

Maria saw a young boy run into the street and get hit by a car. When

she got to the fallen child, she was in a state of panic. She was sweating,

and her heart was racing. Her biological state resulted from the activation

of what division of the nervous system?

a. parasympathetic

b.^ central

c. sympathetic

However, could one not ask, who is the young boy? Who is Maria?
How does she see the young boy in that very moment, or afterwards? But
is not the primordial question: what are the scenarios in the mind of the