The human brain and its adaptation to parenthood

Is the brain of Homo sapiens ready to adapt to parenthood? We explain.

Traditionally, child rearing and care of children has been one of those areas associated with the feminine: in this case, more specifically, with the role of theIn this case, more specifically, with the role of the mother. The realm of the maternal seems to encompass everything that is relevant to us during the first months of our lives. A mother provides warmth, nourishment, affection and the first contact with language (even before birth, her voice is audible from the womb).

Going a little further, we could argue, as suggested by the French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacanthat the gaze a mother directs towards us is in itself the mirror before which we forge a very primitive idea of our own "I". In this sense, the germ of what will one day be our identity is thrown to us by a loved one.

Male paternity

While it is not uncommon for psychoanalysts such as Lacan to emphasize the figure of the mother, it is surprising to see to what extent the conception of the maternal as sacred is rooted in the depths of our being. the conception of the maternal as something sacred is rooted in the depths of our culture. And yet, the adult males of our species are perfectly capable of raising and educating their offspring (and even adopted children). This is also true in cases where the traditional nuclear family model, with father, mother and offspring, does not exist.

In addition, we have long since realized that the human being is a unique case of parental care among all forms of life.. This is so, basically, because in most animals in which sexual reproduction occurs, the role of the father is quite discreet. Let's take a look at it.

Evolutionary rarity

In the first place, it is normal in vertebrates for the male's reproductive role to be limited to the search for a mate and copulation. Obviously, this means that the moment of "fathering" and the birth of the offspring occurs in two distinct phases. By the time the poor offspring have arrived in the world, the progenitor male is far away, both in time and space. The role of the "father who goes to buy tobacco" is perfectly standardized in the genetics of the animal kingdom..

Secondly, because, if we look at other branches of the evolutionary tree in which we are included, we will have many occasions to see the following scheme applied:

1. A A strongly cohesive couple formed by the female and the offspring. 2..

2. A paternal figure, whose role is quite secondary.The male is responsible for ensuring that the relationship maintained in the female-calf dyad can last long enough to raise a fully capable adult organism.

In those cases in which the male is actively concerned about the safety of his offspring, his role is usually limited to that, to try to ensure the survival of his offspring in the face of any threat. It could be said, for example, that for a great dorsican gorilla, being a father means trying to scare off anything that might disturb his offspring.

As a consequence, there are very few species in which the roles between males and females in the care of their offspring are close to symmetrical.. Only in birds and in some mammals where the degree of sexual dimorphism* is low, the paternal-filial bond will be strong... and this happens very rarely. Moreover, at least in all other animals, a strong parental role is synonymous with monogamy**.

The curious thing about this is that such conditions are rare even in animals as social as apes. The evolutionarily closest non-extinct relatives to us whose males care for offspring are the gibbons and the siamang, and both are primates that do not even belong to the hominid family, to which we belong. Homo sapiens. Our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees and bonobosare not monogamous and relationships between males and their offspring are weak. The case of humans, moreover, is special, because we seem to tend toward monogamy only partially: ours may be social monogamy, but not sexual monogamy.

Breaking the paradigm

Be that as it may, in the modern human being we find ourselves with a species that presents little sexual dimorphism and a tendency, at least statistically, towards social monogamy. This means that participation in childcare is similar in fathers and mothers (although it is highly debatable whether this involvement on both sides is equal or symmetrical).

This being so, it is possible that whoever reads these lines may be wondering on what exactly is the basis for the attachment that men feel for their children and everything related to their parental behavior (or, in other words, the attachment that men feel for their children and everything related to their parental behavior)? (or, in other words, the "paternal instinct"). We have seen that, most probably, social monogamy is a choice that has only recently taken place in our hominid ancestral chain. It has also been pointed out how rare the genuinely paternal role is in the evolutionary tree, even among the species most similar to ours. Therefore, it would be reasonable to think that, biologically and psychologically, women are much better prepared to raise children, and that parenting by fathers is a circumstantial imposition to which men have no choice but to conform, a last-minute "botch-up" in the evolution of our species.

To what extent is paternal care of offspring central to men's behavior?Is the brain of all Homo sapiens to adapt to the role of father?

Although establishing a comparison between the suitability of male and female psychology for the role of father or mother would give rise to an eternal debate, there is scientific evidence to sustain that, at least in part, paternity changes the structure of men's brains, something that also happens to women with motherhood.. During the first postpartum months, the gray matter present in areas of the male brain important in the processing of social information (lateral prefrontal cortex) and parental motivation (hypothalamus, striatum and amygdala) increases. At the same time, brain reconfiguration affects other areas of the brain, this time reducing its gray matter volume. This occurs in the orbitofrontal cortex, insula and posterior cingulate cortex. In other words: the repertoire of new behaviors involved in parenthood is matched by a repertoire of physical changes in the brain.

All this leads us to think that, for more or less genetic, more or less social reasons, the adjustment of male behavior to his new role as caregiver is strongly based on the biology of his own brain. This explains why, as a general rule, all humans can adapt to the new responsibilities that come with having a son or daughter.

Moral tints

However, it could be said that the question of whether the interest shown in children is of the same nature in men and women is tinged with a moral, emotional or even visceral component. a moral, emotional or even visceral component.. The seemingly aseptic question "can fatherhood be comparable to motherhood?" is transformed into "do men have the same capacity to give themselves to a noble and pure love for children as clearly occurs in women?" This question, while perfectly legitimate, is difficult to answer.

We know that reality is something very complex and can never be encompassed by every single research that is conducted on a daily basis. In a certain sense, translating a topic that generates personal interest into a hypothesis that can be approached from the scientific method entails leaving elements of reality out of the investigation***. We also know that, since reality is so complicated, within the theoretical body provided by science there are always gaps of uncertainty from which it is possible to reconsider of uncertainty from which it is possible to rethink the conclusions of an investigation.. In this sense, the scientific method is both a way of generating knowledge and a tool for systematically testing what seems obvious to us. In the present case, this means that, for the time being, the honorability of the paternal role can be safe in the face of common sense...

However, one could argue, for example, that the interest in offspring shown by the males of some species (and their corresponding neuroanatomical adaptation) is only a strategy to keep a close eye on the offspring and the female with whom they have procreated, even to the point of self-deception about the nature of their feelings; all this to ensure their own genetic continuity over time. It should be noted, however, that the core of this problem is not just a matter of differences between the sexes, but depends on our understanding of the interaction between the sexes. on our understanding of the interaction between genetics and our affective relationships.. Being attached to offspring for purely Biological reasons is something that females might also be suspicious of.

Some people are of the opinion, not without some reason, that intense and too continuous scientific speculation can be discouraging. Fortunately, along with purely scientific thinking we are accompanied by the certainty that our own feelings and subjective states of consciousness are genuine in themselves. It would be a pity if a radically physicalistic conception of human psychology were to ruin a paternofilial experience.

Author's notes:

* Differences in appearance and size between male and female.

** There is, however, a very curious case in which the male takes care of the offspring apart from the female. In fish of the family Syngnathidae, to which seahorses belong for example, the males are in charge of incubating the eggs in a cavity in their body. After the hatching of the eggs, the male expels the young in a series of convulsion-like movements and then disposes of them... or at least those he has not eaten by then. In short, this is not a particularly endearing case and it is better not to draw parallels between this and what happens in humans.

*** In philosophy of science, this dilemma is approached from a position called reductionism and from the philosophical approaches opposed to it.