Gicqueau 1

Paulina Gicqueau

Allison Bocchino

Writing 2

29 April 2024

An Investigation Into Genre Conventions: Is Love Math or Magic?

As the Beatles once said, “All you need is love!” Right? Love, relationships shared

between and by each human, is an emotion present in every person’s life. However, upon further

examination, this seemingly universal statement gets approached from varying angles by

different academic disciplines. Two scholars within the psychological discipline named David M.

Buss and Davis P. Schmitt investigated the manner in which males and females mate in their

article “Sexual Strategies Theory: An Evolutionary Perspective on Human Mating.” They

delineate the differences between each gender’s short term and long term mating rituals while

highlighting the obstacles they confront along the way. On the other side of the academic

spectrum, an English researcher named Andrea Kaston Tange approaches the same subject by

dissecting the Victorian love poetry of philosopher and writer Constance Naden within

"Constance Naden and the Erotics of Evolution: Mating the Woman of Letters with the Man of

Science.” In the late eighteen-hundreds, a young female intellectual, Constance Naden, began

testing the boundaries of the roles a woman could simultaneously play in science and love

through her poetry, particularly as Darwin’s evolutionary theory consumed the scientific sphere.

Examining the same concept through different genre lenses highlights the different goals and

approaches each genre possesses in comprehending the human condition, namely romantic

interpersonal relationships. Psychological researchers understand the world around them by

defining the roles and characteristics of groups all while separating them from one another. On
 Gicqueau 2

the other hand, the analysis of an English researcher—specifically when studying the genre of

poetry—seeks to break down the boundaries that box people’s lives in. The juxtaposition

between the two scholarly fields becomes prominent when comparing their compositions,

particularly the overall structure of their scholarly articles, the complexity of the language

utilized, and the wielding of evidence to substantiate their argument.

Both disciplines aim to reflect the outcome of their research through the organization of

their papers. The structure of the psychological peer-reviewed article mirrors the strict

data-driven point of view the psychologists embrace in regards to love. The authors built the text

to include short digestible paragraphs, section titles, and subsection headers. Each new aspect of

the relationships between heterosexual couples receives a new indented section, making it simple

to locate the different sections. The overall sense of order that they infuse into this layout

foreshadows the tone of the content and results. Their conclusions intend to create structure in

the world by explaining love as something that places barriers between men and women. In

opposition, Tange’s work veers in the opposite direction. While each page does include different

paragraphs, that is the extent to which the paper is organized. She only includes one pagebreak to

differentiate between the introduction and the rest of the work, which can be viewed on the fifth

page. The distinction between psychology’s methodical layout and English's freeform writing

indicates the openness of the latter discipline in structure and content. Since structure is one of

the first aspects noticed, both fields of research set the tone for their outlooks through the

organization of their articles. While the psychologists lean further into the rigidity of their

quantitatively driven outcomes, evinced through clear-cut sections and headers, English

researchers support their open-ended interpretations by refusing to confine their ideas to rigid

segments.
 Gicqueau 3

Whether achieved subliminally or not, the wording style employed by researchers within

their scholarly articles not only affects the reception of the content but also exemplifies the

objective they aim to disseminate. Typically, research done within the science, technology, or

mathematics field is filled with complex jargon and convoluted conclusions. Therefore, those

outside the group frequently do not possess the technical skills to process the subject matter.

However, Buss and Schmitt aim to disperse their findings to the general public through

comprehensible diction. For example, they state, “The sex difference, however, is consistent

across all 37 societies, and in no society do men prefer older women on average nor do they mate

with older women on average” in response to one of their hypotheses surrounding female

reproductive potential within long-term relationships.1 This example reflects the legibility of the

writing amongst the whole text; the sentences remain straightforward takeaways. Their phrasing

contains no additional flourishes, maintaining clear-cut, sterile language. Just as their paper’s

organized structure reflects their dispassionate tone, so does their text. On the contrary, Tange’s

analysis of Naden’s poetry, while conserving the readability of the information, includes a more

passionate emphasis. She summarizes, “Naden is a writer and, by implication, posits a reader

whose facility with both science and poetics will indeed be an evolutionary step toward

respecting women’s intellect.” 2 Traditionally, the discipline of English studies the formation of

the language through writing and reading. In that same vein, this quotation presents an emphasis

on phrasing and diction, mirroring the importance of impassioned language; she urges the

language itself to be pondered and questioned. The juxtaposition between the choice of wording

between psychology and English unveils the diverse objectives within their respective

1
Buss and Schmitt, “Sexual Strategies Theory: An Evolutionary Perspective on Human Mating,”
Psychological Review 100, no. 2 (04, 1993), 218.
2
Tange, “Constance Naden and the Erotics of Evolution: Mating the Woman of Letters with the
Man of Science,” Nineteenth-Century Literature 61, no. 2 (2006), 214.
 Gicqueau 4

explorations of romantic relationships. Both fields edit their phrasing to match their goals within

their work. Psychology scholars narrow the emotion within their paragraphs to match the

narrow-minded interpretations their research concludes. Such conclusions lead to defined limits

placed on groups, diminishing their defined opportunities and capabilities. However, an English

scholar edits their content to correspond with their pondering of abstract themes and emotional

implications; these actions achieve an overall rebelling against the constraints on individuals.

After the researchers ascertain the tone of their paper through its organization and

verbiage, they must decide on the methods with which they present their evidence. In accordance

with the standard in scientific research, Buss and Schmitt approach their examination of love

with quantitative tools. The outcomes of the studies are presented with explicit numerical results:

“The sex differences are highly significant (p < .001) at each time period less than 5 years (7 =

0.46 to 1.21, mean 7 = 1.00).” 3 Using statistical inferences, the authors appeal to logic and

numbers, further solidifying their claims in the minds of those examining them. Oftentimes, the

authors partner these quantitative values with a visual representation. They employ a wide array

of graphs and charts since many people fail to locate trends between values on a page.

While these numbers and graphical representations assist the scientists in explaining the

phenomena around them, their very nature is finite. By utilizing them, they place limits on the

3
Buss and Schmitt, 212.
 Gicqueau 5

subjects they describe, setting strict boundaries for what applies to one group and what applies to

another. As a result, a gap widens between the two—between the capacities and characteristics of

men and women engaging in romance. Tange, the English scholar, addresses the same topic by

drawing on opinions from critics within the field and from the wording of the poet. In Naden’s

poem titled “Scientific Wooing” Tange analyzes certain lines, explaining, “While he seems to

think that Q.E.D. lends gravity to the demonstration of a maiden’s acceptance of a marriage

proposal, the phrase’s rhyme with “random” undermines the young man’s “rigorous Logic” by

implying that there is no real proof accomplished.” 4 She begins by presenting and refuting the

conclusion of another scholar, arguing the validity of her understanding of the text. She supports

her statements with quotations and explications of the poem’s subtext. Ultimately, her

conclusions surrounding these Victorian love poems hinge on her interpretations of them,

provided she presents relevant textual evidence. In this regard, research within the English

discipline leaves space for the reader to weigh the reasoning of the author against their own, just

as Tange did with her peers’ deductions. The ideas Tange introduces are not set in stone. Instead

they attempt to circumvent the rigidity of other disciplines by inviting revisions. This allows for

looser conclusions that do not place confines on human behavior, unlike the psychology paper.

Psychological researchers define distinctions amongst groups while English researchers seek to

dismantle the confines which can be put forth by scientific scholars.

Even one of the most fundamental concepts within the human experience—love—which

is shared and experienced by all, can call attention to the discrepancies between disciplines.

Scientifically supported research communities, such as psychology, interweave their

examinations of romance with a strict paper layout, clear-cut phrases, and quantitative numbers

and diagrams. Conversely, academic disciplines within the humanities, for example English,
4
Tange, “Erotics of Evolution,” 217.
 Gicqueau 6

emphasize the dissection of overarching themes and historical context to provide a loosely

structured paper filled with emotive language and room for personal interpretations of evidence.

These opposing methodologies lead to varying goals within each field. Psychologists aim to gain

societal insight by delineating the functions and traits of various groups, simultaneously dividing

them from each other. On the other hand, an English researcher aims to dismantle the confines

that constrain people's experiences by focusing their lens on broader structure and themes. These

facts are crucial to consider when participating in either of these discourse communities as the

particular aims of each sphere will analyze the same content in contrasting manners. The data

and conclusions collected from a scientific paper in comparison to a humanities paper will differ.

Would scholarly research benefit from all disciplines approaching the same topic with the same

techniques, allowing for easy comparisons and takeaways? Or do these discrepancies enrich

research by providing each field with diversity and idiosyncrasies?

Bibliography

Buss, David M. and David P. Schmitt. "Sexual Strategies Theory: An Evolutionary Perspective
on Human Mating." Psychological Review 100, no. 2 (04, 1993): 204-232.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204.

Kaston Tange, Andrea. “Constance Naden and the Erotics of Evolution: Mating the Woman of
Letters with the Man of Science.” Nineteenth-Century Literature 61, no. 2 (2006):
200–240. https://doi.org/10.1525/ncl.2006.61.2.200.