Final answer:
The central point of anthropological arguments is that aggression is not sex-specific and is influenced by cultural factors. Studies like Carol Ember's and Margaret Mead's reveal that aggression levels and gender roles are shaped by societal norms, challenging the idea of aggression as a biological imperative.
Step-by-step explanation:
The central point of anthropological arguments concerning human aggression is that aggressive behaviors are not inherent to one's sex but are largely shaped by cultural and social factors. Studies, such as those conducted by anthropologist Carol Ember in a Kenyan village, demonstrate that gender roles can influence aggression levels. Ember observed that boys who were responsible for traditionally feminine tasks exhibited significantly less aggression. This aligns with the broader anthropological viewpoint that biological differences do not rigidly define behaviors and that cultural influences play a substantial role in shaping aggression and violence.
Similarly, Margaret Mead's research on various cultures such as the Arapesh, the Mundugumor, and the Tchambuli shows that behaviors ascribed to gender can significantly differ depending on cultural expectations and norms. This suggests that human behavior is flexible and subject to the influences of societal constructs and pressures rather than being predetermined by biological sex. Performing gender roles is, therefore, a cultural phenomenon that varies across different societies, further challenging the notion that gender behaviors are biologically hardwired.
In summary, the essence of these anthropological studies reflects the understanding that gender is a complex interplay of cultural norms and expectations, rather than a straightforward manifestation of innate sex-specific characteristics. The evidence indicates that humans have the capacity for a broad range of gender expressions, which are shaped by the cultural contexts in which they live.