Mark D. Roberts

Mark D. Roberts


The Controversial Anthropology of Lady Gaga Examined

posted by Mark D. Roberts

Yesterday, I introduced the controversial anthropology of Lady Gaga as found in her hit single, “Born This Way.” In a nutshell, her anthropology (understanding of humanity) is embedded in her title. Whatever I am, I was born this way. My genes explain who I am.

Is this right? Does this make sense? Does it fit with scientific understandings of human nature?

emerson-harvard-5.jpg

When I was in college, “born this way” was unpopular, to say the least. There was great concern among my fellow students and the professors for the inequalities between men and women. If I had spoken up in class and said, for example, that some personality difference between men and women could be explained on the basis of inborn, genetic differences, I would have been hissed mercilessly. (Hissing was the Harvard equivalent of booing.) In the politically-correct climate of that time and place, it was verboten to suggest that male-female differences, apart from obvious physical ones, had anything to do with how one was born. Socialization was the reason men tended to be what they were and women tended to be what they were. Socialization was to blame for the differences and inequality between the sexes. There was no room for “born this way” explanations. (Photo: Emerson Hall, Harvard University, home of the Philosophy Department.)

At that time, I was a true believer in the power of society to shape human beings. I saw people basically as blank slates. Though I could agree that in our culture women tended to be more nurturing than men, this was not related to anything inborn. It was a matter of how women (and men) were raised. Thus, by implication, we had the power to change society so that men would be just as good at nurturing as women, and women would be just as good at professional success as men. In the nature vs. nurture battle for explaining human behavior, nurture won by a landslide.

There were some exceptions to this rule in my college experience, though not many. In one of my psychology classes, we studied the nature vs. nurture question extensively. We found that the research did not support any simplistic answer to the question. Many human traits appeared to shaped more by nature (for example, one’s basic skin color or physical size), while other traits seemed to be based more on nurture (for example, one’s politeness or lack thereof). Moreover, many behaviors seemed quite clearly to be a result both of genes and environment. A large, well-muscled man might become a professional football player, but only if he had the opportunity to play football while growing up. In some societies, he might have become a successful farmer or soldier instead.

What I learned in my psychology class over thirty years ago seems to be the dominant viewpoint among most natural, behavioral, and social scientists today, as far as I can tell. Yes, there are some who see things as mainly one way or the other. But the most responsible studies of which I am aware view human traits and behavior as a profound and complex combination of genetic and environmental factors. Who I am and how I behave depends on both nature and nurture.

Of course there are many people who prefer a simpler answer. You can see this especially in some debates over homosexuality. Those who believe that homosexual behavior is wrong often insist that homosexual affection is largely a matter of socialization and experience, if not free choice. On the contrary, those who believe that homosexual behavior is right tend to prefer a genetic source for homosexual attraction. (There are exceptions to this rule, however. I know of some gay people who are not at all happy with the genetic theory, for fear that this might lead to an effort to “fix” gay people through scientific means.)

Lady Gaga’s anthropology leans to the nature-genes side of the equation. Perhaps the most controversial stanza in “Born This Way” reads:

    Don’t be a drag, just be a queen
    Whether you’re broke or evergreen
    You’re black, white, beige, chola descent
    You’re Lebanese, you’re orient
    Whether life’s disabilities
    Left you outcast, bullied, or teased
    Rejoice and love yourself today
    ‘Cause baby you were born this way
    No matter gay, straight, or bi,
    Lesbian, transgendered life
    I’m on the right track baby
    I was born to survive
    No matter black, white or beige
    Chola or orient made
    I’m on the right track baby
    I was born to be brave

If you analyze this, you realize that there is some obvious exaggeration here. If you’re broke, you may not have been born this way. Similarly, many of those with “life’s disabilities” were born whole but were injured in accidents. Transgendered folk seem to fit oddly into the “born this way” mode. I suspect Lady Gaga means that they were born with the sense that their bodies did not reflect their true gender. On a physical level, transgendered people were not “born this way,” of course.

One might be inclined to say that at least some things are clearly a matter of how one is born, like being “black, white, beige, chola.” But, in fact, these categories are not nearly as natural as they might seem. President Obama, for example, is considered to be a black man, even though his mother was white. According to the New York Times, more and more young Americans are rejecting classic color labels, preferring to see themselves as “mixed race.” So, one might very well grow up as a black person and then decide to be a mixed race person. What way was she born? Black? Mixed? Both? Neither? The very categories in which we understand ourselves are culturally determined, and these profoundly shape our sense of self.

Lady Gaga believes that being “born this way” is an encouraging truth. No matter how we were born, we are “perfect,” “beautiful,” and “on the right track.” Apparently, if I am “born this way,” then that way is just fine. This gets us into the moral issues of Lady Gaga’s anthropology, which I’ll address in my next post.



  • Bill Goff

    A woman who came from a well-educated and historically important family was once debating the nature-nurture question with Winston Churchill. She said, “I think breeding is the most important thing in life.” Churchill replied, “It is fun, but one can have other interests too.”
    Do you believe that those of us who are heterosexual came into the world with no inclination to be attracted to the opposite sex, were nurtured toward opposite sex attraction, and then at some time made a conscious moral decision to be heterosexual? That was not my experience.

  • David

    Looking forward to your analysis, Mark. I’m not surprised at the song’s popularity. Like a lot of Lady Gaga, it’s clever, feel-good, and has serious musical chops. More than that, it taps a very powerful societal vein. I believe it was Tony Campolo who entitled a book, “We Have Met the Enemy, and They Are Partly Right.” I think that’s the case with this song and, forgive the pun, “the devil’s in the details.”

  • StanS

    Following Lady Gaga’s logic [lyrics] “Because I was born this way” It should be acceptable to be a narcissist, only thinking of myself and foregoing all whose ideals are different than mine. It would also be acceptable to throw a tantrum in my bosses office when he thought different than me. Also following that logic, “fighting to get one to see my point of view”, would be just that, fighting. Also growing up with the 007-James Bond films, taking a cue from his treatment of women, no means yes, and the more, the merrier. If gravitating to a self-destructive behavior, or even a non-beneficial on is one’s “right”, and as society we should embrace all who dare to be different without casting dispersions; Then please don’t cast dispersions on my behavior and give me the same freedoms to be different from you. It doesn’t only work one way, it works both ways. Or how my tenth grade health teacher put it: What’s good for the goose, is also good for the gander.

  • lusGuirediems

    Hello. And Bye.

  • Beth

    Totally missed the point of the song there. Love yourself, Be yourself is the message, you are born who you are.
    The money parts have to do with whether you were from a poor or rich household, which can very much be determined by what family you are born into.
    As far as the remarks on being transgender, yes you are born that way, it’s not a choice, it’s either from gender dysforia or resolution of being intersex. You don’t wake up one day going I will choose to be a girl. You are mentally or you aren’t from birth. The gender physically does not match the person. So pre-op, Post op, or Non-op you’re still transgender and “Born This Way”.

Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Mark D. Roberts. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 2:09:11pm Aug. 27, 2012 | read full post »

Why Did Jesus Have to Die? Conclusions
In this series on the death of Jesus, I have presented four different perspectives on why Jesus had to die: Roman, Jewish, Jesus’, and Early Christian. I believe that each of these points of view has merit, and that we cannot fully understand the necessity of Jesus’ death without taking them all

posted 2:47:39am Apr. 11, 2011 | read full post »

Sunday Inspiration from the High Calling
Can We Find God in the City? Psalm 48:1-14 Go, inspect the city of Jerusalem. Walk around and count the many towers. Take note of the fortified walls, and tour all the citadels, that you may describe them to future generations. For that is what God is like. He is our God forever and ever,

posted 2:05:51am Apr. 10, 2011 | read full post »

Why Did Jesus Have to Die? The Perspective of the First Christians, Part 3
An Act and Symbol of Love Perhaps one of the most startling of the early Christian interpretations of the cross was that it was all about love. It’s easy in our day, when crosses are religious symbols, attractive ornaments, and trendy jewelry to associate the cross with love. But, in the first

posted 2:41:47am Apr. 08, 2011 | read full post »

Why Did Jesus Have to Die? The Perspective of the First Christians, Part 2
The Means of Reconciliation In my last post, I examined one of the very earliest Christian statements of the purpose of Jesus’ death. According to the tradition encapsulated in 1 Corinthians 15, Jesus died “for our sins in accordance with the scriptures” (15:3). Yet this text doesn’t expl

posted 2:30:03am Apr. 07, 2011 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.