Feminist science studies is a particularly
important field as invisible biases from popular culture are woven into
hypotheses and research without notice. Let’s unpack this taking the scientific
method into account. When we practice science we draw from observation to
formulate our research agendas and hypotheses. We then conduct a repeatable
experiment and interpret our data. As
noted by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (1999) there are
several points in which our own social, political and/or personal interests can
affect the data we produce;
Social, political or
personal interests can affect:
—how scientists set priorities for
scientific investigation;
—what questions are posed about a topic;
—what explanatory framework or theory frames
a scientific study;
—what methods are used;
—what data are considered valid and
invalid;
—how data are interpreted;
—how data in one study are compared to data
in other studies;
—what
conclusions are drawn from the analysis of scientific data; and
—what recommendations are made for future
studies.
(AAC&U,
1999:5)
By
pointing out ways in which science can be influenced by societal agendas and
ideals, feminist science scholars aim to address and deconstruct the belief
that science is wholly objective.
Furthermore, the way we are taught to write
science works to covers up any ideas that subjectivity exists within the field.
When we write laboratory reports and manuscripts, we often include phrases like
The findings suggest… and Increased ____ indicates _____. These
phrases strip the context and ourselves out of our findings – effectively
diminishing the idea that personal interests may be inadvertently sewn into the
science we produce; they make it appear as if our findings are concrete and not
just a possible explanation or interpretation that we made in our head (Hubbard
2001).“Feminists must insist that subjectivity and context cannot be stripped
away, that they must be acknowledged if we want to use science as a way to
understand nature and society and to use the knowledge we gain constructively”
(Hubbard 2001: 158).
The theories that we create also work to
influence our scientific observations and hypotheses. In other words, “Rather than
experimental and observational data being the determinant of the course of
science, theories determine what evidence is looked for and what evidence is
taken seriously” (Wyer et al. 2001: xxi). For
example, evolutionary theory shapes the questions we may ask in a study (ie. do
men and women differ in their sexual selection), as well as what data we select
to observe in the study and how we interpret that very data.
We must also be critical of the language
we use to produce science. Language is a tool we use to communicate our
thoughts and ideas. While language is great, the terminology we have is
limited. The language we use is constructed and shaped by cultural beliefs; in
other words, we only have and make words for objects we need words for. As argued by Luce Irigaray, the terminology used in
the sciences has been affected by dominant male voices in the field: the language used is not neutral but instead
androcentric (Irigaray 1989). Scientific language codes the male as the assumed
norm and embodies a “systematic gender bias” (Irigaray 1989; Wiley 2009). “From this point of view, science — the real
game in town — is rhetoric, a series of efforts to persuade relevant social
actors that one’s manufactured knowledge is a route to a desired form of very
objective power” (Haraway 1988: 577).
To bring these ideas of how subjectivity is
woven into science into context, let’s examine a few studies, which have used
scientific methods to justify and “prove” what we now deem to be inaccurate
sexist and racist beliefs. In the late 1800s, many “scientists” held the belief
that women were not as intelligent as men – they also found that on average,
the women they knew tended to reflect this belief. Paul Broca, used
anthropometry, the measurement of the human body, to determine reasons for this
‘observation’ (Gould 1980).[1]
Broca measured the weight of 292 male brains and 140 female brains, and found,
on average that women’s brains tended to weigh less than men’s brains – as a
result the smaller brain size must help explain why women are intellectually
inferior beings (ibid).[2]
Other scientists offered alternative explanations for his findings, like
difference in stature. Broca responded to these critiques:
“We
might ask if the small size of the female brain depends exclusively upon the
small size of her body. Tiedemann has proposed this explanation. But we must
not forget that women are, on the average, a little less intelligent than men,
a difference, which we should not exaggerate but which is, nonetheless, real.
We are therefore permitted to suppose that the relatively small size of the
female brain depends in part upon her physical inferiority and in part upon her
intellectual inferiority” (Gould 1980: 152).
As all
of the data that Broca collected were objective and concrete, and his methods
were flawless and scientific. Scientists of the time, like Gustave Le Bon,
found it impossible to disagree with Broca’s conclusion:
“In
the most intelligent races, as among the Parisians, there are a large number of
women whose brains are closer in size to those of gorillas than to the most
developed male brains. This inferiority is so obvious that no one can contest
it for a moment; only its degree is worth discussion. All psychologists who
have studied the intelligence of women, as well as poets and novelists,
recognize today that they represent the most inferior forms of human evolution
and that they are closer to children and savages than to an adult, civilized
man. They excel in fickleness, inconstancy, absence of thought and logic, and
incapacity to reason. Without doubt there exist some distinguished women, very
superior to the average man, but they are as exceptional as the birth of any
monstrosity, as, for example, of a gorilla with two heads; consequently, we may
neglect them entirely” (Gould 1980:153).
When
we reflect on Broca’s work today however, the subjectivity that was woven into
his clearly scientific study is more evident: the assumptions that were made in
formulating his hypotheses and research question, as well as his
interpretations of the data. Today, this research is dismissed – we know that
brain size is not correlated to intelligence (after all, to accept this would
mean that were are inferior to elephants and other large animals); furthermore,
we know that Broca’s observation of women’s inferior abilities were not
biological, but instead attributed to restricted education and gender roles.
[1] Similar studies and observations were
made between white men and men of color at the time. And of course, white men
used science to “prove” that they were also superior to men of color to justify
excluding them from positions of power in society.
[2] Today, we know that women’s brains on
average do tend to be smaller than males, however we also know that women’s
brains are denser than male’s brains (interestingly, no one has posited that
the density of brains is correlated to intellectual superiority….).
No comments:
Post a Comment