Logistics
Today our session will focus on the reading "The Mind Has No Sex?: Women in the Origins of Modern Science" by Londa Schiebinger (1989) and is our second installment devoted to science in the seventeenth century.
Our class for Monday, April 26th begins a series of two sessions devoted to Reason, Revolution and Romanticism. In this session our discussion will be based on the text The Literary Underground of the Old Regime by Robert Darnton (1982).
Please remember that the second essay due date is coming up on Wednesday April 28th. Send me a note if I may assist with your topic.
Gender and Science
In the introduction to this book, the author reminds us of women’s special gender role as ”the sex” and writes of those who believed that for women “exercising the brain shrivels the ovaries.”
This author is interested in the role of women in the evolution of science and presents four areas of interest (1) institutions (2) biographies (3) scientific definitions of female nature, and (4) cultural meanings of gender. Female scientists in the 1600s were produced by both (a) the aristocracy and (b) the crafts. “Craft production prompts scientific involvement”. The early biological sciences misread sex and gender in women’s bodies. There were also “cosmological assumptions behind definitions of sex and gender”.The author considers that “femininity represents a set of values that has been excluded from science” (page 8). There has been at once a purging of “the feminine from the public world of science” and a “persistent effort to distance science from the feminine (page 9).
Scholarly Style
To some extent the gender controversy is carried out over approaches to style and the idea of the “elaborate feminine allegory”. The feminine represents (a) a style (b) a set of values and (c) a way of knowing (page 121). In Cesare Ripa’s Iconologia (1618), a Renaissance bible of iconography, the female was a personification giving human attributes to the universe (page 122).
The frontispiece of Galileo’s Il Saggiatore pictures the Muse Urania, and, the author further provides a list of imagery (page 132).
Language
In a deeper and more fundamental sense, the author asks regarding “the unexplained historical origins of grammatical gender” (page 132). What are the origins of gender usage in language? The soul was feminine, for Plato. Thus the scientist was a supplicant who bowed to the muse.
Francis Bacon led the cause of upending this relationship, seeking to create a masculine philosophy (page 137) and critiqued the “effeminate” intellectual culture of the French in the Paris salon.
In time science ceased to have a persona and the allegorical emblems were lost. The choice became (1) allegorical richness or (2) modern precision (page 151). This divide was quite real in the sense that celibacy was required at Oxford and Cambridge for faculty into the nineteenth century.
Image
Thalia. Oil on canvas. Jean-Marc Nattier. 1739. In Greek mythology, Thalia or Thaleia ("good cheer") was the muse of comedy and pastoral poetry. She was a rural goddess with the attributes of a comic mask and a shepherd's crook. Wikipedia.org
Comments and Discussion
I most wonder about what we have lost in terms of interpretation with the adoption of “modern precision”. What can’t we see? What are we missing? What does the allegorical provide that we could gain from?
Please create three posts on this topic. Comment on (a) my discussion above, (b) on someone else's post or (c) on material from this text or another reading. I will comment on comments as appropriate.
I wonder if there was more of an emotional connection to science when the muse was at the forefront than today where it seems more straightforward and cold. It's interesting that, as the author mentions, nature/science was personified as a woman in order to make a 'creative union' with the male scientist and result in knowledge. I can't imagine a modern scientist today having that connection with science, although perhaps in some practices (alternative medicine?) there is more of a recollection of these past ideas? Also, I wonder if this feminine imagery is still subtly present in ways we don't realize..
ReplyDeleteThe concept of using 'the feminine' is very interesting. Today, it would be rare to find someone relating science in terms to a woman, but this shows a kind of separation from the past to the present. We are more about getting down to the facts and less about seeing a bigger and more imaginative picture. In the past, maybe, they were so keen on making these different discoveries that they had to use all the resources they could, even that of gender. Now, we have technology to rely on so it does narrow our choices on how to view things. I do have to wonder though as CDintaman pointed out, if feminine imagery is still present without use knowing, because it does seem like such an important concept that it would be hard not to relate to at all.
ReplyDeleteI also wonder if, in the past, looking at Science in feminine terms was somewhat of a way to encourage the male scientist in his work, as if pursuing knowledge was like pursuing a woman, working to obtain and objectify her in the end. Since sex seems absence from science today, it makes me wonder what inspires scientists now. Money? Fame?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Eloise, in this apparent separation between past and present that comes through in the reading. After finishing the article, much of what I walked away with was thoughts of past trials that women experienced, how it related to other areas of the time, and also the connection to the present day. One topic I find interesting is how this article, of the troubles women had in science, to the trouble that women had in other movements such as the Civil Rights Movement. I am writing my paper using these two topics and my result so far is that much of we hear about the lack of relation to science an women, this same lack is present with the contribution of women in the Civil Rights Movement. The article spoke alot about how women were viewed less than the man in terms of scientific contributions. Is this the same today? Are women's contributions less than?
ReplyDeleteI also wonder about the use of feminine imagery today, I think that is a very relevant question. I also think, in response to Eloise, this idea of science being assigned feminine properties is very interesting, and peculiar. Perhaps everything in science had to be assigned a gender, because in such a scientifically underdeveloped time, that was one thing they were absolutely sure of; gender, and, at least, the physical difference between man and woman.
ReplyDeleteIn the reading, a remember a quote about woman looking for expressions of love in nature, and how that is best way to understand nature and science. I could be reading it wrong, and please feel free to give your input,but although is seems like a sweet, encouraging thought, I still think it undermines women's intellectual capabilities.
I remember a couple years back in a gender course I took, we read the first, or one of the first documents declaring that there is no difference in the male and female mind. The declaration was great. It was logical, it was refreshing, and it was written by a man. I guess the point is that it might not have been taken seriously if it had been a woman. However, it seems that woman did not realize this until a man told them. Woman believed they were built differently because men told them they were. It seems even when this new scientific data arose, it was still the men who had the power.
At first I found it very strange that science was given feminine attributions, since it is typically a male-coded culture. But then I realized that the female personification made it even more so male-centric since as CDintaman points out it positions the scientist as a man pursuing and objectifying a woman. Science was a very romantic notion back then. The lack of knowledge enabled vast and beautiful possibilities, making its gendering more understandable. Today things are much more grounded in facts and science, in a sense, as been sterilized. Though it's gendering as male still remains.
ReplyDelete-Sadie
Katy's comment about how even when science began proving otherwise, men still maintained control of the power reminded me a lot of the last reading we did on Galileo. People often ignore facts and evidence because information is power. The second women learned that they were not biologically inferior to men, the entire social heirarchy would be destroyed. I definitely agree that if the statement that men and women's minds were equal had been made by a man it would not have held as much weight. It's easy to brush off to oppressed declaring fault, but when it is the oppressors who have everything to lose doing it, then it becomes fact and not just complaining.
ReplyDeleteAs to what Sam said about women's contributions been inferior to a man's, I still believe traces of this are very prevalent in society today. When a female accomplishes something in the scientific realm, she is often tokenized, especially by the media. Journalists often find it necessary to point out when a female scientist is also attractive, something that does not happen to their male peers. It's as though they're proclaiming to the world, "Look! Someone that is smart and beautiful and on top of it--a girl! How rare!" So it is not that female scientific contributions are really deemed inferior, it is that the fact that a woman made them still is thought of as important, painting the woman as inferior.
ReplyDeleteBeyond Schiebinger's discussion of scientific (female) iconography, what was most intriguing to me was the trajectory that she provided of the formation of "masculinity" and "femininity", as historically bound, cultural constructions. Bacon associated masculinity with "active, virile and generative" characteristics, wile "femininity" was conceived as "passive, weak, expectant". This historical anecdote explicitly demonstrates how our reductive gender queues have come to naturalized, and in turn, largely presumed biological.
ReplyDeleteIn reading about the historical roots of female iconography and allegories, I began to think about the manner in which products are gendered today. Car companies often direct their marketing campaigns to specific gender demographics. The hummer, for example, was undoubtably conceived with the intention of attracting a certain kind of male, insistent to overstating his masculinity. This is of course, fabricated with the assumption, that masculinity is inherently male.
In think that the concepts explored in the reading can be fruitfully applied to the contemporary scientific arena. The discourses surrounding technology, both as a discipline and as a concept are tremendously masculinized. Perhaps this is the height of what the empirical scientists begun in the 19th century.
oops, excuse my grammatical mistakes :-]
ReplyDelete.In response to what katy said "Perhaps everything in science had to be assigned a gender" I think this is true for nearly everything today. We seem to have been constructed to always place gender roles on everything-even inanimate objects-color for instance. blue if for boys and pink is for girls.
ReplyDeleteI think that the masculinity tied to the sciences, and to much of academia, is simply a perpetuation of the past. It started as male dominated field and it continued to be accepted this way.
also in response to heartpinksky
"especially by the media. Journalists often find it necessary to point out when a female scientist is also attractive, something that does not happen to their male peers. It's as though they're proclaiming to the world, "Look! Someone that is smart and beautiful and on top of it--a girl! How rare!" So it is not that female scientific contributions are really deemed inferior, it is that the fact that a woman made them still is thought of as important, painting the woman as inferior."
I agree. There is this unfair double standard that woman can either be smart or beautiful and if they are both it is 1. rare and 2. threatening.
In the past lack of knowledge made it possible for these unfair standards to persist. Yet now that we have made such strides and progress these old notions are still accepted.
-mollie
This reminds me of that discussion we had in class about how powerful women are deemed 'bitches' as opposed to powerful men who are seen as authoritative..and how a powerful woman with good looks can be seen as a threat or at least made a big deal about (think Carla Bruni).
ReplyDeleteI've always found intriguing about the difference that we as a society have laid out between femininity masculinity, men, women, gender and sex. The importance of each of these also plays an important role in science since each one defines different positions not just in the science world but everywhere else. In the past the idea of assigning gender roles to everything seemed to be a potent way of differentiating the powerful role among men in comparison to women. Now days, the urge to differentiate female from masculine is not so much intense as it used to be, and I guess this is a result from our evolution as critical creatures. Although men have always been considered more potential than women, their struggle to maintain their position is still visible, nevertheless, men have somehow accepted the idea that women are also capable of what they have accomplished. In addition I think the idea that men are more powerful than women is only because they have been offered the opportunity to express their thoughts, beliefs and knowledge, while women have been forbidden from doing so. This of course was prevalent in our past, however, there are many countries where this is still a rule.
ReplyDeleteThe ideals of feminine beauty has always been a debated subject throughout history; the dynamic of artist and muse has borne works of brilliance and beauty, although the image of which has constantly evolved due to various factors. Our current ideas of female beauty seem fairly superficial with heavy emphasis on fashion and luxury to help transmit the idea of beauty. The paradigm shifted continuously since the seventies, when body-grazing clothing provided a disclosure of the female form that was unprecedented. Across cultures, men’s attraction and fantasy with women have had a large influence on what women perceive as beautiful. Historical periods have also influenced our culture--exploiting and redefining our ideas of beauty. Considering the most obvious case, we can clearly see how the portrayal of women in the media shapes and defines the ideals of female beauty. The finicky trends as well as constantly evolving ideals of female beauty can easily be linked, at least in part, to these external factors.
ReplyDeleteWith the arrival of Naturalism came the classical values and moral ideas of the Church as well as conceptions of male expectations of beauty which contradicted reality, but
nevertheless shaped it.
A woman’s role in the Renaissance was to bear children and be a good wife. Women were excluded from public life to keep them pure and untouched. We can see the Renaissance masters represented women’s role in their paintings. By looking at paintings of women from this period, we can see how women were conceived through the eyes of men. In Christian history, the cause of sin and the fall of man was the temptation of Eve. Christian history also states that God created Eve from Adam’s rib, thus further subordinating and outcasting her. As Eve is the representation of all women, her fate to suffer the pain of childbirth is transferred to all women, which can be seen in Renaissance art. Not only does the art from this period exemplify the ideals that men forced upon women, but they also objectified the women, making it easier to cast these ideals upon them.
On the other hand, Christian teachings about the life of the Virgin Mary help lift the role of women in society. Virgin Mary was pure and chosen to be the virgin mother of Christ; these redeeming qualities of Mary help to counteract the qualities conveyed from the story of Adam and Eve. Devotion images including The Annunciation, the Madonna and child, and the Crucifixion further redeems the role of women in society, which in turn earns them more respect. Opposing the idea of Naturalism, we can see from high society portraiture and nude portraiture, such as Titian, that women were transformed into objects, representing wealthy, beauty, and sexual desire. These depictions can be seen as the projection of what Renaissance men fantasize their women to be like. The depictions of women during the Renaissance are crucial in revealing the reality of Renaissance life and how women were viewed during these years. Back to how we perceive and view women in our modern days, i think that tide of men depicting and shaping how a women is like or should be still exist. i agree that the levels of hierarchy has shorten, but is still highly visible in many ways of men dictation over women, esp on physical appearance.
I find it extremely interesting that gender roles, during both this era and undoubtedly up until the 19th century, are presented only through an androcentric perspective of sexuality. Further, I believe that this dominantly masculine perception of both sexuality and iconography has deeply affected western science and medicine in a negative manner. The notion that female sexuality could exist outside of the androcentric model for sexuality has impacted and to some degree hindered a better understanding of science. I agree with Dalia, in that, “The discourses surrounding technology, both as a discipline and as a concept are tremendously masculinized”.
ReplyDeleteIt is an extremely interesting connection that “heartpinksy” makes between this reading and that on Galileo. There is in fact a distinct correlation: the choice to omit or simply disregard certain factual evidence in fear that it may shake preexisting ideals and notions seems to be not only a theme throughout this course, but also history as a whole.
ReplyDelete- Tiffany’s comments about preconceived notions of female beauty having an effect on society as whole are extremely intriguing. I hadn’t realized how many elements including politics, sex, and above all science have been structured around these stigmas. The allegories surrounding female beauty have truly acted as a mold for many and most aspects of society, I would argue, since the 16th century. Moreover, it is fascinating that this “mold” has played a juxtaposing role throughout history. While “the masculine” has seemingly attempted to remain the dominant force and keep the feminine in a subordinate gender role, at the same time femininity has very much been the underlying influence in science, art, and religion. The dual role we have played as women, I think is very much present into today’s society. In terms of science, I think of an illness they once called “hysteria”, a term physicians once used to describe female sexual depravation. To cure this “illness”, one was to see a physician as female masturbation was thought to be unchaste and unhealthy and as a result of the regular failure for most men to produce an orgasm in women, at the time, as result of them choosing to acknowledge the need for female sexual satisfaction as well. Because a female orgasm does not need to occur in order to reproduce men, simply choose to place her sexuality in the realms of sickness. As Marriage could not always “cure” the disease thus women’s sexuality outside the dominant sexual paradigm was cured through this “relegated task of relieving symptoms of female arousal to medical treatment, which defined female orgasm under clinical conditions as the crisis of an illness, “the hysterical paroxysm”. In other words up until the 50’s issues of orgasmic mutuality have historically been shifted to neutral ground in which female sexuality was represented as pathology and their orgasms redefined as the crisis of disease. This is emblematic of the gender controversy discussed in the reading and also resembles the reading on Galileo. It has been a historical motif to ignore factual and scientific evidence not only in the face of gender but also in fear of “otherness” and the “unknown”.
ReplyDelete