Teaching and Learning Resource (TLR)

1. Title

Nature, Science and Gender

2. Keywords

Culture, the Enlightenment, the European Scientific Revolution, gender, nature, science.

3. Introduction

In Environment and Social Theory (Routledge, 1999: 105), John Barry begins a chapter on Gender, the non-human world and social thought with the following words:

Up until the modern era, the idea of the inequality between men and women and the subservience of women to men as ‘natural’, something ‘given’ and beyond human powers to alter was a taken-for-granted perspective. Women were seen to be physically (and psychologically) weaker than men and seen as occupying a position somewhere below ‘man’ but above ‘animals’ or nature. It is these (and other) historical and conceptual connections between women and nature that makes the adoption of a gendered approach to the discussion of social theory and the environment not just interesting but absolutely essential

But what are the historical and conceptual connections referred to by Barry, and where do they come from?

4. Aim

The aim of this TLR is to provide students with an opportunity to explore the complex relationships between conceptions of ‘culture’, ‘gender’, ‘nature’ and ‘science’; and to locate these historically - with reference, in particular, to the Enlightenment and the European Scientific Revolution.

5. Learning outcomes

After using this TLR, students should:

Be aware that the meaning of ‘gender’ is complex and contested; and that there is fundamental debate over the extent to which gender is biologically determined - as opposed to socially constructed.
Be familiar with the ways in which contemporary debates about gender in Western society can be traced back to developments associated with the Enlightenment and the European Scientific Revolution; and, in particular, with the role of early science in the emergence of biologically-based understandings of gender (with men, for example, identified with culture and reason and women with nature and emotion).
Be able to explore relationships between ideas about gender, nature, etc and social practice (eg gender relations and relations between humans and nature - and, especially, the extent to which there is a linkage between the domination of women and nature by men as argued by some feminists).

6. Pre-requisites

Ideally, students should already have an elementary knowledge of the Enlightenment and the European Scientific Revolution. Where students do not have this knowledge, the following TLR is recommended for use prior to this one:

Nature, Science and the Enlightenment

In addition, students should be at least receptive to the idea that science as a social activity can fruitfully be analysed from a cultural-historical perspective. In other words, they should able to engage meaningfully with debates about the ways in which scientific activity reflects the historical and cultural context within which it takes place. To this end, some background in one of the social sciences (eg cultural/media studies, human geography, sociology) or humanities (eg English/literary studies, history, philosophy) would be a distinct advantage.

7. How to use TLR

The TLR has been designed to be used broadly as follows.

Stage 1

(i) Introduce the TLR, reviewing the nature of the content, the aims and learning outcomes, and the way in which the TLR will be used.

(ii) Divide the class into groups of six students, and allocate one reading (see Section 9 - Stimulus material) to each student such that each group member has a different reading.

(iii) Instruct each student to read her/his reading, answer/make notes on the study questions that have been prepared for her/his reading, and prepare copies of her/his notes to give to the other group members at the start of the next session. Students should be warned that they may need to refer to specialist dictionaries or encyclopaedias (see Section 15 - Recommended reading) if they are unfamiliar with some of the terms they encounter in these readings. (See Appendices A to F for the study questions relating to Readings A to F respectively.)

Parts (i) and (ii) of Stage 1 could be completed in about 30 minutes’ of class time. Part (iii) could be begun in whatever class time remained, but would need to be completed during private study time.

Stage 2

(i) Working in groups - each student should give the other members of her/his group a copy of the notes s/he has prepared, and quickly read the notes prepared by her/his colleagues.

(ii) Working in groups - the students should identify the key issues raised by their readings, seek to clarify their views on any questions that the readings might have raised, and discuss the extent to which they are convinced by the arguments they have encountered in the readings.

(iii) Conclude the session with an all-class discussion of the key points to have emerged from the group discussions. This might focus on, for example:

The meaning of ‘gender’.
The extent to which gender is biologically determined - as opposed to socially constructed.
The relationship between contemporary ideas about gender and intellectual and social developments associated with the Enlightenment and the European Scientific Revolution.
Relationships between ideas about gender, nature, etc and social practice (eg gender relations and relations between humans and nature - and, especially, the extent to which there is a linkage between the domination of women and nature by men as argued by some feminists).

Stage 2 could be completed in 60-90 minutes’ of class time.

8. Instructions to students

As directed by tutor.

9. Stimulus Material

This TLR is based around the following readings:

A. EE. Gould, SJ (1981) The Mismeasure of Man. London: Penguin books. Chapter 3, Measuring Heads. Paul Broca and the Heyday of Craniology. (pp. 73-112)

B. FF. Harding, S (1986) The Science Question in Feminism. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Chapter 1, From the Woman Question in Science to the Science Question in Feminism. (pp. 15-29 - but especially pp. 15-24)

C. GG. Harding, S (1986) The Science Question in Feminism. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Chapter 1, From the Woman Question in Science to the Science Question in Feminism. (pp. 15-29 - but especially pp. 24-29)

D. HH. Jordanova, L (1989) Sexual Visions: Images of Gender in Science and Medicine between the Eighteenth and Twentieth Centuries. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Chapter 2, Natural Facts: An Historical Perspective on Science and Sexuality. (pp. 19-42)

E. II. Merchant, C (1992) The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific Revolution. (pp. 268-83) In Zimmerman, M et al (eds) Environmental Philosophy. From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

F. JJ. Schiebinger, L (1989) The Mind has no Sex? Women in the Origins of Modern Science. London: Harvard University Press. Chapter 8, The Triumph of Complementarity. (pp. 214-244)

Notes:

Reading E was excerpted by Karen Warren from Carolyn Merchant’s original, The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific Revolution (Harper and Collins, San Francisco: 1980). The identical reading can also be found in: Merchant, C (1995) Earthcare. Women and the Environment. New York: Routledge. Chapter 4, The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific Revolution. (pp. 75-90)

Thus, any one of three publications could be used with this TLR. If none of these is available, Vandana Shiva’s Science, Nature and Gender could be used as an alternative. (It covers much the same ground.) This can be found in either of the following publications:

G. AAA. Shiva, V (1988) Staying Alive. Women, Ecology and Development. London: Zed Books. Chapter 2, Science, Nature and Gender. (pp. 14-37)

Shiva, V (1999) Science, Nature and Gender. (pp. 325-332) In Smith, MJ (ed) Thinking through the Environment. A Reader. London: Routledge and Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

See Appendix G for study questions pertaining to this reading.

10. Degree stage

This TLR has been designed to be used at degree stages two and three, although it is possible that the learning outcomes could be achieved by students towards the end of stage one (ie in semester two or the third term of the first year).

11. Resource requirements

There are no particular resource requirements for this TLR.

12. Preparation

The only preparation required for this TLR is to ensure that students have access to the readings specified in Section 9 - Stimulus Material.

13. Links with other TLRs

This TLR has been designed as part of a set to be used (ideally) in the following order:

However, it can be used independently of TLR (1) provided that students satisfy the pre-requisites as specified in Section 6, and does not need to be followed by TLRs (3) - (7) in order for the learning outcomes (see Section 5) to be achieved.

14. Follow-up activities

Students should be encouraged to read all of the readings used with this TLR. See also Section 13 - Links with other TLRs.

15. Recommended reading

For students who wish to deepen their knowledge of the ideas encountered in this TLR, the following texts (from which the readings and the quotation in the introduction were taken) are recommended:

Barry, J (1999) Environment and Social Theory. London: Routledge.
Gould, SJ (1981) The Mismeasure of Man. London: Penguin Books.
Harding, S (1986) The Science Question in Feminism. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Jordanova, L (1989) Sexual Visions: Images of Gender in Science and Medicine between the Eighteenth and Twentieth Centuries. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Merchant, C (1980) The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific Revolution. San Francisco: Harper and Collins.
Merchant, C (1995) Earthcare. Women and the Environment. New York: Routledge.
Schiebinger, L (1989) The Mind has no Sex? Women in the Origins of Modern Science. London: Harvard University Press.
Shiva, V (1988) Staying Alive. Women, Ecology and Development. London: Zed Books.
Zimmerman, M et al (eds) (1992) Environmental Philosophy. From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Students who are unfamiliar with some of the terms they encounter in this TLR may wish to consult a specialist dictionary or encyclopaedia (eg of the social sciences in general or of a particular discipline such as human geography or sociology) such as the following:

Kuper, A and Kuper, J (eds) (1996) The Social Science Encyclopaedia. Second edition. London: Routledge.

Appendix A

Nature, Science and Gender:

Study Questions for Reading A

Gould, SJ (1981) The Mismeasure of Man. London: Penguin books. Chapter 3, Measuring Heads. Paul Broca and the Heyday of Craniology. (pp. 73-112 - but especially pp. 103-107)

Study Questions

1. Gould claims that Paul Broca (and, by implication, other scientists) used “shifting criteria to work through good data towards desired conclusions.” (p102) What do you think he means by this? Illustrate your answer with reference to examples drawn from the reading.

2. Gould provides a critique of Broca’s research on brain size in men and women - based on his own analysis of Broca’s data. He claims that: “Correction for height and age reduces the 181 gram difference by more than a third to 113 grams.” How does he then reach the conclusion that “the corrected 113 gram difference is surely too large; the true figure is probably close to zero and may as well favour women as men”? (p106)

3. At the beginning of the chapter, Gould wrote, “By what right, other than our own biases, can we identify [Paul Broca’s] prejudice and hold science now operates independently of culture and class?” (p74) What do you think he means by this? Do you find any evidence in this chapter that the arguments of Gould himself (for example, in his critique of Broca’s research on brain size in men and women) may be influenced by his own culture or class?

Appendix B

Nature, Science and Gender:

Study Questions for Reading B

Harding, S (1986) The Science Question in Feminism. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Chapter 1, From the Woman Question in Science to the Science Question in Feminism. (pp. 15-29 - but especially pp. 15-24)

Study Questions

1. How does Harding distinguish between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’?

2. Harding describes five research programmes in feminist science criticism. What are the key features of the each of these?

3. What problems does Harding identify in the case of each of the research programmes?

Appendix C

Nature, Science and Gender:

Study Questions for Reading C

Study Questions

1. After discussing the research programmes, Harding turns to questions of ‘epistemology’. (p24) What is ‘epistemology’?

2. What, briefly, do you think Harding means by the terms feminist empiricism, feminist standpoint and feminist postmodenism?

3. How does Harding distinguish between the “Woman Question in science” and the “Science Question in feminism”? (p29)

Appendix D

Nature, Science and Gender:

Study Questions for Reading D

Jordanova, L (1989) Sexual Visions: Images of Gender in Science and Medicine between the Eighteenth and Twentieth Centuries. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Chapter 2, Natural Facts: An Historical Perspective on Science and Sexuality. (pp. 19-42)

Study Questions

1. Why, according to Jordanova, were women identified with nature while men were identified with culture? (p20) To what extent does she see these identifications as reflecting the essential (ie ‘natural’, intrinsic, biological) qualities of women and men?

2. What do you think Jordanova means when she refers to “the teleological argument”? (p27)

3. What do you think Jordanova means when she says, “It was a changed division of power not of labour that he [Cadogan] was after.”? (p31) What role did science/medicine play in this?

4. Why do you think “[T]he historian Jules Michelet … questioned whether women were responsible from a legal point of view in the sense that men were”? (p38)

5. Jordanova writes, “Precisely through the study of nature as it was conducted after the ‘scientific revolution’ of the seventeenth century did the stereotypes of the sexes become reified and hardened”. (p40) What do you think she means by this?

6. In the concluding paragraph, Jordanova writes, “Science and medicine have acted as major mediators of ideas of nature, culture and gender”. (p42) What do you think ‘mediators’ means in this context? To what extent do you think she succeeds in justifying this claim?

Appendix E

Nature, Science and Gender:

Study Questions for Reading E

Merchant, C (1992) The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific Revolution. (pp. 268-83) In Zimmerman, M et al (eds) Environmental Philosophy. From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Merchant, C (1995) Earthcare. Women and the Environment. New York: Routledge. Chapter 4, The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific Revolution. (pp. 75-90)

Study Questions

1. What do you think Merchant means by the term, Nature as Female? (p76)

2. Merchant writes: “The image of the earth as a living organism and nurturing mother served as a cultural constraint restricting the actions of human beings.” (p78) What do you think she means by this? How credible do you find this claim (ie that behaviour was constrained by attitudes towards nature rather than, say, technological and/or economic conditions)? (In answering this question, you should take account of the evidence and arguments advanced by Merchant as well as your own knowledge of European history prior to the Scientific Revolution.)

3. Merchant describes the way in which Bacon and, by implication, other early scientists denoted nature as female in their accounts of scientific inquiry. What, according to Merchant, is the significance of this? Could any criticisms be made of her analysis?

4. In the seventeenth century, according to Merchant, the machine replaced the organism as a metaphor for what nature was really like. What does she claim to be the significance of this? How does this relate to her earlier claim that it was the representation of nature as female (to be penetrated, mastered, etc) that made possible scientific inquiry and the ‘exploitation of nature’?

5. At the beginning of her conclusion, Merchant claims that ecology has highlighted “the essential role of every part of an ecosystem”. (p88) How credible do you find this claim - and her conclusion that: “Each part contributes equal value to the healthy functioning of the whole. All living things, as integral parts of a viable ecosystem, thus have rights.” (pp. 88-9) (Emphasis added.)

Note:

Merchant (1992) was excerpted by Karen Warren from Carolyn Merchant’s original, The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific Revolution. (First published in 1980 by Harper and Row, San Francisco.) The excerpt was then reproduced in Merchant (1995). All page numbers in the study questions refer to the Merchant (1995) version.

Appendix F

Nature, Science and Gender:

Study Questions for Reading F

Schiebinger, L (1989) The Mind has no Sex? Women in the Origins of Modern Science. London: Harvard University Press. Chapter 8, The Triumph of Complementarity. (pp. 214-244)

Study Questions

1. Schiebinger writes that, “The real force fuelling the search for sex differences, however, was political.” (p214) What do you think she means by this?

2. What do you think Schiebinger means by the term, The Domestic Imperative? (p216)

3. What role, according to Schiebinger, did science play in the triumph of complementarity? What criticisms of this science, and its relationship to politics, does she offer?

4. What do you think Schiebinger means by the phrase, Masculinity, the Measure of Social Worth? (p230)

5. What, according to Schiebinger, did complementarians think was the proper relationship between women and the (many different) sciences?

6. Schiebinger concludes, “These ideological constructions of gender - though invisible - served as very real barriers to women’s continued progress in the sciences.” (p244) What do you think she means by constructions of gender? Why do you think she refers to these constructions as being ideological and invisible?

Appendix G

Nature, Science and Gender:

Study Questions for Reading G

Shiva, V (1988) Staying Alive. Women, Ecology and Development. London: Zed Books. Chapter 2, Science, Nature and Gender. (pp. 14-37)

Shiva, V (1999) Science, Nature and Gender. (pp. 325-332) In Smith, MJ (ed) Thinking through the Environment. A Reader. London: Routledge and Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Study Questions

1. Shiva claims that modern science is a “patriarchal project”. (p326) What do you think she means by this?

2. Shiva discusses what she terms “the violence of reductionism”. (p329) What do you think she means by this?

3. What is the “fact-value dichotomy” (p330), and on what grounds does Shiva criticise it?

4. Shiva quotes Harding’s comments on “the gendered social structure of science”. (p322) What do you think is meant by this?

Note:

All page numbers in the study questions refer to Shiva (1999).