Rhea Harsoor
Term: Feminist Science and Technology Studies
Background and Introduction
Feminist Science and Technology Studies, also commonly referred to as Feminist Technoscience, was born from a series of feminist critiques focusing on the lack of gender equality in science (Asberg 2010). While science has been critical in comprehending the complexity of nature and the impact of gender-based oppression, the discipline itself has been shown to harbor prejudice against females in general. From the institution of science itself, that has a history of excluding female practioners, since there are far less women in science fields than men, to the marginalization of feminist issues of inquiry in science, where women’s issues are researched less than that of issues that plague men –the interdisciplinary science of Feminist Science and Technology Studies is one in which this introspective investigation has been conducted by feminists searching for the inherent misogyny embedded in science that is often overlooked as a result of the objectivity of science (Crasnow, 2015).
Within the area of Feminist Science and Technology Studies, feminists take a wide array of stances from encouraging the restructuring of scientific institutions to be more inclusive of women or by pointing out neglected areas of research, such as the unproportional research done on the sperm in comparison to the egg. Due to the nature of feminist studies, this work has been seen as having mostly impacted the gendered sciences, which consist mostly of sciences that characterize their objects of inquiry in gendered terms, such as social and human sciences or biological/life sciences; however, this discipline also includes research on other norms that impact our society such as the white racial norm that affects the treatment of non-white individuals (Crasnow, 2015).
Historical/Topical Context
In order to understand the topical context surrounding Feminist Science and Technology studies, this section will detail information regarding some of the discipline’s most notable players.
First, Donna Haraway is a professor well-known for her articles “Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the 1980s” and “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective”. Her work primarily focuses on exposing masculine bias in works of science. In her Manifesto, she responded to the rise of conservatism in the 1980s, where she exposed, to her readers, the reality of the world in which they were working. Haraway emphasized the ideology of creating groups based on affinity rather than identity because she believed that it was not femininity (biologically) but rather womanhood than could unify women (Haraway, 1985).
Second, Banu Subramaniam is a women, gender, and sexuality studies associate professor at the University of Massachusetts and the author of novel Ghost Stories for Darwin: The Science of Variation and the Politics of Diversity. In her work, Subramaniam explores the implications of historical eugenics in the United States and the impact of this ideology on our understanding of diversity. Furthermore, she questions how this understanding of diversity affects the “objectivity” of science and technology studies. She uses her background in biological studies to understand the way in which ideas of difference endure in the fields of women’s studies, ecology, and biological and life sciences (Subramaniam, 2014).
Thirdly, Emily Martin, author of “The Egg and the Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles”, is a socio-cultural anthropology professor at the New York University. Her work primarily focuses on unearthing sexism engrained in “objective” hard sciences. She argues that scientific literature is gender-biased by exposing the implications of the language used to describe male and female reproductive systems. Through her work, she emphasizes that the misogyny engrained in medical and scientific literature perpetuates modern gender inequality (Martin, 1991).
Controversy/Perspectives
The main controversy in Feminist Science and Technology Studies arises from the debate regarding what the purpose of this discipline truly is. While some major players in this discipline are more focused on unearthing the inequalities and stereotypes engrained in the institutional practices we take for granted, others argue that this inequality is already apparent. The latter group would prefer to focus on taking actionable steps to move away from this inequality rather than just spread awareness of such issues.
For example, author Londa Schiebinger’s article “Has Feminism Changed Science?” focuses on the changes made by feminists in the fields of hard science (Schiebinger, 1999). Contrastingly, Emily Martin’s “The Egg and the Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles” speaks about the inequalities and biases embedded within biological education (Martin, 1991). These very different starting points where Martin’s argument is based on spreading awareness and Schiebinger assumes these prejudices are apparent lead to a discrepancy regarding the assumptions of feminists in this field.
This confusion regarding what stage of the process feminists in the discipline should be focused on has resulted in a lack of inefficiency within the discipline since it is difficult to progress without knowing the status of other’s understanding of the matters at hand.
Politics of Health
In direct connection with our classwork, Anthony Ryan Hatch’s novel, Blood Sugar: Racial Pharmacology and Food Justice in Black America, is a work of Feminist Science and Technology Studies. In his piece, Hatch argues that African Americans are unable to exercise complete control over their healthcare treatment plans as a result of prejudices held by healthcare professionals. These prejudices, for example, include beliefs that African American men are more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia, arguably due to their non-normative way of handling stress. As a result, African Americans are prescribed atypical antipsychotic prescriptions at a much higher rate than the average individual. Unfortunately, these prescriptions burden patients with side effects such as obesity and high cholesterol (Hatch, 2016). Overall, Hatch has questioned the normative nature of prescribing medication to patients and unearthed the engrained prejudices within our system of healthcare that have contributed to the modern day oppression of individuals. This system of care can be characterized as oppressive because patients of color are unable to exercise complete control over their own health. This unearthing of institutional prejudices that are taken for granted is central to Feminist Science and Technology Studies – a discipline dedicated to shedding light on what is considered normative and the implications of streamlining a societal norm. In this way, just as Martin and Schiebinger illustrate the dangerous implications of biological rhetoric that portrays women as biological deviances from the male normative figure, Hatch similarly points out the dangerous implications of taking white behavior as normative and consequently overprescribing African Americans with atypical antipsychotics (Martin, 1999 & Schiebinger, 1991 & Hatch, 2016).
Works Cited
Bauchspies, Wenda K., and María Puig De La Bellacasa. “Feminist science and technology 12345studies: A patchwork of moving subjectivities. An interview with Geoffrey Bowker, 12345Sandra Harding, Anne Marie Mol, Susan Leigh Star and Banu 12345Subramaniam.” Subjectivity 28, no. 1 (2009): 334-44. doi:10.1057/sub.2009.21.
Crasnow, Sharon, Wylie, Alison, Bauchspies, Wenda K. and Potter, Elizabeth, “Feminist 12345Perspectives on Science”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 12345Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), 12345<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/feminist-science/>
Haraway, Donna. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of 12345Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies 14, no. 3 (1988): 575. doi:10.2307/3178066.
Hatch, Anthony Ryan. Blood sugar racial pharmacology and food justice in Black America. 12345Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2016.
Martin, Emily. “The Egg and the Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Romance Based on 12345Stereotypical Male-Female Roles.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society16, no. 123453 (1991): 485-501. doi:10.1086/494680.
Schiebinger, Londa. “Has Feminism Changed Science?” The University of Chicago Press 12345Journals, 1999. doi:10.7788/figurationen.1999.0.0.50.
Subramaniam, Banu. “Ghost Stories for Darwin: The Science of Variation and the Politics of 12345Diversity.” UI Press | Banu Subramaniam | Ghost Stories for Darwin: The Science of 12345Variation and the Politics of Diversity. Accessed April 15, 2017. 12345http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/24mxq3dr9780252038655.html.
« Back to Glossary Index