This book addresses the question of whether the ideas and practices of 20th-century feminism have had any discernable effect in various areas of physical science. This feminism includes the latter stages of the first wave, the continued participation of women in the work force through the Depression and war years, and the second wave of the 60's and 70's. The book is a collection of essays by women scientists, sociologists, and women's studies researchers, each looking at a specific area or aspect of the question.
This book is both more and less than it appears to be from its title and table of contents. Thus it left me with rather mixed feelings, and I'll have to rate it no better than a "strong 0."
Starting on the positive side, the essays are more than a catalogue of a few great women, or a simple-minded celebration of the fact that science now has greater sensitivity and emotion because more women practice it. The authors have actually looked carefully for genuine changes in scientific practice brought about by the presence of women and, more specifically, the presence of a female perspective on scientific inquiries.
The fact that they found some actual effects says a lot about the supposed neutrality of science, technology, and medical research. For instance, there is clear evidence that women have changed the nature of inquiries in archaeology, by challenging the androcentric assumptions made by Western male researchers. This has led to new insights and lines of research. Women have also been involved in changing the way we understand some aspects of biology, primatology, and gynecology. The essays show that women can bring a new perspective to science that is still consistent with the principles of scientific study, and can lead to new scientific knowledge that is valuable.
(As an aside, it is worth noting that my own field, physics, wa not represented in the book. At first, I was a little miffed, but the Introduction addressed this point explicitly: "We have not included a paper on the physical sciences because, to date, it has not been shown that feminism has deeply touched the field." To be honest, I can't disagree).
I appreciated that the authors understood the complexity of including gender in science. Asking what women have done for science is a much harder (and richer) question than asking what they have done for some other aspects of society. I have some more comments below on this difficult aspect of the book's subject.
But first, let me note that the book was also disappointing in some ways, not living up to its intriguing title. In the end, this is a second-wave, women's studies-type, academic analysis. As often happens with these studies, there is the feeling that the observers didn't get it quite right. I found myself rolling my eyes at some of their comments about science-- it is very clear that they've never worked in a lab. I appreciate the fact that external analysis is necessary and can be very enlightening for a field (would you trust a politician's definition of what politics is?), but still, that doesn't mean the sociologists have the final word on what the practice of science is, either.
Sometimes the book swerved annoyingly into deconstructivist, science-studies-type banalities. These were the papers where the authors proclaimed, as if we all agreed, that of course "science" is just the "creation" of agreed-upon paradigms and has nothing to do with the discovery of truth. These flippant statements are just as stupid as the scientific dogma that says science is only about the discovery of Truth and has no cultural baggage. It is so blindingly obvious that neither extreme is correct, I find myself surprised that anyone can continue to cling to the extremes. But alas, there are holdouts at both ends. I disregarded the opinions of the authors who espoused the pure "constructed truth" concept of science.
(And I continue to hope that they will form a community that constructs the "fact" that gravity doesn't exist, and then they all step off a cliff, secure that their view of the world will create the truth for them).
Returning to the difficult issue of treating gender within science, which is supposedly genderless, I was pleased that the authors grappled with this concept, but not always pleased with their methods or conclusions. Of central concern to these second-wave feminists was the fact that many women scientists reject feminism. Oh, they may practice some of the supposedly feminist principles, and they may agree with the goals of feminism or at least the concept of equality, but they often don't think of themselves as or call themselves feminists.
What could be the matter with these women, the essays ask earnestly. The conclusion is often that science demands such conformity from its members than women scientists have been herded into non-feminist stances in order to survive. They have learned to imitate men and keep a low profile in order to navigate the career ladder. Otherwise, of course, they'd be marching in the streets.
There is no denying the truth of this assessment. Explicit, in-your-face feminism is totally unacceptable in most endeavors within science, technology, and medicine. Then again, so is in-your-face politics of almost any kind. But having been in the field, I can certainly attest that feminism, or even just explicit femaleness, is a very uncomfortable prospect, and those displaying it will pay a price.
However, I don't think this is the whole truth. Feminism itself must take part of the blame. Second-wave feminism rejected science long before women scientists rejected feminism. The movement, with its proto-deconstructivist ideas of the 60's and 70's, ignored or even demeaned science during its heyday. When they began paying attention again in the 80's and 90's, they should hardly have been surprised that the community of women scientists, technicians, engineers, and medical professionals had developed their own style and culture, and that it diverged somewhat from "mainstream" feminism.
Academic feminists and women scientists are not going to see eye-to-eye. That's OK-- no one expects men of two radically different fields to instantly harmonize simply because they are men. It's time for the second-wavers to stop asking why otherwise pro-woman-seeming women don't want to call themselves feminists. The answer should be clear by now. We should move on to redefine, expand, or otherwise change the concept of feminism for the new realities of how women are living and working. This is a good thing, not something to fret about in consternation from the cramped office of a Women's Studies department.
Overall, I found this book a bit dry. It is no more and no less than an academic analysis of an intriguing topic. There is no doubt that feminism has begun the long process of impacting the stolid fields of science, technology, and medicine, which is an exciting prospect. And I'm certainly glad that some researchers are documenting that process (and progress), so that the history is not lost. But the particular form of these essays got tedious at some points.
Copyright © Kim Allen 2002
