Sexing the Body historicizes the scientific inquiry embraced by so many of us and our past literary encounters. Ogaddam, and yes, I, take comfort in definitive answers; Fausto-Sterling feels uncomfortable in this realm, and believes that this type of thinking is dangerous. But what I find compelling is the fact that she does not use her views to neglect or undermine science. What she attempts to do is trying to find the meaning behind it. The point that Sexing the Body tries to make is that science is a cultural activity. We need to understand the role it plays in culture and the role culture plays in it: to make good decisions about social policy, funding, etc. Reading Fausto-Sterling’s narrative made me reflect on my own experiences as a scientist: presenting all sorts of different studies as if they are neutral activities was only helpful if I was looking for material for my own research; but, was I being constrained by the fences of the scientific method? Was I missing everything that was actually meaningful about these studies lying behind these walls?
Yes, I make citations to support my “meanings.” So does A Billion Wicked Thoughts with its 150 page-and-counting determined list of references. But statements about the human body are not isolated; they become enmeshed in the fabric of our cultural discussions. Anne Fausto-Sterling’s history of endocrinology sparked the interest of my inner physiologist. Although I have been discussing growth hormones since the very beginning of my studies, never had I questioned the social and political goals of their names in sex differentiation: they were always presented as objective facts.
So are estrogen and testosterone being hid behind a cloak of subjectivity for the purpose of hiding their political and social agendas? Debates about our body’s biology are always simultaneously moral, ethical, and political. Nothing less complex is at stake. The reason debates about sex differences get so heated is exactly because they are not neutral, objective observations of Darwinian processes. They're interventions into our daily lives because they pose meanings for why we are the way we are. They create the idea of what is and isn't natural, and because so many people equate "natural" with "right," it leads to terrible social and political consequences. Sexing the Body made me rethink that the question of what is a girl and what is a guy perhaps should not be reduced to our 23rd set of chromosomes: XX vs. XY. No, I am not turning my back to my comfortable domain of black-and-white, yes or no world of Cartesian thought. But I am rethinking the consequences of my Cartesian beliefs, and through the process, finding my own definitions of meaning and reality.
I also never really considered the deep influence that cultural agenda has on scientific outcomes. I mean I knew that society influenced the problem-selection process of scientists, but I was totally oblivious to politics that pervaded the conclusions from the scientific studies. I thought science was just supposed to run its course and come up with conclusions independent of societal influences, but as you pointed out (with respect to biology), this is not always the case since there are political, moral, and ethical aspects of many studies that influence the results. This makes it seem like we cannot always trust "scientific" results then.
ReplyDeleteBut Jeehye, does the act in question need to be 'hiding' (RE: hormones)? I thin there are some ideological, CONSCIOUSLY ideological, scientists out there. But very few. I think most are like you; just doing clean work and loving the clarity of it all. But still, the politics operates. This is Latour's main point, and the one I always resist no matter how hard I try, no matter how much my reasonable self acceeds.
ReplyDelete