Gender and Race in the Social Studies of Science Graduate Seminar, Spring 1998 Professor Anne Fausto-Sterling Dept. of Molecular Biology, Cell Biology and Biochemistry Brown University Providence, Rhode Island 02912 Office: 401-863-2109 FAX: 401-863-2421 Email: Anne_Fausto-Sterling@brown.edu Professor Evelynn M. Hammonds Program in Science, Technology, and Society Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge MA 02139 Office: 671-253-8780 FAX: 617-258-8634 EMAIL: eveham@mit.edu Course Description Events taking place in science and engineering laboratories and the policy decisions that accompany them affect women's daily lives in more ways than we can begin to fathom. (The recent controversy about air-bags is a good example. Engineers designed the bags to work with a "standard" 5'9", 160-pound male, and policy makers approved this as a safety standard; yet it has led to the death of women and children.) It is not surprising, then, that in the past fifteen years feminists have extended their analyses to include science. Beyond the "famous women" approach, scholars using approaches from diverse fields--history, philosophy, anthropology, and the sciences themselves have analyzed the impact of gender and, to a lesser extent race, on the production of scientific knowledge. In a parallel moment, non-feminist scholars from the history of science, philosophy of science, and sociology of science have created a challenging and fascinating body of work analyzing the workings of science and the social nature of the construction of scientific knowledge. Their work, in conjunction with that of feminist analysts of science, is at the center of the burgeoning field of the social studies of science. This course examines recent scholarship on the role of gender and race in the social studies of science drawing from the fields of biology, anthropology, sociology, philosophy, and history. We will use works both by feminists and by more traditionalist scholars to elaborate on an emerging synthesis. We have divided this 12-week course in the following way: in each section we will emphasize the problems of analyzing race, gender, and class in the field of science studies. Weeks 1-3: Science Studies Theory In this section we examine key works and controversies in the field of science studies, including an overview of feminist critiques of science. Weeks 4-7: Science/Gender -- Gender/Science In this section of the course we will examine obverse questions: How have scientists, historians, social scientists, and philosophers constructed gender difference and how has the existence of gender difference influenced the construction of scientific knowledge? Week 8: 18th and 19th Century Racial Categories In this section we examine the historical development of contemporary racial categories-- knowledge needed for the material to be considered in Week 9. Week 9: The Race/Gender Connection There is a certain tendency to emphasize the parallels between race and gender in the epistemology of knowledge. Here we will examine both the strengths and weaknesses of such an approach. Weeks 10-12: Science/Race-- Race/Science In this section of the course we will examine obverse questions: How have scientists constructed racial difference and how has the existence of racial difference influenced the construction of scientific knowledge? How does class figure in scientific discussions of race and gender? Course Prerequisites In teaching this course we would like to assume that students have already read: Evelyn Fox Keller's Reflections on Gender and Science,Sandra Harding's The Science Question in Feminism,Emily Martin's The Woman in the Body,Margaret Rossiter's Women Scientists in Americaand Kenneth Manning's Black Apollo of Science.However, we will do a short overview of this material during the first three weeks of the course. We also expect that students will have some background in feminist theory. It would also help if students have had an introductory level course in biology (barring that, willingness to read an introductory biology text and the science page of the New York Timesas well as the news sections of the journals Scienceand Naturewill be essential). Required Texts (available on order from New Words bookstore ph. 876-5310) Donna Haraway, Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern Science. New York: Routledge, 1989. Sandra Harding, ed., The "Racial" Economy of Science: Toward a Democratic Future. Indiana Univ. Press, 1993. Course materials A seminar reader (photocopied course packet) will be available for purchase from the textbook floor at the Harvard Coop. Also, as they are available, required and optional readings also will be on reserve at the bell desk of the Cronkhite Graduate Center, Radcliffe. Written Assignments Students will submit three short (five pages) papers (one per four-week course segment). These short papers will be designed around an assigned question or set of questions. Students must also write a research paper of 15 pages in length. In preparation for this assignment students are required to submit a proposal and preliminary bibliography by the end of the week 5 of the class. We strongly urge, but leave optional, the submission of a rough draft no later than week 9 of class. The final draft is due the last day of class. Class Time Each class will open with a short introductory lecture by one of the instructors. The lecture will be followed by a discussion of the required reading for each session. Reports on selections from the optional readings will be given by students in each class which can be used as the basis for the short written assignments. WEEKLY READINGS AND ASSIGNMENTS Week 1: Science Studies Theory January 27 Sharon Traweek, "An Introduction to Cultural and Social Studies of Science and Technology," in Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry 17 (1993), 3-25. Evelyn Fox Keller, Reflections on Gender and Science. 1985. pp. 43-65. Sandra Harding, The Science Question in Feminism. 1986. pp. 136-62. Joseph Rouse, "Feminism and the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge," in Lynn H. Nelson and J. Nelson eds., Feminism, Science, and The Philosophy of Science. Dordecht: Kluwer Academic Pub., 1996. pp. 195-215. Optional Helen Longino and Evelynn Hammonds, "Conflicts and Tensions in the Feminist Study of Gender and Science," in E. F. Keller and M. Hirsch, Conflicts in Feminism. 1990. pp. 164-84. Barry Barnes, "Sociological Theories and Scientific Knowledge," in R. C. Olby, et al, eds, Companion to the History of Modern Science. 1990. pp. 60-73. Joseph Rouse, "What are the Cultural Studies of Scientific Knowledge?" Configurations 1 (1992), 1-22. Evelyn Fox Keller, Reflections on Gender and Science, pp. 139-49. Questions How do these scholars define "science" and "culture"? Critics have charged that science studies promotes "relativism." How do Rouse and Traweek address that charge? Week 2: Gender and Science Studies I February 3 Sara Delamont, "Three Blind Spots? A Comment on the Sociology of Science by a Puzzled Outsider," in Social Studies of Science 17 (1987), 163-70. Eveleen Richards and John Schuster, "The Feminine Method as Myth and Accounting Resource: A Challenge to Gender Studies and Social Studies of Science," and responses from Evelyn Fox Keller and rebuttal by Richards and Schuster in Social Studies of Science 19 (1989), 697-729. Donna Haraway, "Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective," in Simians, Cyborgs, and Women. New York: Routledge, 1991. pp. 183-202. Optional Hilary Rose, "Gendered Reflexions on the Laboratory in Medicine," in A. Cunningham and P. Williams, eds. The Laboratory Revolution in Medicine. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992. pp. 324- 42. Questions What are the methodological problems involved in revealing the gendered nature of science within science studies? Week 3: Gender and Science Studies II February 10 Bruno Latour, Science in Action, pp. 1-62, 179-256. Bruno Latour, "Did Ramses II die of Tuberculosis? On the partial existence of existing and non-exisiting Objects," in L. Daston and J. Renn, The Coming into Being and the Passing Away of Scientific Objects. Forthcoming from Univ. of Chicago Press. Optional David Berreby, "That Damned Elusive Bruno Latour," in Lingua Franca, Sept/Oct 1994, 22- 78. Martin, Emily. "Citadels, Rhizomes and String figures" in Stanley Aronowitz et al., eds. Technoscience and Cyberculture.New York: Routledge, 1996. Donna Haraway, Critique of Latour's, "We Have Never Been Modern." Talk given at SSSS Meetings, New Orleans, 1994. Used with permission. Questions Do a gender analysis of a section of Latour's book. In your analysis try to assess how a gender-blind approach furthers his central arguments. Week 4: Biologists Critique Biology February 17 Evelyn Fox Keller, Secrets of Life, Secrets of Death. 1992. pp.113-43. Donna Haraway, Primate Visions. 1989. pp. 316-30, 349-67. Meredith Small. Female Choices. 1993. pp. 117-49. Optional Ruth Bleier, Science and Gender. 1984. pp. 49-109. Bonnie Spanier, Im/Partial Science. 1995. pp. 55-65. Ruth Hubbard, The Politics of Women's Biology. 1990. pp. 87-106. Anne Fausto-Sterling, Myths of Gender. 1992. pp. 223-70. Lynda Birke, Women, Feminism, and Biology. 1986. pp. 83-106. Questions All the authors for this week are biologists or biological anthropologists. What is the nature of the critiques of biology and science that they offer? Does each author share the same critical approach? Has their training as scientists marked their critiques in same fashion? If you think their approaches differ, how would you subdivide them? Why do you think they might differ? Week 5: The Social Scientists February 24 Due: Research paper proposal and preliminary bibliography Alison Wylie, "The Engendering of Archeology: Refiguring Feminist Science Studies," in Osiris 12 (1997), 80-99. Sharon Traweek, Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists. 1988. pp. 1-45, 74-105. Optional Sharon Traweek, "Border Crossings: Narrative Strategies in Science Studies and Among Physicists in Tsukuba Science City, Japan," in A. Pickering ed. Science as Practice and Culture. 1992. pp. 429-65. Hilary Rose, Love, Power, Knowledge. 1994. pp. 71-96. Emily Martin, Flexible Bodies. 1994. pp. 21-112 and 227-50. Questions All the authors for this week are sociologists, anthropologists, or archeologists (the latter usually sits uncomfortably next to the former in a hybrid entity called a Department of Anthropology). What is the nature of the critiques of science that they offer? Does each author share the same critical approach? How has their training as social scientists marked their critiques of science? If you think their approaches differ how would you subdivide them? Why do you think they differ? How do their critiques compare methodologically and theoretically with those of the biologists? Week 6: The Historians March 3 Mid-term evaluations Londa Schiebinger, Nature's Body. 1993. pp. 40-74. Ludmilla Jordanova, Sexual Visions. 1989. pp. 19-42. Cynthia Eagle Russett, Sexual Science. 1989. pp. 78-103. Donna Haraway, Primate Visions. pp. 26-58. Optional Joan W. Scott, "Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis," in J. W. Scott, Gender and the Politics of History. 1988. pp.28-52. Carolyn Merchant, The Death of Nature. 1980. pp. 1-68. Evelyn Fox Keller, Reflections on Gender and Science. 1985. pp. 33-42. Question How does the historical study of gender differ from those of the social scientists and biologists? Week 7: The Philosophers March 10 Elizabeth Potter, "Modelling the Gender Politics in Science" in N. Tuana, ed. Feminism and Science. pp. 132-146. Helen Longino, Science As Social Knowledge. 1990. pp. 133-61. Sandra Harding, Whose Science, Whose Knowledge? 1991. pp. 218-48. Val Plumwood, Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. 1993. pp. 41-68. Optional Sandra Harding, "Is Science Multicultural?" 1995. Used with permission. Bina Agarwal, "Gendering the Environmental Debate." 1991. Vandana Shiva, "Colonialism and the Evolution of Masculinist Forestry" in The Racial Economy of Science. pp. 303-14. Questions Adding the philosophers we directly approach the question of epistemology. The same set of questions apply. How do the authors agree or disagree with each other? How much of the disagreement is disciplinary, how much political? Do the different positions taken by the philosophers and those in other disciplines lend themselves to particular political actions, or get in the way of same? To what degree do individual, political beliefs affect the epistemological approaches we accept or espouse? Week 8: 18th and 19th Century Racial Categories March 17 Nicholas Hudson, "From 'Nation' to 'Race:' The Origin of Racial Classification" in Eighteenth Century Studies 29:3 (1996), 247-64. Anne Fausto-Sterling, "Gender, Race, and Nation: The Comparative Anatomy of 'Hottentot' Women in Europe, 1815-1817," in J. Terry and J. Urla, eds. Deviant Bodies. 1995. pp. 19-48. Stephen J. Gould, "American Polygeny and Craniometry Before Darwin: Blacks and Indians as Separate, Inferior Species," in Harding, Racial Economy of Science. pp. 84-115. Optional Nancy Stepan, The Idea of Race in Science. 1982. Chapters 3 and 4 on Darwin and Rise of Physical Anthroplogy. George W. Stocking, Jr., Race, Culture, and Evolution: Essays in the History of Anthroplogy. 1968. Selections. Questions Is the concept of "race" the same in each of these author's article? What aspects of their notion of race would you describe as scientific? Which are descriptions of cultural and social notions of race? Is it possible to separate the social/cultural from the scientific? March 24: No class--Spring Break Week 9: Race and Gender March 31 Rough draft of final research paper due (optional) Nancy Stepan, "Race and Gender: the Role of Analogy in Science" in Harding, Racial Economy of Science. pp. 359-76. Londa Schiebinger, "The Anatomy of Difference: Race and Sex in 18th century Science," in Eighteenth Century Studies, 23:4 (Summer, 1990). Cynthia Eagle Russett, Chapter 2, "Up and Down the Phyletic Ladder," in Sexual Science: The Victorian Construction of Womanhood. 1989. pp.49-77. Questions Describe the metaphors at play in the Russett chapter. If analogical reasoning evoked a sceince of differences as Stepan claims, then how would we describe a science of human similarities? Week 10: Early 20th Century April 7 Diane Paul, Chapters 2, 4 and 6 in Controlling Human Heredity: 1865 to the Present. 1995. pp. 22-39, 50-71, 97-114. Robyn Wiegman, "Sexing the Difference," in American Anatomies: Theorizing Race and Gender. 1995. pp. 43-80. Lee D. Baker, "The Location of Franz Boas Within the African-American Struggle," Critique of Anthropology 14:2 (1994), 199-217. Optional Gunnar Myrdal, Biology Chapter in An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy. New York, 1944. W. E. B. DuBois, The Health and Physique of the Negro American. 1906. Ruth Benedict and Gene Weltfish, "The Races of Mankind," Public Affairs Pamphlet No. 85, 1946. Franz Boas, "New Evidence in Regard to the Instability of Human Types" (1916) and "Some Criticisms of Physical Anthropology," (1899) in Race, Language, and Culture. 1940. pp. 76-85 and 165-71. Questions How do these authors address the question of race as "fact" of the body? How dependent are their notions of race on the visual markings of bodies? Is the visual fact of race undermined by new scientific facts about race? Are DuBois' or Benedict's arguments persuasive? How are scientific facts of racial difference constructed out of popular notions of race in Anderson? Week 11: The Retreat from Race and Racism April 14 Elazar Barkan, Part III and Epilogue in The Retreat of Scientific Racism: Changing Concepts of Race Between the World Wars. 1992. Frank Livingstone, "On the Nonexistence of Human Races" in Harding, The "Racial" Economy of Science, pp. 133-41. Gloria Marshall, "Racial Classifications: Popular and Scientific" in Harding, The "Racial" Economy of Science, pp. 116-27. Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham, "African-American Women's History and the Metalanguage of Race," in Signs 17 (Winter 1992), 251-74. Optional David Theo Goldberg, "Chapter 4: The masks of race" in Racist Culture: Philosophy and the Politics of Meaning. 1993. Questions Is the retreat from racism the same as a retreat from race as a viable scientific concept in these essays? Does Higginbotham's metalanguage of race have a parallel in the scientific writings? Where is gender in these articles? Week 12: The End of Race? April 21 Faye V. Harrison, "The Persistent Power of 'Race' in the Cultural and Political Economy of Racism," in Annual Review of Anthropology 24 (1995), 47-74. Alan H. Goodman, "The Problematics of 'Race' in Contemporary Biological Anthropology" in N.T. Boaz and L. Wolfe, eds. Biological Anthropology: The State of the Science. Oregon: International Institute for Human Evolutionary Research, 1995. pp. 215-39. Richard Lewontin, "Of Genes and Genitals," Transition 69 6:1 (1996), 178-93. Donna Haraway, "Universal Donors in a Vampire Culture: It's All in the Family: Biological Kinship Categories in the Twentieth Century United States" in William Cronon, ed., Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature. New York: W. W. Norton, 1995. pp. 321-78. Optional Lawrence Wright, "One Drop of Blood," in New Yorker, July 25, 1994, 46-55. Peggy Pascoe, "Miscegenation Law, Court Cases and Ideologies of 'Race' in Twentieth Century America," in The Journal of American History 83:1, 44-69. Questions: Are neo-race discourses in anthropology less dependent on biology than theories from the pre-World War II period? Or is there a new relationship being expressed between biology and culture? How do Haraway and Pascoe see the effects of biological notions of kinship? Are anxieties about miscegenation an assertion of biological kinship or a denial of it? Week 13 April 28 Course evaluations will be given during the first half of class. Final projects are due. Please provide two copies. If you want the graded papers mailed to you, include a self-addresses stamped envelope; otherwise, please pick them up in the Coordinator's office after grades have been turned in.
