Gender, Science, and Language

 

               Keller brings up an interesting point as she explores the trading zones between nature, gender, and science. Both Keller and Haraway articulate the inherit subjectivity of gender embedded within the natural sciences. Although Keller does not explicitly state that there is subjectivity in scientific reasoning, she does explain that science is a story about nature (37). Even though science is founded upon empirical evidence, it is expressed within a narrative framework which is ultimately influenced by societal norms. Regardless of the evidence discovered, the way in which the knowledge is disseminated will dictate an ideology that is influenced by the social constructions of gender. She uses the literature that was historically used to describe the human reproduction process to underscore her point. When scientists and/or society in portrays the sperm as an active agent who penetrates through a passive and ineffectual egg, one can easily see that the narrative framework and the language used to describe this scientific or  “natural event,” is embedded and conflated with gender stereotypes. Keller recognizes that what is described as natural is also firmly based on the construction of gender, race, and class (37). What is considered natural cannot be isolated from our social and political constructs, because the way in which we communicate with one another is deeply engrossed in language. This then raises the question, what is natural?  If even science is also bounded by societal constructions, then what constitutes nature? Even though Keller does not dive deeply into answering these questions, she seems to skirt around the issue of nature. She does not state that science is simply socially constructed; instead, she seems to allude that science/nature constantly interacts with societal norms and ideologies. She does not explicitly state what is natural and what is not, but she is highly aware that one cannot discuss science without examining societal constructs, particularly gender constructs.

Mary Wollstonecraft’s essay “The Vindication of the Rights of Man” also raises some of the same questions about nature; however, with Wollstonecraft, she views certain liberties such as reason, as a natural right of mankind. She argues that these liberties are not simply reserved for men only and should be considered for women as well. She seems to suggest that reason is a part of the natural world and that women should also be able to utilize their reason just as men do.

            With both authors, the issue of what is natural underscores both of their arguments, but what is glossed over is how the language that is used to disseminate these ideas or narratives regarding nature/science continue to perpetuate gender norms and stereotypes. Even though Keller calls for gender in science to not only be recognized and integrated within the history of science, it may also be helpful for her to go beyond gender in the general sense and explore how language in particular effects and influences our constructions gender, science, and gender in science. By isolating the English language, one might be able to then see how language itself gendered and how it then shapes our various modes of thought.