THE MIND HAS NO SEX?
WOMEN IN THE ORIGINS OF MODERN SCIENCE
By Londa Schiebinger
Harvard University Press, 1991, 355 pages
Review by Michael Beach
Feminist Historian Challenge to the Definition of “Scientific” Activities
Despite a few noted exceptions, most women during the so-called scientific revolution period in Europe were not admitted to universities, academies or scientific societies. The degree of acceptance depended on location (Schiebinger, 1989). Italian scientific organizations in Bologna, Padua, and Rome allowed women in all sorts of roles, including positions of leadership (ibid 26). In France, involvement of women was more likely to be in salon discussions hosted by socially influential people. In fact women were often the organizers of this form of intellectual pursuit which included thought leaders of both sexes (ibid 30). German science was more economically motivated and social leaders tended to see scientific advance by women through the extension of rights under guild rules. As an artisan or business owner they could perpetuate their roles after the death of their husband (ibid 66). A noted exception was Maria Winkelmann who helped her husband create all sorts of calendars by collecting astronomical data. After his death the Berlin Academy of Sciences chose not to allow her to continue, even in a less elevated role of Assistant Calendar Maker (ibid 90). English science seemed even less welcoming to women in any role beyond working as an assistant to a male counterpart, often her spouse. French style salons were frowned upon by English gentility (ibid 32).
Alternatives did include attempts at women’s academies, though the idea didn’t catch on so well for lack of patronage. Monasteries offered opportunities for study and contemplation, but did not tend to have a scientific focus, rather a religious one. Many women participated in science through art, recreating through drawings what could only be seen under a microscope, or preserving specimens through the injection of wax (ibid 29).
Carolyn Merchant included philosophical argument sharing views of groups concerned with metaphysics (Merchant, 1980). She spoke of the internal/external argument by sharing views of philosophers often considered as external to science, though she does not speak to individual female scientific philosophers.
Katherine Park confirms Joan Kelly’s argument of their having been no renaissance for women (Park, 2006). Kelly was more focused on women and science. Park notes Merchant offers more of “the generalist vision in the history of science” (ibid 489). Merchant depicts less about the specific effect on women scientists, and more on the metaphor of nature as female. That said, Merchant (214) does describe Hobbes’ atomistic view of equality as “meant for middle- and upper-class property-holding males” (Merchant, 1980)
Specific Examples of Institutions, Practices, and Areas of Knowledge
Despite all the challenges, women were able to make significant contributions. Scheibinger’s work shares examples through the entire book. Margaret Cavendish married into a noble network of scholars. She worked primarily in isolation from other women, but became a thought leader in the atomistic philosophy. She lauded occasional attacks on rationalists and empiricists of her day. Emilie du Chatelet worked in close contact with Voltaire. Through him she was able to intermingle with many Newtonians of her day. She was able to use her social position of privilege to intermingle with the scholarly. Maria Sibylla Merian combined her artistic talents with her husband to create businesses. She gained notoriety through creating and selling art depicting nature of all scales. Maria Winkelmann became an astronomer by learning first from her father, later largely through partnership with her second husband Gottfried Kirch (Schiebinger, 1989). Though her major work was originally published by Kirch under his name, in a later publishing he gave Winkelmann credit (ibid 85).
Mainstream Scientific Culture Described as “Masculine” Rather Than “Gender-neutral”
Carolyn Merchant speaks to the evolution of nature from mother/womb, to untamed woman to be ‘penetrated’ in order to understand it, to the self-revealing woman, then finally to a non-woman mechanical cosmos (Merchant, 1980). These definitions came from a male perspective in the attempt to understand nature through the cultural definitions of womanhood. However Merchant only mentions one woman, Margaret Cavendish (ibid 206). She is incidentally depicted as one of a group, the rest are men, of English Royalist emigres in France with whom Thomas Hobbes associates himself while living there. The focus of the section is really on Hobbes’ mechanistic view of the cosmos and nature.
The Mechanism of Hobbes shows a default assumption of paternalism. Merchant shows how atomism would mean that all nature is the same, or equal, since everything is a result of atoms in motion. This even included the “human soul, will, brain, and appetites” (ibid 205). Despite the equality this stand should define, yet in Leviathan Hobbes describes a family in terms of a father, children and servants. Mother is not mentioned (ibid 214). This social depiction comes despite the argument that a child’s mother is always known, but the father is only known by the confession of the mother.
One way Schiebinger depicts the masculinization of science is to share how Kant describes the difference between the sexes through how each understands (Schiebinger, 1989). “Kant associated woman’s ‘beautiful understanding’ not with science, but with feeling.” He further argues women come to their philosophy “not to reason, but to sense” (ibid 271).
BibliographyMerchant, C. (1980). The Death of Nature. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Park, K. (2006). Women, Gender, and Utopia. FOCUS - ISIS, 487- 495.
Schiebinger, L. (1989). The Mind has no Sex? London: Harvard University Press.
WOMEN IN THE ORIGINS OF MODERN SCIENCE
By Londa Schiebinger
Harvard University Press, 1991, 355 pages
Review by Michael Beach
Feminist Historian Challenge to the Definition of “Scientific” Activities
Despite a few noted exceptions, most women during the so-called scientific revolution period in Europe were not admitted to universities, academies or scientific societies. The degree of acceptance depended on location (Schiebinger, 1989). Italian scientific organizations in Bologna, Padua, and Rome allowed women in all sorts of roles, including positions of leadership (ibid 26). In France, involvement of women was more likely to be in salon discussions hosted by socially influential people. In fact women were often the organizers of this form of intellectual pursuit which included thought leaders of both sexes (ibid 30). German science was more economically motivated and social leaders tended to see scientific advance by women through the extension of rights under guild rules. As an artisan or business owner they could perpetuate their roles after the death of their husband (ibid 66). A noted exception was Maria Winkelmann who helped her husband create all sorts of calendars by collecting astronomical data. After his death the Berlin Academy of Sciences chose not to allow her to continue, even in a less elevated role of Assistant Calendar Maker (ibid 90). English science seemed even less welcoming to women in any role beyond working as an assistant to a male counterpart, often her spouse. French style salons were frowned upon by English gentility (ibid 32).
Alternatives did include attempts at women’s academies, though the idea didn’t catch on so well for lack of patronage. Monasteries offered opportunities for study and contemplation, but did not tend to have a scientific focus, rather a religious one. Many women participated in science through art, recreating through drawings what could only be seen under a microscope, or preserving specimens through the injection of wax (ibid 29).
Carolyn Merchant included philosophical argument sharing views of groups concerned with metaphysics (Merchant, 1980). She spoke of the internal/external argument by sharing views of philosophers often considered as external to science, though she does not speak to individual female scientific philosophers.
Katherine Park confirms Joan Kelly’s argument of their having been no renaissance for women (Park, 2006). Kelly was more focused on women and science. Park notes Merchant offers more of “the generalist vision in the history of science” (ibid 489). Merchant depicts less about the specific effect on women scientists, and more on the metaphor of nature as female. That said, Merchant (214) does describe Hobbes’ atomistic view of equality as “meant for middle- and upper-class property-holding males” (Merchant, 1980)
Specific Examples of Institutions, Practices, and Areas of Knowledge
Despite all the challenges, women were able to make significant contributions. Scheibinger’s work shares examples through the entire book. Margaret Cavendish married into a noble network of scholars. She worked primarily in isolation from other women, but became a thought leader in the atomistic philosophy. She lauded occasional attacks on rationalists and empiricists of her day. Emilie du Chatelet worked in close contact with Voltaire. Through him she was able to intermingle with many Newtonians of her day. She was able to use her social position of privilege to intermingle with the scholarly. Maria Sibylla Merian combined her artistic talents with her husband to create businesses. She gained notoriety through creating and selling art depicting nature of all scales. Maria Winkelmann became an astronomer by learning first from her father, later largely through partnership with her second husband Gottfried Kirch (Schiebinger, 1989). Though her major work was originally published by Kirch under his name, in a later publishing he gave Winkelmann credit (ibid 85).
Mainstream Scientific Culture Described as “Masculine” Rather Than “Gender-neutral”
Carolyn Merchant speaks to the evolution of nature from mother/womb, to untamed woman to be ‘penetrated’ in order to understand it, to the self-revealing woman, then finally to a non-woman mechanical cosmos (Merchant, 1980). These definitions came from a male perspective in the attempt to understand nature through the cultural definitions of womanhood. However Merchant only mentions one woman, Margaret Cavendish (ibid 206). She is incidentally depicted as one of a group, the rest are men, of English Royalist emigres in France with whom Thomas Hobbes associates himself while living there. The focus of the section is really on Hobbes’ mechanistic view of the cosmos and nature.
The Mechanism of Hobbes shows a default assumption of paternalism. Merchant shows how atomism would mean that all nature is the same, or equal, since everything is a result of atoms in motion. This even included the “human soul, will, brain, and appetites” (ibid 205). Despite the equality this stand should define, yet in Leviathan Hobbes describes a family in terms of a father, children and servants. Mother is not mentioned (ibid 214). This social depiction comes despite the argument that a child’s mother is always known, but the father is only known by the confession of the mother.
One way Schiebinger depicts the masculinization of science is to share how Kant describes the difference between the sexes through how each understands (Schiebinger, 1989). “Kant associated woman’s ‘beautiful understanding’ not with science, but with feeling.” He further argues women come to their philosophy “not to reason, but to sense” (ibid 271).
BibliographyMerchant, C. (1980). The Death of Nature. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Park, K. (2006). Women, Gender, and Utopia. FOCUS - ISIS, 487- 495.
Schiebinger, L. (1989). The Mind has no Sex? London: Harvard University Press.
RSS Feed