DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.

Ashley Hastings

107528593

WST 291

 

Seen and Unseen

 

     It is safe to say that in today’s time, science and technology are incredibly prominent. Everything we know and everything we own was once an idea that has been proven or built up from nothing. But what happens when something so important to society can be seen as an organizer of gender? Aspects of feminism try to explain the subtext of gender in scientific history. Evelyn Fox Keller is once such feminist who would deconstruct the polarity of nature and the mind, of feminine and masculine.  

     In her article “Making Gender Visible in the Pursuit of Nature’s Secrets”, Keller breaks down the role of gender in science, while asserting why there is gender in it also. Overall, she says females are associated with invisibility, and males with visibility. Keller argues that in science, nature and women are both invisible, and therefore dangerous to men. Since men were the scientists, knowledge was a way to erase this secret of femaleness. “The ferreting out of nature’s secrets, understood as an illumination of the female interior, or the tearing of natures veil…” (Keller, 517) She gives examples of science enforcing gender such as the discovery of the double helix by Watson and Crick and their competition with Rosalind Franklin, and other manifests of the topic in scientific scenarios.

    Keller is herself, an organizer of gender. She ties the female to nature, so that the arguments in her article work out. “…the secrets of women, like the secrets of nature, are and have traditionally been seen by men as potentially threatening…in that they articulate a boundary that excludes them.” (Keller, 516) The secrets women and nature might hold may both be a threat, but the threats are not exactly the same.

    Pertaining to her visible and invisible train of thought, Keller discusses that throughout history, being a female meant darkness and secrecy. She says these misconceptions have also been applied to pregnancy. This is because it is easily visible on the outside, but the inner progress was unable to be seen. Keller then goes on to say “It is, in fact, the ultimate secret of life, knowable if not visible to the mother, but absolutely inaccessible to the father.” (Keller, 516) But is pregnancy still invisible? With ultrasounds used today, the mother and father can both actually look at what was once considered hidden. This also allows the father slightly more access into the “secret of life.” So is pregnancy still absolutely inaccessible to the father? On some level, yes. They will obviously never experience pregnancy and child birth, but they can at least experience the visual aspect and be included via ultrasounds of the inner workings. 

    Keller then addresses the role science plays in the gender game with examples. When explaining the problem that mystery or allure poses Keller states that “Modern science has invented a strategy for dealing with this threat, for asserting power over nature’s potentially autonomous sphere.” (Keller, 517) She says that it is an undoing of the secrets of nature. Science is used mainly to understand the world around us. In today’s scientific time, the only threat is of ignorance of the world around us. Without mysteriousness, there would be no reason to try and comprehend our world. The majority of sciences accept this “mystery” since there are always exceptions to a law or theory.

     To further her explanation, she illustrates the race in biology to discover the “secret to life.” Her argument about Watson and Crick versus Rosalind Franklin and Erwin Chargraff depicts the battle between absolute reason and therefore an end to the search, and acceptance of the invisible.  Watson and Crick used elaborate language and to some degree theatrics when describing what they found. They truly believed the double helix was the only secret there was to life. The search was done, over. Keller rather accurately describes them as “conquistadors”. (Keller, 518) Today, most scientists are more careful what they call their findings, and are much usually more accepting of criticism from within the science community. If there is one thing scientists are good at, it is tearing holes into each others theories. So how did this end all finding in biology take off? Other scientists were sure to look father into it. Keller answers this, “That Watson and Crick were able to make it was a direct consequence of the existence of a small but significant culture of like minded ‘new thinkers’…”   Pertaining to Rosalind Franklin, Keller says “What she would not in all likelihood have seen in it was the secret of life.” (Keller, 518) This is because Franklin wasn’t looking for life’s great secret. She would have found the presence of DNA eventually, but not played it up to the extent that Watson and Crick did. Most other scientists “…would not have permitted such a linguistic and ideological sweep.” (Keller, 518) The reason Watson and Crick’s iconic image of the double helix became so popular was from a small group of their peers that were outspoken in their support. They did not want to allow mystery or second guesses about what they found. Life was solved for them. 

     After this, Keller describes a Nobel Prize winner, Barbara McClintock. She was not considered for the Prize because of her acceptance of darkness or mystery in the scientific field. “If she continues to be described as ‘unscientific’, it is for the same reason: mystery, for her, remained, and continues to remain, a positive value.” (Keller, 519) Mystery has to be accepted among the science community to some extent. If there was no uncertainty in something, there would be no reason to continue with any type of science. Not knowing is what drives people to discover and experiment. Mystery is what the sciences were created for, they go hand in hand.

     Still on the topic of science, Keller states that “Science thus becomes less of a mirror and more of a one way glass, transparent to the scientist, but impenetrable to anyone or anything outside.” (Keller, 519) Keller makes a good point with this statement. Scientists occasionally forget that the terms and explanations they use need even more explaining. Not everyone is trained in a science, and easy communication with the general public has improved, but there is still a boundary of those who understand, and those who do not.

     Evelyn Fox Kellers’ article was intriguing. Although, she tends to group the sciences together, making it seem like they all hold the same opinion, or are all aiming for the same thing. This is not true at all. Some scientists dedicate their life trying to prove another wrong. She did shed light on aspects of the relationship she believes the scientific community has in gender. Whether or not these relationships hold up today are different stories. Her article may have been applicable when it was written, but today, the sciences have come a long way. It is no longer only men writing the textbooks, but women also.

 

 

 

 

   

 

Works Cited

Keller, Evelyn F. "Making Gender Visible in the Pursuit of Nature's Secrets." Feminist Theory: A Reader. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005. 515-21. Print.

 

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.