I have actually read this piece for two other classes, but found it particularly salient for our discussions this week, not only because it relates to reproduction but also because it relates to the intersection of culture and science.
In the piece, through an in-depth analysis of biology textbooks, Emily Martin argues that science has constructed a romanticized narrative consisting of the mighty, penetrative sperm which must make an arduous journey to the passive female egg which awaits rescue. Coming back to the same source material years later, Martin finds that the egg actually has much more of an active role in the fertilization process than was previously thought by biologists. However, this newfound significance is negated and the process is still described as a process which ascribes the majority (if not all) of the agency to the sperm. In essence, gender norms appear to be imposed onto biological processes in order to make them more palatable. However, this practice firmly ingrains certain normative gender roles, as well as the fact that certain biological processes are less virtuous.
We don't often think of this, the fact that our sociocultural ideas actually impact the way we do science, which is traditionally viewed as an objective field. The fact of the matter is that introduction of these patterns actually prevents us from doing good science, because we unknowingly seek the answers that uphold what we believe- hence, when a new development affording the egg a more active role came about, it was framed with traditional terminology and language. Science, therefore, seemingly works within certain systems upholding certain traditions and values, and it is important to decode and unpack them.
http://web.stanford.edu/~eckert/PDF/Martin1991.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment