- Email: [email protected]
Scientific objectivity and the concept of “the other”
0277-5395/89 $3.00 + .00
Women's Studies Int. Forum, Vol. 12, No.3, pp. 285-294, 1989
© 1989 Pergamon Press pic
Printed in the USA.
SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVITY AND THE CONCEPT OF "THE OfHER" ZULEYMA TANG HALPIN Department of Biology, and Women's Studies Program, University of Missouri-St. Louis, St. Louis, MO 63121, U.S.A.
Synopsis - The concept of scientific objectivity, which incorporates the dichotomies of "intellect versus emotions" and "self versus other," is considered the cornerstone of modern science. Until recently, western science has been conducted primarily by white, upper and middle class, heterosexual men of Christian background. This has resulted in the identification of these characteristics with ''the self" and, consequently, with their being regarded as valuable and "normal." All else was relegated to the status of "the other," lacking in value and, therefore, necessitating scientific explanation. Thus, the self versus other split, in conjunction with the intellect versus emotions dichotomy, has provided the justification for the oppression and domination of "the other," which has been prevalent throughout the history of western science. While women have been equated to nature and both have been oppressed, this oppression is the result of a broader dynamic which labels everything different from the scientist's "self" as inferior. The history of biological determinism is used to demonstrate that all oppressed groups have been used interchangeably and equated with each other, as well as with nature. Examples of the treatment by science of women, racial minorities, Jews, the poor, and gays and lesbians are discussed to illustrate the dynamics of scientific oppression, and the equation of all categories considered as "other." The resistance of many scientists to animal welfare concerns is discussed within the same framework and shown to be also the result of the identification of animals with ''the other."
Objectivity, defined as the condition of being uninfluenced by emotion, surmise, personal prejudice, or belief, is usually considered as the sine qua non of science. Scientists are taught, from their earliest exposure to the scientific method, that "objectivity" is the most fundamental and most valuable attribute of science, and one which all true scientists must pursue. Among society at large, the perception that science and the scientist are inherently and incorruptibly objective has contributed significantly to the popular mythology and mystification of science. While true objectivity is undeniably necessary for the rational pursuit of science, the concept of scientific objectivity as commonly understood and practiced by scientists, often has been formulated in ways that are actually antithetical to truly objective and unbiased scientific inquiry (Fee, 1981; Keller, I am grateful to Arlene Zarembka for her support and encouragement, for many stimulating discussions, and for her valuable comments on the manuscript. Jackie Pastis was very helpful in suggesting references on Nazi Germany. Conversations with Victoria Sork have influenced the development of my ideas. 285
1982). Among the several forms that the concept of scientific objectivity has taken (Fee, 1981), two are of particular relevance to the remainder of this paper. They are: (a) the formulation that states that scientific objectivity necessitates the rejection of feelings in favor of the intellect; and (b) the formulation that requires, as essential to science, the separation of the subject (philosophically, the mind or thinking part) from the object (that which is thought about); in other words, the separation of the scientist as the thinking "self' from the object of study, ''the other."
SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVITY AND THE CONTROL PARADIGM From the earliest stages of scientific training every young scientist is implicitly taught what is essentially an extension of the Cartesian principle: "I think, therefore 1 am a scientist." The concomitant and often explicit message is "I am a scientist, therefore 1 cannot feel." Aspiring young scientists are thus taught that the essence of science is intellect and absolute "rationality," and that emotions and feelings must not be allowed to play any
286
ZULEYMA TANG HALPIN
part in the process. It is interesting that most biologists vividly remember the first time they pithed a frog, usually in an introductory biology course. Pithing is a procedure that involves using a sharp instrument to destroy the central nervous system of a live frog by severing the spinal cord from the brain. Although not recognized as such by most biologists, the "pithing of the frog" is in essence a rite of passage which separates the scientists from the nonscientists, those who have what it takes from those who do not. And what it takes in this instance is the ability to suppress and repress any feelings of compassion one might have for the unfortunate frog, as well as any feelings of revulsion at being made to perform the procedure. Reluctant students are informed that the frog's central nervous system contains no sensory cells and, therefore, that the procedure is painless. Thus, to feel qualms about hurting the animal is irrational- the one thing that a true scientist must never be. The message to the students is clear: if you want to be a scientist you cannot let your emotions get in the way. Those who are capable of thus separating their feelings from their intellect go on to become scientists, those who cannot drop out early in the game. The second dichotomy, self versus other, or subject versus object, is closely related to the first. The most effective way of learning to control one's feelings is to be "objective," that is, to see one's self as totally different and apart from the object of study, the "other." Once this ability to objectify is perfected, anything the scientist studies can be regarded as "object," thus rendering it incapable of eliciting any meaningful emotion from the scientist. The effects of the subject/object, self/other dichotomy do not stop here, however, because "the self" eventually comes to be defined not just as the individual scientist, but rather as the entire category "scientist." Scientists are, by definition, considered to be highly intellectual and highly rational. Since these characteristics are highly valued in our cultural tradition, scientists also come to see themselves, by the mere fact that they are scientists, as having high value. Furthermore, since historically western science has been practiced almost exclusively by white,
middle or upper class males, primarily heterosexuals, and until relatively recently, mostly by individuals who were the products of a Christian tradition, the valued characteristics of intellect and rationality are generalized by the scientist to an extension of the self: all white, middle and upper class, heterosexual, Christian males. The "other," by definition, is the opposite of the "self," and therefore comes to be regarded as intrinsically of lesser value. It is only a short step from this to the conclusion that the scientist, and those who share his characteristics, are superior, while those who are "different," the "others," are inferior. The stage is thus set for a paradigm of science that promotes the inferiority of the "other" and implicitly endorses and justifies a policy of domination and control over those that are labelled inferior. WOMEN AND THE orHER "orHERS"
Feminists have convincingly argued that the equation of woman with nature has led to the domination of both by patriarchal science (Griffin, 1978;Merchant, 1980, 1982). While this analysis is useful, and certainly correct in part, it is also short-sighted in that it misses the broader implications of a philosophical/scientific mindset that results in the oppression and domination, not only of women, but also of anyone and anything that the scientist perceives as inferior to the valued "self." As feminists it is understandable that our initial analysis focused on scientific sexism. However, a broader analysis is now necessary if we are to gain a more complete understanding of the dynamics of scientific oppression. I would argue that women have been oppressed, not so much because they have been equated to nature, but rather because both women and nature have been equated to "the other." Furthermore, all categories of humans that do not share the characteristics defined as valuable and "self" by the scientist have been equated to each other, to nature, and to "the other." Thus, the same dynamic that has resulted in labeling women as inferior and justified society's domination of women and nature, has done the same, during most of our history, to Blacks and other people of color, Jews, the poor, and gay or lesbian persons.
Scientific Objectivity
A reading of the history of scientific racism and sexism makes it clear that all groups defined as "inferior" by science have always been treated as equivalents. In the words of Gould (1981): Scientific racists and sexists often confine their label of inferiority to a single disadvantaged group; but race, sex, and class go together .. . (p. 80). "Inferior" groups are interchangeable in the general theory of biological determinism. They are continually juxtaposed and one is made to serve as a surrogate for all . . . (p. 103) As a woman of color, whose parents had little formal education and came from an economically-deprived background, I was acutely aware of the oppressive treatment by science of minority groups (minorities only from a white, Western perspective) and of poor and working class people long before I was aware of its mistreatment of women. Indeed, I became aware of women's oppression by science in part from reading about the history of scientific racism. The equation of women with other "inferior" groups became undeniably apparent when I read the same adjectives used over and over to describe women and other oppressed groups. Women, blacks, Native Americans, Chinese, Eskimos, Australian Aborigines, and "feebleminded" Jews and eastern/southern European immigrants were repeatedly described as "sensual, emotional, lacking the capacity to reason, fickle, unstable, and submissive" (see Gould, 1981, for numerous examples). That all of these characteristics were regarded as quintessentially feminine, regardless of which group they were applied to , was made explicit by Louis Agassiz, one of America's foremost scientists of the 19th century, when in a letter decrying the horrors of miscegenation, he wrote: Conceive for a moment the difference it would make for our civilization generally, if the United States should hereafter be inhabited by the effeminate progeny of mixed races, half indian, half negro, sprinkled with white blood . . . I shudder at the consequences. (Emphasis mine; cited in Gould, 1981, p. 49)
287
The interchangeability of oppressed groups was highlighted by E. D. Cope, the highly regarded American paleontologist, in 1887when he listed the four groups of inferior human forms: (a) all non-white races; (b) women; (c) southern Europeans; and (d) lower classes among the superior races (in Gould, 1981 , p. 115). Thus, while it is true that science has equated woman to nature, it has also equated woman (usually meaning white women) with all other oppressed groups. Furthermore, groups considered to be inferior have been likewise equated to women and to animals. Consider, for example, the following quote : . . . the Negro brain resembles that of our children, and that of our females . . . The grown up Negro partakes as regards his intellectual faculties, of the nature of the child, the female, and the senile white .. . (Vogt, 1864). or In the most intelligent races, as among the parisians, there are a large number of women whose brains are closer in size to those of gorillas than to the most developed male brains [read: white male brains]. All psychologists who have studied the intelligence of women . . . recognize today that they are closer to children and savages [read: people of color] than to an adult civilized man. (LeBon, 1879, as cited in Gould, 1981, pp. 104-105) The equation of women, non-whites and animals comes full circle in the following description of an African woman: She had a way of pouting her lips exactly like what we have observed in the orangutan . Her movements had something abrupt and fantastical about them, reminding one of those of the ape. Her ear was like that of many apes . . . These are animal characters . I have never seen a human head more like an ape than that of this woman. (Topinard, 1878) Even when groups labeled "inferior" are not explicitly equated with women, they are often compared to animals, usually in ways
288
ZULEYMA TANG HALPIN
designed to make them appear more animal than human (using white males as the prototype of humanity). For example, in two influential books published by Nott and Gliddon, Types of Mankind (1854) and Indigenous Races of the Earth (1868), drawings of the facial features and skull shapes of African blacks are repeatedly altered to make them appear closer to those of chimpanzees, gorillas, or orangutans. Similarly, the celebrated German biologist, Ernst Haeckel, in the frontpiece to his book, The Evolution of Man (1874, English translation 1903), elongated the drawing of the skull of an "Australian Negro," causing the face and jaw to jut forward. The distorted skull is then placed between that of a "Mediterranean" (white) human and those of a gorilla and an orangutan, suggesting a close relationship between the "negro" skull and those of non-human primates. In 1930, Hans K. Gunther (cited in Stein, 1988), a German ethnologist and "racial scientist," published his book Racial Science of the Jewish People. In it, he presents a photograph of an African Black, apparently chosen to appear animal-like, next to a photograph of Benjamin Disraeli, identified as an English Jew. Gunther then suggests a similarity of appearance between the two and uses this to argue that both have a similar (inferior) ancestry. NINETEENTH CENTURY SCIENCE AND "THE OTHER" Biological determinism during the nineteenth century targeted primarily women and racial minorities. Victorian scientists promoted the "cult of true womanhood," discouraged education for women because too much of women's energy would go to their brains, causing their reproductive organs to atrophy, and asserted that menstruation results in irrationality and the loss of mental powers (Jacoby, 1977). In the case of racial minorities, craniometry (the measurement of cranial capacity and brain size), and the scientific study of "racial degeneration" purported to prove that all non-white races are inferior to white men (Gould, 1981). The study of craniometry is particularly useful in illustrating the interchangeability of all oppressed groups and the dynamics of biological determinism. Most students of era-
niometry, from S. G. Morton to Paul Broca and his colleagues, performed comparative studies of brain size and cranial capacity, not because they were interested in determining whether non-white races and women were intellectually inferior. They - along with most of American and Western European society at the time - were already convinced that this was, in fact, the case. Studies were undertaken only to determine whether brain size is a reliable measure of intellectual ability among races and between sexes. The easiest way to make this determination was to compare the cranial capacity of groups "known" to be intellectually superior (white males) with those of groups "known" to be intellectually inferior (non-white races and women). Not surprisingly, given this a priori bias, most eraniometricians found significant differences in brain size between whites and non-whites, as well as between men and women. Coming full circle, they then used these differences as scientific proof for white, male superiority. (For a detailed discussion of the distortion of data, fallacious interpretations, and general lack of validity of these studies, see the excellent account by Gould, 1981.) One of the earliest practitioners of craniometry was the highly respected American scientist and physician, Samuel George Morton (1849). After comparing hundreds of skulls from around the world, Morton concluded that human races can be ranked with Caucasians at the top of the scale, blacks at the bottom, and American Indians and Asians in the middle. Furthermore, among Caucasians, people of German or AngloSaxon descent are ranked highest, Jews and Arabs are intermediate, and Hindus are lowest. It should come as no surprise, given the preceding discussion, that Morton, a white, Anglo-Saxon male, should find it so easy to lump all non-white races together and label them inferior. Paul Broca, the 19th century French physician and anthropologist best known for his studies of human brains, concentrated his efforts on blacks and women and treated them interchangeably. In the mind of Broca and his colleagues (e.g., Vogt, LeBon, Topinard), there was no room for doubt that both blacks and women were grossly inferior to white males and that their small brains prove this. The quotes cited above, equating women,
Scientific Objectivity
blacks, and animals, illustrate the misogynistic and racist results of this bias. Broca was so convinced of the inferiority of blacks and women that when a colleague asked him to correct his data to take into account the effects of factors such as body size, age of death, and cause of death, Broca responded that it would be a waste of time because the inferiority of these groups was so obvious that correcting the data would have little effect,
289
races, as well as poor whites, are inferior to white, upper-class males (in Gould, 1981, pp.79-82).
SOCIAL DARWINISM 10 THE HOWCAUST
Craniologists working after the 18605 were clearly influenced by the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859) with its emphasis on the "survival of the fittest" and the "struggle for survival." DarwinWe surmount the problem easily by chooshowever, was to have an even greater ism, ing, for our comparison of brains, races impact as the perverted formulation of "sowhose intellectual inequalities are completely clear. (Broca, 1861, as cited in cial Darwinism," which served as a cornerstone for scientific racism, the eugenics Gould, 1981, p, 88) movement, and the scientific justification for the plight of the poor and working classes. or: By the late 1800sand early 1900s, Herbert We might ask if the small size of the fe- Spencer in England, and William Graham male brain depends exclusively on the Sumner in the United States were advocating small size of her body ... But we must social neglect of the poor as a policy consisnot forget that women are, on the average, tent with natural selection. The poor were a little less intelligent than men . . . We poor because they were "unfit," and the rich are therefore permitted to suppose that the were rich because they were "fit" and superirelatively small size of the female brain or. The most natural and desirable solution depends in part on her physical inferiority was to let the "unfit" suffer the consequences and in part upon her intellectual inferiori- of "natural selection" without governmental ty. (Broca, 1861, as cited in Gould, 1981, attempts to intervene and improve their lot in life. In time, natural selection could p. 104) be expected to weed out these undesirables, thus creating a more fit and superior human It is of particular interest that Broca was race. (See Hofstadter, 1944, for an in-depth almost universally acclaimed as a careful precise, objective, and thorough scientist. H~ discussion of the development of social often excoriated his opponents by accusing Darwinism.) By the 1920s, social Darwinism had given them of personal biases (in favor of human rise to scientific racism both in the United equality) which prevented them from objecStates and in Europe. The development of tively perceiving the reality of human inI.Q. tests provided American racists and equality (Gould, 1981, pp. 84-85). Unlike Broca, Robert Bennet Bean, an eugenicists with a powerful tool to identify American physician, was neither careful nor "the feeble-minded." Geneticists and psyprecise. His studies are of interest primarily chologists, such as Harry Laughlin, Carl because when he was unable to find differ- Brigham, and William McDougall, warned ences between the brains of Blacks and against the dangers of admitting "hordes" of whites, he concluded that this was only be- impoverished and "racially unfit" immigrants cause the white brains he measured probably into the country, thereby diluting the supericame from "lower class" whites, who, being or Anglo-Saxon stock. Thus, Brigham wrote inferior, can be expected to have brains as in 1923: small as those of blacks! Not to be deterred, American intelligence is declining and will Bean went on to measure specific areas of the proceed with an accelerating rate as the brain that he believed were related to intelliracial mixture becomes more and more exgence. As expected, he found that, using tensive. (Cited in Belth, 1979, p. 92) these measures, blacks and women of all
290
ZULEYMA TANG HALPIN
A year earlier, Laughlin had stated : The recent immigrants, on the whole, present a higher percentage of inborn socially inadequate qualities than does the older stock. (Cited in Belth, 1979, p. 92) As a result of the activism of the racial scientists, the Immigration Act of 1924 was passed, affirming the belief in Anglo-Saxon superiority and setting strict limits on the numbers of Jews and southern and eastern Europeans who would be allowed into the country. The most extreme consequences of scientific racism in this country, however, involved the I.Q. testing of incoming immigrants at Ellis Island, by H. H. Goddard and his coworkers. At one point, Goddard reported that 83% of Jews, 80% of Hungarians, 79% of Italians, and 87% of Russians arriving in the U.S. were feeble-minded (Gould, 1981, p. 166). Although he later revised these figures down to about 50%, the implications are, nonetheless staggering. Individuals who were classified as feeble-minded were likely to suffer one of two fates: either they were denied entry and deported back to Europe, or they were institutionalized in special homes where they were denied all opportunities to procreate. The sad history of scientific racism in this country is, perhaps, one of the best examples of how science, at the appropriate time, can label anyone who is .perceived as different from the "self' as deviant, subnormal and inferior, thereby laying the groundwork for oppressive social policy". In Germany, social Darwinism and scientific racism were popularized by Haeckel and by the "racial hygiene" movement which attracted many scientists (Stein, 1988). As early as 1905, Haeckel was advocating that since, . . . the lower races are psychologically nearer to mammals - apes and dogsthan to the civilized European, we must therefore, assign a totally different value to their lives ... (Haeckel, 1905) The typical pattern of equating the "inferior races" to animals is once again apparent. Furthermore, Haeckel's view of the "lower classes" were no more enlightened:
The greater the differentiation of conditions and classes . . . the greater become the differences between the educated and the uneducated sections of the community and between their interests and needs, and, therefore, the value of their lives. (Haeckel, 1905) Ultimately, Haeckel proclaimed the superiority of the German race and advocated euthanasia for the mentally ill, the sickly, habitual criminals, the morally depraved, and other "useless" individuals (Stein, 1988). Although Haeckel eventually lost favor with some German academics and scientists, his views on racial superiority and on the need for "racial hygiene" became entrenched among both the general public and the majority of German scientists (Stein, 1988; Zmarzlik, 1972). Hitler was strongly influenced by the racial hygienists' assertion that the genetic quality of future generations is the most fundamental problem facing human society (Zrnarzlik, 1972). In turn, scientific proponents of racial hygiene were earl.y supporters of Hitler, precisely because of his views on race. In 1934, for example, the racial hygiene journal, Archiv fur Rassen -und Gesellschaftsbiologie, provided a particularly strong endorsement of Hitler's policies: The significance of racial hygiene in Ge~ many has for the first time been made eVIdent to all enlightened Germans by the work of Adolf Hitler, and it is thanks to him that the dream we have cherished . . . of seeing racial hygiene converted into action has become a reality. (Cited in translation in Zmarzlik, 1972) Thus, among German scientists, their deep-seated belief in the superiority of the German race, and the inferiority of all others, helped to set the stage for the horrors of the holocaust, and contributed to the murders of millions of innocent people. Jews, who by 1933 had begun to gain access to science and had achieved other positions of authority, were seen as aliens - different and "other" - and, therefore, as a threat and as inferior. The ideology of racial superiority and racial hygiene permeated the scientific community and society at large to such an extent that the consequences of the holocaust
Scientific Objectivity
291
were tolerated as natural, and perhaps even women were seen as responsible for "racial desirable (Stein, 1988; Zmarzlik, 1972). degeneration" - and compulsory sterilization Lest we forget, the point must be made and abortion were mandated by law. Furtherthat in addition to the approximately six mil- more, even among Aryan women, faith in lion Jews who were exterminated, another Victorian science and social Darwinism, refour million people were also murdered. sulted in women being relegated to the role of These included the victims of the euthanasia motherhood and housewife based on the beprograms: the mentally ill, the physically dis- lief that these are the most natural roles for abled, and the mentally defective. Gypsies, women. Poles, Germans of African descent, and othThus, by examining the biological roots of er people of non-Aryan stock were consid- Nazism we can see how the dynamics of racered not much better than Jews, and were ism, antisemitism, sexism, and homophobia also subjected to forced labor, internment in all came together and interacted. In all cases concentration camps, and extermination. the oppressed group was perceived as differLastly, people labeled as "asocials" - includ- ent and "other," alien and inferior, and, ing gays and lesbians - were likewiseinterned therefore, subject to domination and control by the ruling Aryan males. For Aryan women and exterminated. The case of gays and lesbians is particu- this translated into their being treated as relarly interesting for illustrating the interac- productive vessels without any control over tion between science and Nazi policy. During their own bodies; in all other cases it transthe late 1800s and early 1900s several cele- lated into persecution and likely death. brated sexologists, including Karl Ulrichs, MODERN FORMS OFBIOWGICAL Magnus Hirschfield, and Richard Krafft-EbDETERMINISM bing asserted that homosexuality has a biological basis (Wolff, 1986). Additionally, the notion of the "sexual invert" became widely The history of biological determinism since accepted among the scientific and psycho- World War II has been reviewed extensively logical circles of the time. Thus gay men were by a number of authors (e.g., Bleier, 1984; often labeled "effeminate" and described as Fausto-Sterling, 1985; Hubbard & Lowe, being really women in a man's body, while 1979; Lewontin, Rose, & Kamin, 1984; Reid, lesbians were regarded as "pseudomen" or in- 1975). For the purposes of this paper I will complete women (Bock, 1983; Wolff, 1986). address briefly only a fewexamples where the Based at least in part on the work of the early interaction of sex, race, class, and sexual orisexologists, gays and lesbians in Nazi Germa- entation are particularly apparent. For readers of this paper, sociobiology ny were classified as "sexual aliens" and "asocials." With the passage of a law which de- (Barash, 1979; Wilson, 1975, 1978) should clared "asociality" a "hereditary disease," provide a sense of deja vu, since in sophistigays and lesbians were categorized as geneti- cated and subtle scientific language, it revives cally unfit and became subject to steriliza- many of the arguments we have seen before: tion, internment in the camps, and extermi- women have evolvedto be pregnant, barefoot and in the kitchen; there may be genes for nation (Bock, 1983; Wolff, 1986). An examination of the role of biological "upward mobility"; intelligence may be biodeterminism during the Third Reich is in- logically determined; xenophobia and racism complete without a mention of sexism. Bock have evolvedas part of human nature; homo(1983) illustrates the complex ways in which sexuality has a genetic basis. Thus, sociosexism and racism interacted for women of biology comes in a neatly wrapped package both the "inferior" and superior races. Wom- which explains all inequalities in our society en were seen primarily as "breeders." In the as the result of human evolution. The botcase of Aryan women procreation, and the tom line is that, because such inequalities are production of more superior, Aryan chil- part of human nature and unavoidable, atdren, was promoted and encouraged, but tempts at reform are bound to fail. For sosterilization and abortion were illegal. ciobiologists, then, women are only a small Among Jewish and Gypsy women, on the part in their larger paradigm. In order to unother hand, procreation was abhorred- derstand how women fit into the sociobio-
292
ZULEYMA TANG HALPIN
logical world view, it is essential that we understand sociobiology's broader agenda and the dynamics which, once again, result in the implicit equation of all oppressed groups. Brain asymmetry and lateralization studies (see Fausto-Sterling, 1985) have concentrated primarily on women. However, there have also been recent attempts to apply these studies to gays and lesbians. For example, in 1985, Gay Community News, a Boston newspaper distributed nationally, published a questionnaire submitted by a researcher at a local university. The questionnaire inquired about the respondents' genetic history, sexual preference, and patterns of left and right handedness for different tasks and activities. Only after strong opposition from readers was the questionnaire withdrawn. This is not the only recent attempt to use science to label gays and lesbians. Birke (1982) recounts the modern history of biological determinism with regards to gays and lesbians, as well as their mistreatment in the name of science. Lastly, it should be noted that in almost every aspect of science, and particularly in biology, white, middle-class, heterosexual men are still upheld as the "norm" representing all of humanity. Until recently, many new drugs were tested only on white men, and the assumption was made that the results would be applicable to women and people of color. Textbooks continue to equate white men with all of the human race. Although, occasionally, a special chapter on women is included (suggesting that women represent an anomaly), people of color, gays and lesbians, and Jews remain, for all practical purposes, invisible in the pages of textbooks. The only apparent exceptions to this rule serve to underscore my point. People of color are only made visible when a pathology (e.g., sickle cell anemia) is discussed, thus reinforcing the view that white males represent the norm and people of color are worthy of mention only in relation to sickness or abnormality. Likewise, gays and lesbians are most likely to become visible only during discussions of abnormality, usually with regard to the "causes" of homosexuality. It is unlikely that we would encounter similar discussion on the causes of heterosexuality; heterosexual behavior is assumed to be "normal" and, therefore, not in need of explanation.
All the examples discussed in this section reiterate the dynamics of the "self versus other" split. All that is not "self" is alien, different, or pathological and, therefore, requires explanation. Only "the self' is "normal" and taken for granted. ANIMALS AS THE "OTHER" Like women and other oppressed minorities, non-human animals are objects of scientific study, and as such they are automatically perceived as "the other" and treated on a purely rational basis. Although animal welfare groups have become increasingly active in recent years and have helped to expose abuses carried out in scientific research, the response of the scientific community, with only some exceptions (for one such exception see the ABS/ASAB "Guidelines for the Use of Animals in Research," 1986), has been one of resistance. Many scientists confronted with the issue of animal welfare in scientific research are quick to react with charges of academic censorship and/or the claim that animal rights activists are out to destroy all science. While insisting that no real problem exists, such scientists are likely to argue that animals, by the very fact that they are animals, are not entitled to any rights or special consideration. In view of the analysis presented in the preceding sections, this response is not surprising. The self versus other and the subject versus object dualities dictate that research animals will be regarded as lower (inferior) forms of life towards which the scientist need not feel any compassion or respect. To acknowledge human responsibility toward animal life, or to accept that scientists should concern themselves with the pain and suffering they may inflict on their research animals, may be a greater chink than the philosophical armor of the control paradigm of science can bear. Once a scientist begins to feel for his or her research animal, the self versus other duality begins to break down, and it becomes easier for the interrelatedness of subject and object to be acknowledged. Once this happens, it becomes easier to question the paradigm which proclaims power, control, and domination as the ultimate goal of science. Viewed from this perspective, the animal
Scientific Objectivity
welfare issue poses a major threat to patriarchal science. By demanding that the scientist respect all forms of life and acknowledge the interrelatedness between humans and other living things, it exposes the underlying irrationality of the mythology of objectivity, while simultaneously encouraging the development of a more holistic and humane paradigm of science. As a practicing scientist I should add that my concern for animal welfare does not include the belief that animals should never be used in research. Instead, I believe that the general lack of awareness on the part of scientists needs to be replaced by an attitude that recognizes the ethical issues posed by the use of animals in research and that questions whether, in any given case, the potential gain in knowledge truly justifies the potential negative consequences to the research animal. A mindset which accepts the responsibility of the scientist to his or her research animals can be extended not only to the individual animals but to the ecosystem as a whole. The scientist is then free to question in each instance the value of any given experiment, the consequences to the research animals, and whether the experiment should be done at all. Experiments will no longer be done simply because they are possible, nor will traditional methodologies be employed simply because they work. In essence, then, what I advocate is an increased awareness on the part of scientists, and the acceptance of animal welfare as a valid issue of concern for all scientists. In summary, I have attempted in this paper to demonstrate how the dichotomies inherent in the concept of scientific objectivity can result in the objectification of other human beings and the animals we study. Furthermore, the self versus other dichotomy results in the definition of the "self' as normal, and of everything that is perceived as different from "self' as alien, abnormal, and of lesser value. In this sense, then, the emphasis on the oppression of women as being due to their equation with nature has been misleading. Women have been oppressed and declared inferior by science, but this is because they, along with non-white men, Jews, gays and lesbians, the poor, and nature are all classified as "the other" by scientists. Women thus
293
have no special claim to a "favored status" as victims of scientific oppression, and their equation with nature reflects only the broader equation with "the other" of anyone and anything that does not belong to the white, upper and middle class, heterosexual, male domain of science. My purpose is not to minimize scientific sexism, nor to deny that women have been oppressed by science, but only to point out that, as feminists, it behooves us to broaden our analysis. The parallels between the way science has treated women and the way it has treated minorities are too striking to be simply coincidental. An analysis that includes race, class, and sexual orientation, and that recognizes the commonality of women, racial minorities, sexual minorities, and the poor as "the other" in science, can help us to better understand the underlying dynamics of scientific oppression, thereby allowing us to combat it on a broader front and without prioritizing oppressions.
REFERENCES Animal Behavior Society (ABS) and the Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour (ASAB). (1986). Guidelines for the Use of Animals in Research. Animal Behaviour 34: 315-318. Barash, David. (1979). The whisperings within. New York: Harper and Row. Belth, Nathan C. (1979). A promise to keep: A narrative of the American encounter with anti-semitism. New York: Shocken Books. Birke, Lynda I. A. (1982). From sin to sickness: Hormonal theories of lesbianism. In R. Hubbard, M. S. Henifin & B. Fried (Eds.), Biological woman- The convenient myth. Cambridge, MA: Sckenkeman Publishing. Bleier, Ruth. (1984). Science and gender. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press. Bock, Gisella. (1983). Racism and sexism in Nazi Germany: Motherhood, compulsory sterilization, and the state. Signs, 8,400-421. Broca, Paul. (1861). Sur le volume et la forme du cerveau suivant les individus et suivant les races. Bull. Soc. Anthropol. (Paris), 2,139-207. Darwin, Charles. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection. London: Murray. Fausto-Sterling, Anne. (1985). Myths of gender. New York: Basic Books. Fee, Elizabeth. (1981). Is feminism a threat to scientific objectivity? International Journal of Women's Studies, 4, 378-392. Gay Community News. (1985). 13(14), 5. Gould, Stephen J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: W. W. Norton and Co. Griffin, Susan. (1978). Woman and nature: The roaring inside her. New York: Harper and Row.
294
ZULEYMA TANG HALPIN
Haeckel, Ernst. (1903). The evolution of man. New York: Appleton. Haeckel, Ernst. (1905). The wonders of life. New York: Harper. Hofstadter, Richard. (1944). SocialDarwinism in Americanthought. New York: George Brazillier. Hubbard, Ruth, & Lowe, Marian. (1979). Genes and gender II. New York: Gordian Press. Jacoby, Robin M. (1977). Science and sex roles in the Victorian Era. In Ann Arbor Science for the People Editorial Collective, Biology as a social weapon. Minneapolis, MN: Burgess Publishing. Keller, Evelyn F. (1982). "Feminism and Science." Signs, 7,589-602. LeBon, Gustave . (1879). Recherches anatomiques et mathematiques sur les lois des variations du volume du cerveau et sur leurs relations avec l'intelligence. Revued'Anthropologie, 2, 27-104. Lewontin, Richard, Rose, Stevan, & Kamin, Leon J. (1984). Not in our genes. New York: Pantheon. Merchant, Carolyn. (1980). The death of nature: Women, ecology, and the scientific revolution. San Francisco : Harper and Row. Merchant, Carolyn. (1982). Isis' consciousness raised. Isis, 73,398-409. Morton, Samuel G. (1849). Observations on the size of
the brain in various races and families of man. Proceedings ofthe Academyof Natural Sciences ofPhi/adelphia, 4,221-224. Nott, Josiah C. , & Gliddon, George R. (1854). Types of mankind. Philadelphia: Lippincott. Nott, Josiah C., & Gliddon, George R. (1868). Indigenous races of the earth. Philadelphia: Lippincott. Reid , Inez S. (1975). Science, politics, and race. Signs, 1,99-124. Stein , George J. (1988). Biological science and the roots of Nazism . Amer. Scientist, 76, 50-58. 'Iopinard, Paul. (1878). Anthropology. London: Chapman and Han . Vogt, Carl. (1864). Lectures on man. London: longman , Green, Longman, and Roberts. Wilson, Edward O . (1975). Sociobiology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wilson, Edward O. (1978). On human nature. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press. Wolff, Charlotte. (1986). Magnus Hirschfeld. London: Quartet Books . Zmarzlik, Hans-Gunter. (1972). Social Darwinism in Germany seen as a historical problem . In H . Holborn (Ed .), Republic to Reich. New York : Pantheon.
Women's Studies Int. Forum, Vol. 12, No.3, pp. 285-294, 1989
© 1989 Pergamon Press pic
Printed in the USA.
SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVITY AND THE CONCEPT OF "THE OfHER" ZULEYMA TANG HALPIN Department of Biology, and Women's Studies Program, University of Missouri-St. Louis, St. Louis, MO 63121, U.S.A.
Synopsis - The concept of scientific objectivity, which incorporates the dichotomies of "intellect versus emotions" and "self versus other," is considered the cornerstone of modern science. Until recently, western science has been conducted primarily by white, upper and middle class, heterosexual men of Christian background. This has resulted in the identification of these characteristics with ''the self" and, consequently, with their being regarded as valuable and "normal." All else was relegated to the status of "the other," lacking in value and, therefore, necessitating scientific explanation. Thus, the self versus other split, in conjunction with the intellect versus emotions dichotomy, has provided the justification for the oppression and domination of "the other," which has been prevalent throughout the history of western science. While women have been equated to nature and both have been oppressed, this oppression is the result of a broader dynamic which labels everything different from the scientist's "self" as inferior. The history of biological determinism is used to demonstrate that all oppressed groups have been used interchangeably and equated with each other, as well as with nature. Examples of the treatment by science of women, racial minorities, Jews, the poor, and gays and lesbians are discussed to illustrate the dynamics of scientific oppression, and the equation of all categories considered as "other." The resistance of many scientists to animal welfare concerns is discussed within the same framework and shown to be also the result of the identification of animals with ''the other."
Objectivity, defined as the condition of being uninfluenced by emotion, surmise, personal prejudice, or belief, is usually considered as the sine qua non of science. Scientists are taught, from their earliest exposure to the scientific method, that "objectivity" is the most fundamental and most valuable attribute of science, and one which all true scientists must pursue. Among society at large, the perception that science and the scientist are inherently and incorruptibly objective has contributed significantly to the popular mythology and mystification of science. While true objectivity is undeniably necessary for the rational pursuit of science, the concept of scientific objectivity as commonly understood and practiced by scientists, often has been formulated in ways that are actually antithetical to truly objective and unbiased scientific inquiry (Fee, 1981; Keller, I am grateful to Arlene Zarembka for her support and encouragement, for many stimulating discussions, and for her valuable comments on the manuscript. Jackie Pastis was very helpful in suggesting references on Nazi Germany. Conversations with Victoria Sork have influenced the development of my ideas. 285
1982). Among the several forms that the concept of scientific objectivity has taken (Fee, 1981), two are of particular relevance to the remainder of this paper. They are: (a) the formulation that states that scientific objectivity necessitates the rejection of feelings in favor of the intellect; and (b) the formulation that requires, as essential to science, the separation of the subject (philosophically, the mind or thinking part) from the object (that which is thought about); in other words, the separation of the scientist as the thinking "self' from the object of study, ''the other."
SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVITY AND THE CONTROL PARADIGM From the earliest stages of scientific training every young scientist is implicitly taught what is essentially an extension of the Cartesian principle: "I think, therefore 1 am a scientist." The concomitant and often explicit message is "I am a scientist, therefore 1 cannot feel." Aspiring young scientists are thus taught that the essence of science is intellect and absolute "rationality," and that emotions and feelings must not be allowed to play any
286
ZULEYMA TANG HALPIN
part in the process. It is interesting that most biologists vividly remember the first time they pithed a frog, usually in an introductory biology course. Pithing is a procedure that involves using a sharp instrument to destroy the central nervous system of a live frog by severing the spinal cord from the brain. Although not recognized as such by most biologists, the "pithing of the frog" is in essence a rite of passage which separates the scientists from the nonscientists, those who have what it takes from those who do not. And what it takes in this instance is the ability to suppress and repress any feelings of compassion one might have for the unfortunate frog, as well as any feelings of revulsion at being made to perform the procedure. Reluctant students are informed that the frog's central nervous system contains no sensory cells and, therefore, that the procedure is painless. Thus, to feel qualms about hurting the animal is irrational- the one thing that a true scientist must never be. The message to the students is clear: if you want to be a scientist you cannot let your emotions get in the way. Those who are capable of thus separating their feelings from their intellect go on to become scientists, those who cannot drop out early in the game. The second dichotomy, self versus other, or subject versus object, is closely related to the first. The most effective way of learning to control one's feelings is to be "objective," that is, to see one's self as totally different and apart from the object of study, the "other." Once this ability to objectify is perfected, anything the scientist studies can be regarded as "object," thus rendering it incapable of eliciting any meaningful emotion from the scientist. The effects of the subject/object, self/other dichotomy do not stop here, however, because "the self" eventually comes to be defined not just as the individual scientist, but rather as the entire category "scientist." Scientists are, by definition, considered to be highly intellectual and highly rational. Since these characteristics are highly valued in our cultural tradition, scientists also come to see themselves, by the mere fact that they are scientists, as having high value. Furthermore, since historically western science has been practiced almost exclusively by white,
middle or upper class males, primarily heterosexuals, and until relatively recently, mostly by individuals who were the products of a Christian tradition, the valued characteristics of intellect and rationality are generalized by the scientist to an extension of the self: all white, middle and upper class, heterosexual, Christian males. The "other," by definition, is the opposite of the "self," and therefore comes to be regarded as intrinsically of lesser value. It is only a short step from this to the conclusion that the scientist, and those who share his characteristics, are superior, while those who are "different," the "others," are inferior. The stage is thus set for a paradigm of science that promotes the inferiority of the "other" and implicitly endorses and justifies a policy of domination and control over those that are labelled inferior. WOMEN AND THE orHER "orHERS"
Feminists have convincingly argued that the equation of woman with nature has led to the domination of both by patriarchal science (Griffin, 1978;Merchant, 1980, 1982). While this analysis is useful, and certainly correct in part, it is also short-sighted in that it misses the broader implications of a philosophical/scientific mindset that results in the oppression and domination, not only of women, but also of anyone and anything that the scientist perceives as inferior to the valued "self." As feminists it is understandable that our initial analysis focused on scientific sexism. However, a broader analysis is now necessary if we are to gain a more complete understanding of the dynamics of scientific oppression. I would argue that women have been oppressed, not so much because they have been equated to nature, but rather because both women and nature have been equated to "the other." Furthermore, all categories of humans that do not share the characteristics defined as valuable and "self" by the scientist have been equated to each other, to nature, and to "the other." Thus, the same dynamic that has resulted in labeling women as inferior and justified society's domination of women and nature, has done the same, during most of our history, to Blacks and other people of color, Jews, the poor, and gay or lesbian persons.
Scientific Objectivity
A reading of the history of scientific racism and sexism makes it clear that all groups defined as "inferior" by science have always been treated as equivalents. In the words of Gould (1981): Scientific racists and sexists often confine their label of inferiority to a single disadvantaged group; but race, sex, and class go together .. . (p. 80). "Inferior" groups are interchangeable in the general theory of biological determinism. They are continually juxtaposed and one is made to serve as a surrogate for all . . . (p. 103) As a woman of color, whose parents had little formal education and came from an economically-deprived background, I was acutely aware of the oppressive treatment by science of minority groups (minorities only from a white, Western perspective) and of poor and working class people long before I was aware of its mistreatment of women. Indeed, I became aware of women's oppression by science in part from reading about the history of scientific racism. The equation of women with other "inferior" groups became undeniably apparent when I read the same adjectives used over and over to describe women and other oppressed groups. Women, blacks, Native Americans, Chinese, Eskimos, Australian Aborigines, and "feebleminded" Jews and eastern/southern European immigrants were repeatedly described as "sensual, emotional, lacking the capacity to reason, fickle, unstable, and submissive" (see Gould, 1981, for numerous examples). That all of these characteristics were regarded as quintessentially feminine, regardless of which group they were applied to , was made explicit by Louis Agassiz, one of America's foremost scientists of the 19th century, when in a letter decrying the horrors of miscegenation, he wrote: Conceive for a moment the difference it would make for our civilization generally, if the United States should hereafter be inhabited by the effeminate progeny of mixed races, half indian, half negro, sprinkled with white blood . . . I shudder at the consequences. (Emphasis mine; cited in Gould, 1981, p. 49)
287
The interchangeability of oppressed groups was highlighted by E. D. Cope, the highly regarded American paleontologist, in 1887when he listed the four groups of inferior human forms: (a) all non-white races; (b) women; (c) southern Europeans; and (d) lower classes among the superior races (in Gould, 1981 , p. 115). Thus, while it is true that science has equated woman to nature, it has also equated woman (usually meaning white women) with all other oppressed groups. Furthermore, groups considered to be inferior have been likewise equated to women and to animals. Consider, for example, the following quote : . . . the Negro brain resembles that of our children, and that of our females . . . The grown up Negro partakes as regards his intellectual faculties, of the nature of the child, the female, and the senile white .. . (Vogt, 1864). or In the most intelligent races, as among the parisians, there are a large number of women whose brains are closer in size to those of gorillas than to the most developed male brains [read: white male brains]. All psychologists who have studied the intelligence of women . . . recognize today that they are closer to children and savages [read: people of color] than to an adult civilized man. (LeBon, 1879, as cited in Gould, 1981, pp. 104-105) The equation of women, non-whites and animals comes full circle in the following description of an African woman: She had a way of pouting her lips exactly like what we have observed in the orangutan . Her movements had something abrupt and fantastical about them, reminding one of those of the ape. Her ear was like that of many apes . . . These are animal characters . I have never seen a human head more like an ape than that of this woman. (Topinard, 1878) Even when groups labeled "inferior" are not explicitly equated with women, they are often compared to animals, usually in ways
288
ZULEYMA TANG HALPIN
designed to make them appear more animal than human (using white males as the prototype of humanity). For example, in two influential books published by Nott and Gliddon, Types of Mankind (1854) and Indigenous Races of the Earth (1868), drawings of the facial features and skull shapes of African blacks are repeatedly altered to make them appear closer to those of chimpanzees, gorillas, or orangutans. Similarly, the celebrated German biologist, Ernst Haeckel, in the frontpiece to his book, The Evolution of Man (1874, English translation 1903), elongated the drawing of the skull of an "Australian Negro," causing the face and jaw to jut forward. The distorted skull is then placed between that of a "Mediterranean" (white) human and those of a gorilla and an orangutan, suggesting a close relationship between the "negro" skull and those of non-human primates. In 1930, Hans K. Gunther (cited in Stein, 1988), a German ethnologist and "racial scientist," published his book Racial Science of the Jewish People. In it, he presents a photograph of an African Black, apparently chosen to appear animal-like, next to a photograph of Benjamin Disraeli, identified as an English Jew. Gunther then suggests a similarity of appearance between the two and uses this to argue that both have a similar (inferior) ancestry. NINETEENTH CENTURY SCIENCE AND "THE OTHER" Biological determinism during the nineteenth century targeted primarily women and racial minorities. Victorian scientists promoted the "cult of true womanhood," discouraged education for women because too much of women's energy would go to their brains, causing their reproductive organs to atrophy, and asserted that menstruation results in irrationality and the loss of mental powers (Jacoby, 1977). In the case of racial minorities, craniometry (the measurement of cranial capacity and brain size), and the scientific study of "racial degeneration" purported to prove that all non-white races are inferior to white men (Gould, 1981). The study of craniometry is particularly useful in illustrating the interchangeability of all oppressed groups and the dynamics of biological determinism. Most students of era-
niometry, from S. G. Morton to Paul Broca and his colleagues, performed comparative studies of brain size and cranial capacity, not because they were interested in determining whether non-white races and women were intellectually inferior. They - along with most of American and Western European society at the time - were already convinced that this was, in fact, the case. Studies were undertaken only to determine whether brain size is a reliable measure of intellectual ability among races and between sexes. The easiest way to make this determination was to compare the cranial capacity of groups "known" to be intellectually superior (white males) with those of groups "known" to be intellectually inferior (non-white races and women). Not surprisingly, given this a priori bias, most eraniometricians found significant differences in brain size between whites and non-whites, as well as between men and women. Coming full circle, they then used these differences as scientific proof for white, male superiority. (For a detailed discussion of the distortion of data, fallacious interpretations, and general lack of validity of these studies, see the excellent account by Gould, 1981.) One of the earliest practitioners of craniometry was the highly respected American scientist and physician, Samuel George Morton (1849). After comparing hundreds of skulls from around the world, Morton concluded that human races can be ranked with Caucasians at the top of the scale, blacks at the bottom, and American Indians and Asians in the middle. Furthermore, among Caucasians, people of German or AngloSaxon descent are ranked highest, Jews and Arabs are intermediate, and Hindus are lowest. It should come as no surprise, given the preceding discussion, that Morton, a white, Anglo-Saxon male, should find it so easy to lump all non-white races together and label them inferior. Paul Broca, the 19th century French physician and anthropologist best known for his studies of human brains, concentrated his efforts on blacks and women and treated them interchangeably. In the mind of Broca and his colleagues (e.g., Vogt, LeBon, Topinard), there was no room for doubt that both blacks and women were grossly inferior to white males and that their small brains prove this. The quotes cited above, equating women,
Scientific Objectivity
blacks, and animals, illustrate the misogynistic and racist results of this bias. Broca was so convinced of the inferiority of blacks and women that when a colleague asked him to correct his data to take into account the effects of factors such as body size, age of death, and cause of death, Broca responded that it would be a waste of time because the inferiority of these groups was so obvious that correcting the data would have little effect,
289
races, as well as poor whites, are inferior to white, upper-class males (in Gould, 1981, pp.79-82).
SOCIAL DARWINISM 10 THE HOWCAUST
Craniologists working after the 18605 were clearly influenced by the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859) with its emphasis on the "survival of the fittest" and the "struggle for survival." DarwinWe surmount the problem easily by chooshowever, was to have an even greater ism, ing, for our comparison of brains, races impact as the perverted formulation of "sowhose intellectual inequalities are completely clear. (Broca, 1861, as cited in cial Darwinism," which served as a cornerstone for scientific racism, the eugenics Gould, 1981, p, 88) movement, and the scientific justification for the plight of the poor and working classes. or: By the late 1800sand early 1900s, Herbert We might ask if the small size of the fe- Spencer in England, and William Graham male brain depends exclusively on the Sumner in the United States were advocating small size of her body ... But we must social neglect of the poor as a policy consisnot forget that women are, on the average, tent with natural selection. The poor were a little less intelligent than men . . . We poor because they were "unfit," and the rich are therefore permitted to suppose that the were rich because they were "fit" and superirelatively small size of the female brain or. The most natural and desirable solution depends in part on her physical inferiority was to let the "unfit" suffer the consequences and in part upon her intellectual inferiori- of "natural selection" without governmental ty. (Broca, 1861, as cited in Gould, 1981, attempts to intervene and improve their lot in life. In time, natural selection could p. 104) be expected to weed out these undesirables, thus creating a more fit and superior human It is of particular interest that Broca was race. (See Hofstadter, 1944, for an in-depth almost universally acclaimed as a careful precise, objective, and thorough scientist. H~ discussion of the development of social often excoriated his opponents by accusing Darwinism.) By the 1920s, social Darwinism had given them of personal biases (in favor of human rise to scientific racism both in the United equality) which prevented them from objecStates and in Europe. The development of tively perceiving the reality of human inI.Q. tests provided American racists and equality (Gould, 1981, pp. 84-85). Unlike Broca, Robert Bennet Bean, an eugenicists with a powerful tool to identify American physician, was neither careful nor "the feeble-minded." Geneticists and psyprecise. His studies are of interest primarily chologists, such as Harry Laughlin, Carl because when he was unable to find differ- Brigham, and William McDougall, warned ences between the brains of Blacks and against the dangers of admitting "hordes" of whites, he concluded that this was only be- impoverished and "racially unfit" immigrants cause the white brains he measured probably into the country, thereby diluting the supericame from "lower class" whites, who, being or Anglo-Saxon stock. Thus, Brigham wrote inferior, can be expected to have brains as in 1923: small as those of blacks! Not to be deterred, American intelligence is declining and will Bean went on to measure specific areas of the proceed with an accelerating rate as the brain that he believed were related to intelliracial mixture becomes more and more exgence. As expected, he found that, using tensive. (Cited in Belth, 1979, p. 92) these measures, blacks and women of all
290
ZULEYMA TANG HALPIN
A year earlier, Laughlin had stated : The recent immigrants, on the whole, present a higher percentage of inborn socially inadequate qualities than does the older stock. (Cited in Belth, 1979, p. 92) As a result of the activism of the racial scientists, the Immigration Act of 1924 was passed, affirming the belief in Anglo-Saxon superiority and setting strict limits on the numbers of Jews and southern and eastern Europeans who would be allowed into the country. The most extreme consequences of scientific racism in this country, however, involved the I.Q. testing of incoming immigrants at Ellis Island, by H. H. Goddard and his coworkers. At one point, Goddard reported that 83% of Jews, 80% of Hungarians, 79% of Italians, and 87% of Russians arriving in the U.S. were feeble-minded (Gould, 1981, p. 166). Although he later revised these figures down to about 50%, the implications are, nonetheless staggering. Individuals who were classified as feeble-minded were likely to suffer one of two fates: either they were denied entry and deported back to Europe, or they were institutionalized in special homes where they were denied all opportunities to procreate. The sad history of scientific racism in this country is, perhaps, one of the best examples of how science, at the appropriate time, can label anyone who is .perceived as different from the "self' as deviant, subnormal and inferior, thereby laying the groundwork for oppressive social policy". In Germany, social Darwinism and scientific racism were popularized by Haeckel and by the "racial hygiene" movement which attracted many scientists (Stein, 1988). As early as 1905, Haeckel was advocating that since, . . . the lower races are psychologically nearer to mammals - apes and dogsthan to the civilized European, we must therefore, assign a totally different value to their lives ... (Haeckel, 1905) The typical pattern of equating the "inferior races" to animals is once again apparent. Furthermore, Haeckel's view of the "lower classes" were no more enlightened:
The greater the differentiation of conditions and classes . . . the greater become the differences between the educated and the uneducated sections of the community and between their interests and needs, and, therefore, the value of their lives. (Haeckel, 1905) Ultimately, Haeckel proclaimed the superiority of the German race and advocated euthanasia for the mentally ill, the sickly, habitual criminals, the morally depraved, and other "useless" individuals (Stein, 1988). Although Haeckel eventually lost favor with some German academics and scientists, his views on racial superiority and on the need for "racial hygiene" became entrenched among both the general public and the majority of German scientists (Stein, 1988; Zmarzlik, 1972). Hitler was strongly influenced by the racial hygienists' assertion that the genetic quality of future generations is the most fundamental problem facing human society (Zrnarzlik, 1972). In turn, scientific proponents of racial hygiene were earl.y supporters of Hitler, precisely because of his views on race. In 1934, for example, the racial hygiene journal, Archiv fur Rassen -und Gesellschaftsbiologie, provided a particularly strong endorsement of Hitler's policies: The significance of racial hygiene in Ge~ many has for the first time been made eVIdent to all enlightened Germans by the work of Adolf Hitler, and it is thanks to him that the dream we have cherished . . . of seeing racial hygiene converted into action has become a reality. (Cited in translation in Zmarzlik, 1972) Thus, among German scientists, their deep-seated belief in the superiority of the German race, and the inferiority of all others, helped to set the stage for the horrors of the holocaust, and contributed to the murders of millions of innocent people. Jews, who by 1933 had begun to gain access to science and had achieved other positions of authority, were seen as aliens - different and "other" - and, therefore, as a threat and as inferior. The ideology of racial superiority and racial hygiene permeated the scientific community and society at large to such an extent that the consequences of the holocaust
Scientific Objectivity
291
were tolerated as natural, and perhaps even women were seen as responsible for "racial desirable (Stein, 1988; Zmarzlik, 1972). degeneration" - and compulsory sterilization Lest we forget, the point must be made and abortion were mandated by law. Furtherthat in addition to the approximately six mil- more, even among Aryan women, faith in lion Jews who were exterminated, another Victorian science and social Darwinism, refour million people were also murdered. sulted in women being relegated to the role of These included the victims of the euthanasia motherhood and housewife based on the beprograms: the mentally ill, the physically dis- lief that these are the most natural roles for abled, and the mentally defective. Gypsies, women. Poles, Germans of African descent, and othThus, by examining the biological roots of er people of non-Aryan stock were consid- Nazism we can see how the dynamics of racered not much better than Jews, and were ism, antisemitism, sexism, and homophobia also subjected to forced labor, internment in all came together and interacted. In all cases concentration camps, and extermination. the oppressed group was perceived as differLastly, people labeled as "asocials" - includ- ent and "other," alien and inferior, and, ing gays and lesbians - were likewiseinterned therefore, subject to domination and control by the ruling Aryan males. For Aryan women and exterminated. The case of gays and lesbians is particu- this translated into their being treated as relarly interesting for illustrating the interac- productive vessels without any control over tion between science and Nazi policy. During their own bodies; in all other cases it transthe late 1800s and early 1900s several cele- lated into persecution and likely death. brated sexologists, including Karl Ulrichs, MODERN FORMS OFBIOWGICAL Magnus Hirschfield, and Richard Krafft-EbDETERMINISM bing asserted that homosexuality has a biological basis (Wolff, 1986). Additionally, the notion of the "sexual invert" became widely The history of biological determinism since accepted among the scientific and psycho- World War II has been reviewed extensively logical circles of the time. Thus gay men were by a number of authors (e.g., Bleier, 1984; often labeled "effeminate" and described as Fausto-Sterling, 1985; Hubbard & Lowe, being really women in a man's body, while 1979; Lewontin, Rose, & Kamin, 1984; Reid, lesbians were regarded as "pseudomen" or in- 1975). For the purposes of this paper I will complete women (Bock, 1983; Wolff, 1986). address briefly only a fewexamples where the Based at least in part on the work of the early interaction of sex, race, class, and sexual orisexologists, gays and lesbians in Nazi Germa- entation are particularly apparent. For readers of this paper, sociobiology ny were classified as "sexual aliens" and "asocials." With the passage of a law which de- (Barash, 1979; Wilson, 1975, 1978) should clared "asociality" a "hereditary disease," provide a sense of deja vu, since in sophistigays and lesbians were categorized as geneti- cated and subtle scientific language, it revives cally unfit and became subject to steriliza- many of the arguments we have seen before: tion, internment in the camps, and extermi- women have evolvedto be pregnant, barefoot and in the kitchen; there may be genes for nation (Bock, 1983; Wolff, 1986). An examination of the role of biological "upward mobility"; intelligence may be biodeterminism during the Third Reich is in- logically determined; xenophobia and racism complete without a mention of sexism. Bock have evolvedas part of human nature; homo(1983) illustrates the complex ways in which sexuality has a genetic basis. Thus, sociosexism and racism interacted for women of biology comes in a neatly wrapped package both the "inferior" and superior races. Wom- which explains all inequalities in our society en were seen primarily as "breeders." In the as the result of human evolution. The botcase of Aryan women procreation, and the tom line is that, because such inequalities are production of more superior, Aryan chil- part of human nature and unavoidable, atdren, was promoted and encouraged, but tempts at reform are bound to fail. For sosterilization and abortion were illegal. ciobiologists, then, women are only a small Among Jewish and Gypsy women, on the part in their larger paradigm. In order to unother hand, procreation was abhorred- derstand how women fit into the sociobio-
292
ZULEYMA TANG HALPIN
logical world view, it is essential that we understand sociobiology's broader agenda and the dynamics which, once again, result in the implicit equation of all oppressed groups. Brain asymmetry and lateralization studies (see Fausto-Sterling, 1985) have concentrated primarily on women. However, there have also been recent attempts to apply these studies to gays and lesbians. For example, in 1985, Gay Community News, a Boston newspaper distributed nationally, published a questionnaire submitted by a researcher at a local university. The questionnaire inquired about the respondents' genetic history, sexual preference, and patterns of left and right handedness for different tasks and activities. Only after strong opposition from readers was the questionnaire withdrawn. This is not the only recent attempt to use science to label gays and lesbians. Birke (1982) recounts the modern history of biological determinism with regards to gays and lesbians, as well as their mistreatment in the name of science. Lastly, it should be noted that in almost every aspect of science, and particularly in biology, white, middle-class, heterosexual men are still upheld as the "norm" representing all of humanity. Until recently, many new drugs were tested only on white men, and the assumption was made that the results would be applicable to women and people of color. Textbooks continue to equate white men with all of the human race. Although, occasionally, a special chapter on women is included (suggesting that women represent an anomaly), people of color, gays and lesbians, and Jews remain, for all practical purposes, invisible in the pages of textbooks. The only apparent exceptions to this rule serve to underscore my point. People of color are only made visible when a pathology (e.g., sickle cell anemia) is discussed, thus reinforcing the view that white males represent the norm and people of color are worthy of mention only in relation to sickness or abnormality. Likewise, gays and lesbians are most likely to become visible only during discussions of abnormality, usually with regard to the "causes" of homosexuality. It is unlikely that we would encounter similar discussion on the causes of heterosexuality; heterosexual behavior is assumed to be "normal" and, therefore, not in need of explanation.
All the examples discussed in this section reiterate the dynamics of the "self versus other" split. All that is not "self" is alien, different, or pathological and, therefore, requires explanation. Only "the self' is "normal" and taken for granted. ANIMALS AS THE "OTHER" Like women and other oppressed minorities, non-human animals are objects of scientific study, and as such they are automatically perceived as "the other" and treated on a purely rational basis. Although animal welfare groups have become increasingly active in recent years and have helped to expose abuses carried out in scientific research, the response of the scientific community, with only some exceptions (for one such exception see the ABS/ASAB "Guidelines for the Use of Animals in Research," 1986), has been one of resistance. Many scientists confronted with the issue of animal welfare in scientific research are quick to react with charges of academic censorship and/or the claim that animal rights activists are out to destroy all science. While insisting that no real problem exists, such scientists are likely to argue that animals, by the very fact that they are animals, are not entitled to any rights or special consideration. In view of the analysis presented in the preceding sections, this response is not surprising. The self versus other and the subject versus object dualities dictate that research animals will be regarded as lower (inferior) forms of life towards which the scientist need not feel any compassion or respect. To acknowledge human responsibility toward animal life, or to accept that scientists should concern themselves with the pain and suffering they may inflict on their research animals, may be a greater chink than the philosophical armor of the control paradigm of science can bear. Once a scientist begins to feel for his or her research animal, the self versus other duality begins to break down, and it becomes easier for the interrelatedness of subject and object to be acknowledged. Once this happens, it becomes easier to question the paradigm which proclaims power, control, and domination as the ultimate goal of science. Viewed from this perspective, the animal
Scientific Objectivity
welfare issue poses a major threat to patriarchal science. By demanding that the scientist respect all forms of life and acknowledge the interrelatedness between humans and other living things, it exposes the underlying irrationality of the mythology of objectivity, while simultaneously encouraging the development of a more holistic and humane paradigm of science. As a practicing scientist I should add that my concern for animal welfare does not include the belief that animals should never be used in research. Instead, I believe that the general lack of awareness on the part of scientists needs to be replaced by an attitude that recognizes the ethical issues posed by the use of animals in research and that questions whether, in any given case, the potential gain in knowledge truly justifies the potential negative consequences to the research animal. A mindset which accepts the responsibility of the scientist to his or her research animals can be extended not only to the individual animals but to the ecosystem as a whole. The scientist is then free to question in each instance the value of any given experiment, the consequences to the research animals, and whether the experiment should be done at all. Experiments will no longer be done simply because they are possible, nor will traditional methodologies be employed simply because they work. In essence, then, what I advocate is an increased awareness on the part of scientists, and the acceptance of animal welfare as a valid issue of concern for all scientists. In summary, I have attempted in this paper to demonstrate how the dichotomies inherent in the concept of scientific objectivity can result in the objectification of other human beings and the animals we study. Furthermore, the self versus other dichotomy results in the definition of the "self' as normal, and of everything that is perceived as different from "self' as alien, abnormal, and of lesser value. In this sense, then, the emphasis on the oppression of women as being due to their equation with nature has been misleading. Women have been oppressed and declared inferior by science, but this is because they, along with non-white men, Jews, gays and lesbians, the poor, and nature are all classified as "the other" by scientists. Women thus
293
have no special claim to a "favored status" as victims of scientific oppression, and their equation with nature reflects only the broader equation with "the other" of anyone and anything that does not belong to the white, upper and middle class, heterosexual, male domain of science. My purpose is not to minimize scientific sexism, nor to deny that women have been oppressed by science, but only to point out that, as feminists, it behooves us to broaden our analysis. The parallels between the way science has treated women and the way it has treated minorities are too striking to be simply coincidental. An analysis that includes race, class, and sexual orientation, and that recognizes the commonality of women, racial minorities, sexual minorities, and the poor as "the other" in science, can help us to better understand the underlying dynamics of scientific oppression, thereby allowing us to combat it on a broader front and without prioritizing oppressions.
REFERENCES Animal Behavior Society (ABS) and the Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour (ASAB). (1986). Guidelines for the Use of Animals in Research. Animal Behaviour 34: 315-318. Barash, David. (1979). The whisperings within. New York: Harper and Row. Belth, Nathan C. (1979). A promise to keep: A narrative of the American encounter with anti-semitism. New York: Shocken Books. Birke, Lynda I. A. (1982). From sin to sickness: Hormonal theories of lesbianism. In R. Hubbard, M. S. Henifin & B. Fried (Eds.), Biological woman- The convenient myth. Cambridge, MA: Sckenkeman Publishing. Bleier, Ruth. (1984). Science and gender. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press. Bock, Gisella. (1983). Racism and sexism in Nazi Germany: Motherhood, compulsory sterilization, and the state. Signs, 8,400-421. Broca, Paul. (1861). Sur le volume et la forme du cerveau suivant les individus et suivant les races. Bull. Soc. Anthropol. (Paris), 2,139-207. Darwin, Charles. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection. London: Murray. Fausto-Sterling, Anne. (1985). Myths of gender. New York: Basic Books. Fee, Elizabeth. (1981). Is feminism a threat to scientific objectivity? International Journal of Women's Studies, 4, 378-392. Gay Community News. (1985). 13(14), 5. Gould, Stephen J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: W. W. Norton and Co. Griffin, Susan. (1978). Woman and nature: The roaring inside her. New York: Harper and Row.
294
ZULEYMA TANG HALPIN
Haeckel, Ernst. (1903). The evolution of man. New York: Appleton. Haeckel, Ernst. (1905). The wonders of life. New York: Harper. Hofstadter, Richard. (1944). SocialDarwinism in Americanthought. New York: George Brazillier. Hubbard, Ruth, & Lowe, Marian. (1979). Genes and gender II. New York: Gordian Press. Jacoby, Robin M. (1977). Science and sex roles in the Victorian Era. In Ann Arbor Science for the People Editorial Collective, Biology as a social weapon. Minneapolis, MN: Burgess Publishing. Keller, Evelyn F. (1982). "Feminism and Science." Signs, 7,589-602. LeBon, Gustave . (1879). Recherches anatomiques et mathematiques sur les lois des variations du volume du cerveau et sur leurs relations avec l'intelligence. Revued'Anthropologie, 2, 27-104. Lewontin, Richard, Rose, Stevan, & Kamin, Leon J. (1984). Not in our genes. New York: Pantheon. Merchant, Carolyn. (1980). The death of nature: Women, ecology, and the scientific revolution. San Francisco : Harper and Row. Merchant, Carolyn. (1982). Isis' consciousness raised. Isis, 73,398-409. Morton, Samuel G. (1849). Observations on the size of
the brain in various races and families of man. Proceedings ofthe Academyof Natural Sciences ofPhi/adelphia, 4,221-224. Nott, Josiah C. , & Gliddon, George R. (1854). Types of mankind. Philadelphia: Lippincott. Nott, Josiah C., & Gliddon, George R. (1868). Indigenous races of the earth. Philadelphia: Lippincott. Reid , Inez S. (1975). Science, politics, and race. Signs, 1,99-124. Stein , George J. (1988). Biological science and the roots of Nazism . Amer. Scientist, 76, 50-58. 'Iopinard, Paul. (1878). Anthropology. London: Chapman and Han . Vogt, Carl. (1864). Lectures on man. London: longman , Green, Longman, and Roberts. Wilson, Edward O . (1975). Sociobiology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wilson, Edward O. (1978). On human nature. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press. Wolff, Charlotte. (1986). Magnus Hirschfeld. London: Quartet Books . Zmarzlik, Hans-Gunter. (1972). Social Darwinism in Germany seen as a historical problem . In H . Holborn (Ed .), Republic to Reich. New York : Pantheon.