Invisible Women
Introduction:
Science created by women is made to be invisible by the very institutions that employ them. Rather their knowledge is obscured due to heroism, objectivity or both their work remains buried. In addition to the value of the utility of which their knowledge is the basis, the work of female scientists adds value to society by providing a minority perspective to a public predominantly supplied with information suited towards white men. Minority perspectives in science are perpetually pushed aside due to the closed nature of science communication. However, I propose that art is the vehicle capable of bringing the work of female scientists to the forefront via public engagement.
I theorize bridging the communication gap by using art as scientific thumbnails will bring visibility to female work.
Section 2: Why/how female conducted science is pushed to the background
Science created by females is pushed to the background within the scientific community for either lacking objectivity or as a result of heroic ideology instilled in STEM culture. Before diving into the details of both objectivity and heroism it is important to note that the both ideals are gendered and have become institutional standards as a result of the dominance of men within the field of science throughout history. These ideals are not inherently bad but when only one perspective is valued, other characteristics become so by default. Within the science community this is the case with ideals associated with femininity.
Objectivity is viewing something without perceiving it or understanding something detached from oneself. One idea about why men value this way of understanding has to do with the foundations of men themselves. This psychoanalytic theory by Nancy Chodorow is described by Niomi Oreskes in her paper Objectivity or Heroism? On the Invisibility of Women in Science: “To forge their identity as men, male children must detach themselves from their primary love object [mother], whereas female children forge their identities as women in continuing their identification with their mother… male identity is forged in separation, female identity in attachment” (Oreskes 88). The feminist critique of objectivty is the ideal fails to capture the connectedness and fragmentation of knowledge. A notion supported by feminist standpoint theory whose first tenet is “all knowledge is situated, interpreted and thus local” (Halpern). Meaning, every scientist has a perspective and that perspective is going to influence how they observe and translate that observation into knowledge, it is inescapable.
Stratified with the psychoanalytic theory inferring objectivity is produced by male formative detachment is the idea of heroism. Heroism, as described by Oreskes, is “that science is a long, lonely struggle and crucial discoveries are almost always made at night” (Oreskes 110). To expand, one cannot be doing valuable science if they are not working long uninterrupted hours in solitude. Implicitly speaking, a great scientist is one with no connections to others in professional and personal life. While many male scientists have wives it is not controversial for those spouses to receive little time from their partner, “but if the scientist in the story were a woman, with children alone at home, would we still admire her dedication?… By emphasizing attributes associated with masculinity, heroic ideology renders the female scientist invisible” (Oreskes 111). Heroic ideology ensures that even when a female scientist is approaching their work objectively that work will still be obscured.
Oreskes’ ideas about objectivity and heroism are illustrated in the film Hidden Figures. The film is based on the female scientists and mathematicians at NASA whose work was vital for the success of Apollo 11. One of the focuses of the film, Katherine Johnson, who was black and female, faced unnecessary whitewashing. Within her story line, Katherine is shown using colored bathrooms and her boss- seeing her inconvenienced, tears down the “colored” bathroom sign. This was curated to be one of the high points of the movie and was also a fabrication. The real Katherine Johnson used the white bathroom and was never given trouble. The addition of a white savior in the story line of a brillant female mathematician (conducting objective work) validates Okeske’s thesis that women will have their work devalued if not by objectivity then scientific heroism. Race was the vehicle of scientific heroism used to devalue Katherine Johnson’s portrayal in Hidden figures.
Section 3: Why female science is valuable and needs to be seen
Scientific knowledge created by women adds value to society as a minority perspective and for the work itself. Foremost, unique perspectives offer a piece of the truth otherwise not visible. Further supported by feminist standpoint theory’s second pillar: “those belonging to marginalized groups are situated in ways that allow them to see more than those who are not” (Halpern). Here lies the intersection between objectivity and complacency. When a whole field is a homogeneous mixture whose purpose is to produce knowledge to serve the public and that knowledge created under the standard that one should detach oneself from the equation, complacence is a major byproduct. Societally present in the medical field nestled in the pages of medical books. Books used to communicate medical knowledge to practitioners only show conditions like skin rashes on white skin. Rashes that appear differently on persons with varying degrees of melanin are often not diagnosed because their rash does not match with those printed in the reference books. Doctors are expected to serve patients of all skin types but due to the limited perspective of those tasked with communicating medical science/ those producing it a huge portion of patients are not served to the same standard as the white man. Suppressing the feminine perspective in science directly diminishes the utility of knowledge created exclusively under the masculine perspective and leaves half of the population under served.
Section3: The disconnect between science and the public
Perhaps the biggest problem facing the scientific community is the inability to successfully communicate information to the public. Culturally, this is evident by the existence of anti-vaxxers. The necessity of vaccines is not disputed within the scientific community but that is not the case among the entirety of the general populous. Ignorance exhibited by anti-vaxxers, despite the evidence provided by scientists, illustrates the holes in the information pipeline. Problems with science communication are propagated by academic culture. Science has become so specialized that each discipline has its own language. A language only members in that subcommunity ever learn to speak. Papers produced from these subcommunities are then only understood by participants. Subsequently, the produced knowledge becomes predominantly for other academics creating a closed system. Value assigned to knowledge comes primarily from members within the subcommunities, members who across all subcommunites share the same dominant demographic: white male. Coupled with the group’s set systematic standards, objectivity and heroism, the femine perspective sits on a revolving track to invisibility. However, I propose science communication holds the key to bring the work of female scientists out of the shadows by opening the system to the public via art.
Section 4: Arts connection to science
Through art female scientists could capture the attention of the public directly and authentically translate their work simultaneously. Art breathes realness into theory by engaging the senses of the viewer, “Explaining science and technology without props can resemble an attempt to tell what it is like to swim without ever letting a person near the water” (Oppenheimer 206). Art can allow the public to understand the language of the scientific subcommunity. Once the language barrier is broken people belonging to diverse demographics are able to decide for themselves if the knowledge they experienced holds value and deserves circulation. Lauren Redniss’s Radioactive is evidence that art can make complex concepts- like invisible forces, comprehensible. Radioactive, recounts the life of Marie Curie; the scientist who discovered radioactive decay. Redniss shatters the traditional notion that scientific nonfiction writing presents as densely packed columns of size 10 print. Instead she surprised the reader with abstract illustrations on every page haphazardly interacting with the fairytale style writing. Redniss effectively communicated the concept of radioactivity and by engaging the reader’s senses with memorable illustrations.
Conclusion:
Art is like science sign language for the public. It serves as a vehicle to the same understanding simply by a different route. I encourage women in science to use art as a thumbnail for their work as a way to reach the public and bring their perspectives and knowledge to the forefront of society. In the age of social media, exposure is only one viral video away. As far as trending topics go- cutting edge concepts conveyed in physical medium is a far better contender than columns of size 10 font in a foreign language. Boring does not breed exposure and exposure, I believe, is the key to representation for marginalized perspectives. Science exists to serve the public but historically and currently the production and utilization of knowledge benefits white men. The public deserves feminine science. Science that acknowledges its perspective, rejects complacency and gets closer to the truth of the natural world.
Bibliography:
Bigg, C. (2013). Lauren redniss. radioactive: Marie and pierre curie: A tale of love and fallout. 208 pp., illus., bibl. new york: HarperCollins, 2010. $29.99 (cloth). Isis, 104(1), 179–180. doi:10.1086/670897
Halpern, M. (2019). Feminist standpoint theory and science communication. Journal of Science Communication,18(04). doi:10.22323/2.18040302
Melfi, T., Gigliotti, D., Chernin, P., Topping, J., Williams, P., Schroeder, A., . . . Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment, Inc. (2017). Hidden figures ([DVD]. ed.). Beverly Hills, California: Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment.
Oppenheimer, F. Rationale for a Science Museum (1968). Curator: The Museum Journal, Volume 1 Issue 3, Pages 206–209. https://www.exploratorium.edu/files/frank/rationale/rationale.pdf
Oreskes, N. (1996). Objectivity or heroism? on the invisibility of women in science.Osiris (Bruges), 11, 87–113. doi:10.1086/368756
