Simians, Cyborgs and Women Chapters 1-5

Chapter 1: Animal Sociology and a Natural Economy of the Body Politic: A Political Physiology of Dominance

The introduction to this is focused on the tradition of society in the viewpoints of a system. The system inter workings are “organic” and the capitalist system makes people a “commodity”. This is where the notion of the Body Politic is introduced by the author, because of the male-dominated society base it is currently in. She introduces what will be her main theory though the book, “Socialist-Feminist theory” and she calls her viewpoint cyborg perspective.  Her ideas about the science involvement are displayed when she states (1991):

“in our search for understanding of a feministic body politic, we need the discipline of the natural and social sciences, just as we need every creative form of theory and practice. These sciences have liberating functions in so far as we build them on social relations not based on domination” (19).

This is to showcase the ideas that science can be helpful in this search, but the right ones need to used and they need to be used differently than they have traditionally been.

Chapter 2: The Past is the Contested Zone: Human Nature and Theories of Production and Reproduction in PrimateBehaviour Studies

The context of primate studies in relation to human beings is the focus of this chapter. The idea that studying primates so closely in view of humans has formed an idea that males are aggressive and females are dependent. Harraway argues the reality is that animals do what they need to live. Humans are biologically similar, but socially we have formed a society where that instinct is not as prevalent. We have “sex, economics, reproduction and production” to drive our system not just survival. The dominance factor has thus come from this study, she argues, and has led to the ideals that are prevalent in our systems.I have never though of this before. I wouldn’t have pegged scientific study as being “Sexist” in nature. I can see the understanding that forming harsh comparisons could have its downfalls considering primates andhumans are not the same and do not live under the same terms. That is sociologically what she is arguing here. But to say that male-dominance and female subservience has come from the study of primates is very new to me. That we have “learned” from these creatures how to form our gender parameters.

Chapter 3: Biological Enterprise: Sex, Mind, and Profit from Human Engineering to Sociobiology

The role of science in feminism is the discussed in the context of the body. The body in its role in society. Science has had a shift in focus in the recent years (the time at publication of this text is 1991 to keep understanding about time). Biology the science of life which had been focusing on organic components was focusing more on technological components of system with newer sciences in engineering. The sciences are argued to be patriarchal in nature, because of the “how can man dominate nature” idea.

Domination. Domination. Domination.

The question is posed about the possibility of the Feminist Socialist science formulation.  She adds, ” A socialist-feminist science will have to be developed in the process of constructing different lives in interaction with the world. Only material struggle can end the logic of domination” (71).

The formulation of ideas based on this can show the two equations:

Abundance=knowledge

Scarcity=competition

The survival aspects related back to biology as discussed with primates- is the Darwin idea of survival of the fittest. In a world based in a formed society, this survival aspect becomes less prevalent than the animal world, because of material abundance. Knowledge and discovery is more apparent as the basic needs are met.

Chapter 4: In the Beginning Was the Word: The Genesis of Biological Theory

Language is the foundation of reality. We couldn’t understand the ideas we are thinking about even now without language and communication. There would be no context for it.

Language is argued by the author to have taken a patriarchal role in society for speech that keeps to the domination-subordination. This distorts reality to have a patriarchal meaning if language is the foundation.

 

Domination. Domination. Domination

To end the chapter she makes the statement that the man v. nature ideal comes from competition shown in science that was created by male rule. The reworking of the view of nature in relationship to women and feminism is established by not making it a competitive, domination thing. She states that in recent times the harming of natural resources has caused more activism and the leaders are typically women.

The goal would be to shift this for all people. Is what I understand from her argument. It isn’t just about women, its about humans.

Chapter 5: The Contest for Primate Nature: Daughters of Man-the-Hunter in the Field, 1960-80

Because I’m such a horror fanatic-there is a lot of feminism and political statements made in horror films over the decades. I love the social commentary. Carrie (1976) the film was released during ERA movement (Equal Rights Amendment) this heavily represented women’s right to control their body.

This is a chapter about developing a definition for feminism to the author. The development of this movement to change the language and the meanings that have been discussed in the previous chapters. The idea that people can change reality through story telling. The invention of histories that are focused on these women.

Reproductive rights are examined in context with primates, bringing the discussion back. The tracking of lineage from the father is something that is discussed as in taking the style of primates.

The summary of the chapter brings the point forward that her intent is to break down the meanings of these scientific researches in public view. She says, “People in particular historical settings make the meanings; it is the nature of primates”. This is relevant to what she has been arguing thus far through the comparisons. The settings, the science, the language all form how we view our meanings and reality (118).

My thoughts….

So far I understand what she is talking about, although I do not agree with everything, because when discussing equality and changing the reality. I see many opportunities in this to throw men under the bus.  You cannot just pull women into the forefront. It has to be an EQUAL ideal. Change the conversation-the language=reality argument- is very true to me . Its still the society we are in. How can we form arguments that will be received well, if we are just saying “this is what male drive society has done to us women…” It needs to be different. She does bring up a quote about a feminist voice being a humanist whisper and I think this is something I can see being a positive thought. Humanism is where she has discussed humankind, not just women. The thought about our ideals in society. I am interested to see where the text goes further into the relationships between the nature, society and feminist ideas. The comparisons have been well established.

Comments:

I have commented on Summer’s post and Camille’s post this week.

Citation:

Haraway, D. J. (1991). Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge.