Banu Subramaniam
Autor de Ghost Stories for Darwin: The Science of Variation and the Politics of Diversity
Sobre El Autor
Banu Subramaniam is professor of women, gender, and sexuality studies at University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and author of Ghost Stories for Darwin: The Science of Variation and the Politics of Diversity, winner of the 2016 Ludwik Fleck Award from the Society for the Social Studies of Science.
Obras de Banu Subramaniam
Etiquetado
Conocimiento común
Todavía no hay datos sobre este autor en el Conocimiento Común. Puedes ayudar.
Miembros
Reseñas
Premios
Estadísticas
- Obras
- 3
- Miembros
- 34
- Popularidad
- #413,653
- Valoración
- 4.0
- Reseñas
- 1
- ISBNs
- 7
Her book is divided into three main parts. In the first she uses her graduate experiments on morning glory flowers as a metaphor for how "variation in evolutionary biology has been intricately linked throughout history with ideas of human diversity and difference." (p 30). She goes on to talk about how the beginnings of evolutionary theory were shaped by a white male's perspective, in a time when the "ideal" human was a white, upper-class male. Subramaniam notes that Darwin himself essentially said that eliminating the "weaker" or "less valuable" members of humanity would ensure our species' survival:
Darwin's thoughts on eliminating human "impurities" to ensure the survival of a "fitter" human race, went on to influence the father of eugenics, Francis Galton. Connecting these ideas during a time when the white male was the ideal human gave scientific justification to ideas of racism, sexism, ableism, etc; allowing them to run rampant during the 19th century. Subramaniam suggests that this is why these issues are still so prevalent today, and also why women and people of color are so largely underrepresented in scientific fields. The ideas of eugenics furthered the idea that less variation leads to more purity, while in actuality, variation is necessary for species to evolve and stay strong. Subramaniam says the same of the field of science: that diversity in science leads to better ideas.
In the second part, she talks extensively about her “natureculture” term through the ideas of invasion biology. She states that invasion biology, a very recent discipline, is stuck in the binary of “alien vs. native.” The main focus of invasion biology is how “alien” invasive plants are from another location, and therefore largely a threat to “native” flora and fauna. They do not focus enough on the actual environmental impacts they have (good or bad), but merely the fact that they need to be gotten rid of. Subramaniam also questions what exactly makes a plant native: is it how long it’s been in its geographical location, or is it “native” because of the nostalgic sense it gives people? She also points out the disturbing connections between vilification of invasive plants and that of illegal immigrants. Much of the fear-mongering of invasive plants/animals we are familiar with today, emerged during the post-9/11-world – a time when people were basically being told they should be afraid of anyone who looked even vaguely Middle Eastern. She makes these connections to point out that not only is the “science” of invasive plants is important, but the history surrounding what makes it invasive is also important. Like the connection of eugenics to the founding of modern scientific theory is heavily placed in the culture/era of its time.
In the last part of her book, she talks mainly about how merely adding more women in science will not change the way women in science are treated. The way science is done must be changed in order to make science a more fair playing field for the underrepresented. Because modern scientific practices were originated in a white-male-dominated world, the white male is still the unconscious image most people have of a scientist. She states numerous ways that women are either excluded from science, or thought of as not being as “able” to practice science as men are. While there are many programs to include more women (and people of color) in science, many women will still leave scientific fields at some point in their life because of all the obstacles and exclusionary practices/mindsets that exist. In order for science to become a more diverse field, the way that knowledge is constructed and practiced needs to be challenged and changed. She ties this up saying that understanding the history and origins of science and knowledge construction will open up pathways for things to change.
Overall, this is a very dense but well-written book. Subramaniam has many ideas that at first don’t seem like they can be connected at all, but she connects them very precisely. It also really opened my eyes to the way that science is practiced. At times, I really wanted to throw the book, not because I didn’t like it, but because of all the things she pointed out that honestly made me disgusted/gave me the creeps.
If I had one criticism about the book, it would be that she really repeats things… a LOT. In the opening paragraph of each chapter, she seemed to want to remind the reader of the thesis. Sometimes the exact same sentence one paragraph after it was first stated. I know that she wants to reiterate her ideas, and keep you concentrated on the main thesis of the book, but it really got tedious at some points. I would be curious to see maybe what a second edition of this book would be like. Despite that one issue, the book is extremely good. I would highly recommend this to anyone who is interested in feminism, and especially to those who are gender studies or women’s studies students. But I think the number-one type of person who should read this are science students. It opens your eyes to a lot of dark and dirty things concerning certain scientific ideas/practices that are otherwise never criticized. It also makes you aware of the importance about interdisciplinary studies – Subramaniam makes clear how being a scientist and studying the humanities could actually lead you to better understanding science.… (más)