This is part of an essay that I wrote for my Domestic Violence class, that I’m a little proud of… This is a segment of it, I tried to put it in context, but I think it’s still pretty accessible. Let me know if you want to read the rest or need more explanation, I apologize for the dense Irene-is-writing-a-paper mode. I’ve been thinking about the battle between masculinity and femininity a lot lately, and I think this whole conflation of science with truth with masculinity is one of the main reasons femininity is so shit upon. This class has definitely made me appreciate my feminine side a whole lot more. Here goes:
Murray Straus conducted a survey in the early 1980s that was scientifically “objective” (it had a HUGE sample, quantitative research, etc.), measuring the rate of abuse in U.S. American families. It posed questions asking the recipient of the survey the frequency of certain acts of violence, for example “I slapped my partner” or “I forced my partner to have sex when they were unwilling” with the options “never” to “more than 20 times”. The survey was flawed in many ways, however, notably (a) that it did not include any qualitative research, (b) that it assumed that surveyees would answer questions such as the former honestly and with no inner conflict, (c) that it did not take into account whether the partner was acting violent in self-defense and (d) that it did not take into account the severity of violent acts when asking questions like “I punched my partner” (i.e. we do not know if that means the partner then took a step backwards, or the partner then fell backwards through a plate glass table requiring a trip to the emergency room). The survey concluded that “family violence” is as commonly directed from men to women as from women to men. Once the results were published to the news media, with phrases like “we should be worrying about battered husbands!”… thousands of battered women’s shelters lost funding.
The clout of science in our society is immense—in this way it is impossible for even supposedly “apolitical” research to not turn political. We saw how Murray Straus’ “apolitical” and “objective” research was ultimately a political tool to many who dismissed feminist work in domestic violence. I believe it is unreasonable to think that a person can publish any social science research as “fact” when even the “harder” sciences such as biology are being politicized for theories like evolution. Even if we assume that objectivity is possible within the lab, there is no predicting how subjectively and politically the study will be received outside the lab. Yllo points out that “The assumption that observation and data can be divorced from theory (and values), and that the natural and (even more problematic) the social world can be objectively studied, is at the core of the debate”. It is my opinion that the data you collect and how you collect it cannot be divorced from your politics and values. I believe objectivity is not possible; it is merely an ideal that bolsters the findings of men.
The problem is that our society ascribes value only to objectivity and quantitative research. Feminist research is slandered in the male-dominated science world by means of attaching the labels “subjective” and “political”. These subtle attacks on feminist research must be exposed for what they are—that is, misogyny. Only then, I think, will quantitative and qualitative research be able to live in harmony. I do believe that quantitative research has some value and can help to observe patterns. But I do not believe that it can bring infallible truth without reinforcement from qualitative research.
In my life, feminism has revealed much more for me about the nature of humanity than science has ever “objectively” put forth. However, the difference between the two, according to our mainstream society, is that science is “fact”, while feminism is “biased politics”. To me, science lacks the self-consciousness that feminism contends as essential to a good study. I think either (a) you acknowledge your politics and how they shape your research or (b) you pretend you don’t have politics and they shape your research anyway subconsciously. The issue, to me, is transparency. Scientists that moon over objectivity refuse to believe that their experience of the world could have shaped their research even slightly. And this is how domestic violence stays invisible.
The power of science in our society is in that it establishes truth. If science does not acknowledge domestic violence, then domestic violence does not exist. Domestic violence is a phenomenon that is impossible to observe in its entirety without qualitative research. Thus, the two research methodologies of quantitative and qualitative must come together to legitimize domestic violence to our society. The first step to getting rid of a problem is admitting that you have a problem. Our society is in denial, and it is not until a combination of forces brings visibility to domestic violence that our society will admit that domestic violence is a problem. Science can bring that visibility.
p.s. This is also me trying to start a conversation about domestic violence here, but not knowing where to begin.
Cool post Irene, I’d like to see the rest of your essay. Reading this excerpt was really interesting because for me it embodies this back-and-forth I always have with myself about science and culture. I divided my competing ideas about your points into two parts.
On “Objectivity” vs. Subjectivity: The idea of objectivity in social sciences, or in any science, is definitely a problematic one. There seems to be (from what little I’ve read) a rift within the scientific community itself over this. There are scientists of the Newtonian tradition who believe the observer can completely remove themself from what’s being observed. And then there are others who side with this guy named Thomas Kuhn, who said that science evolves through a series of revolutions (paradigm shifts that aren’t necessarily linear), in which scientists discover new lenses through which to view science, that before would’ve been considered unscientific. In other words, observers can never really claim objectivity. Not even time will tell. And of course (this is me, not kuhn) whatever lens is being used is determined in large part by the scientist’s social status (usually a privileged status since science is a field that’s dominated by the white the rich and the male).
And however fucked up the relationship between “objective” science and society is, language, as always, exacerbates the problem. Like “fact” is such a loaded, in my opinion unscientific, word. To me the use of it represents a disconnect that exists between the lab and the public. In the lab you have “theories supported by certain evidence”. In the media you have “facts”. In the lab you have studies showing how a group of men and a group of women figured out a math problem differently. In the media you have “women are bad at math.” It’s a shitstorm of reductive media, naive public, and scientists who are too cozy with the respect their titles get them to correct misconceptions about their work.
On Feminism vs. Science:
“the difference between the two, according to our mainstream society, is that science is “fact”, while feminism is “biased politics”. To me, science lacks the self-consciousness that feminism contends as essential to a good study.”
Is feminism at odds with science, or is it at odds with Murray Straus’s science? This guy actually came up just other day when I was arguing with an MRA (I know I shouldn’t feed the trolls but he was just so adorable) so I looked him up. you deconstructed his study awesomely. But what was really interesting about the way you deconstructed the study was that you used scientific rhetoric, and showed that it didn’t meet basic scientific standards that would need to be met if he was going to draw all these conclusions about domestic violence being tit-for-tat (because of the phrasing of questions etc). Which leads me to this self-dividing question about whether the solution to bad science is more science. That seems to be what you’re saying in your last paragraph. But then doesn’t that somehow undermine the attempt to take on science as an institution?
It seems like people will speak the language of science (in that they’ll use deductive reasoning, quantitative AND qualitative evidence etc.) for as long as they can. I mean when it comes to something like domestic violence, for example, how can you not start with the numbers when they’re so staggering?
I guess the question for me is how can one formulate a substantial criticism of the scientific process when (for one reason or another) its so essential for constructing the arguments one makes on a daily basis?
Yo, Thomas Kuhn changed my life! Seriously. And Statistics 101. Science is no more reliable than personal experience. Numbers are just as manipulable and contextual as emotions are. I mean, what happened on WallStreet with the banking collapse is not entirely a bunch of guys lying. It was also manipulation of numbers that were presented and accepted as objective, unquestionable!
Yes, MEN rely on numbers to support their opinions. It bores me because it’s more of their false authority. But don’t tell them that! You’ll be branded an irrational woman!
It looks like an interesting essay Irene. But I would be cautious in putting the issue as feminism vs. science. Feminism is an umbrella term for different positions and theories which are not always consistent with one another. And by science I guess you mean Western science.
In order to be more clear I think you should specify what kind of feminism you are talking about. Are you proposing a feminist science as an alternative to mainstream science? What is feminist about it? and since it is still some sort of a science, what is scientific about it?
cheers,
HOW we know what we know IS a feminist issue, generally speaking.
Ways of knowing historically associated with women include emotion, intuition, and bodily matters. Men, and masculinity, has historically been associated with rationality and objectivity (particularly via science). Feminist epistemology is concerned with how male ways of knowing the world are privileged. I studied this concept in the Philosophy department @ Smith in the late 90s; it’s legit feminist theory.
if i could “like” this comment, i would. i’m also interested in the ways men claim historically feminine ways of knowing, particularly physicality, when it’s convenient for their own projects.
Thanks snacktivism! 🙂
I’ve found that, although *I* take the distinction between “male” and “female” ways of knowing for granted, most other people don’t get it. For example, I tried to explain it to my father but he wasn’t hearing it (didn’t want to). I wish I had some sources, but the only one that comes to mind in is my “Feminist Ethics” book, a reference by Vicky Spelman…maybe I can dig that up one of these days.
The first thing that comes to my mind when discussing male appropriation of the female realm is *aesthetics.* Of course men have always been serious Artistes! Painters and sculptors and whatnot. But say interior decorating and bodily adornment, that was traditionally seen as fluffy, vapid woman stuff. Primarily as a result of capitalism (hey, male profiteering!), men have now become more interested in such practices. Male fashion designers dominate. Faggotry is all the rage in queer communities! Not femininity, mind you, but femininity filtered through a MALE lens.
Ok, my fault, it was Ruth Ginzberg and she says:
The entire article is posted here. And I’d love to hear anyone’s thoughts about androcentric vs. gynocentric philosophies!!
you went to smith?! i go to mount holyoke! sorry for the digression, but if you are in the area, we should meet up and talk about this.
Orkinson, represent sister!! I LOVE the Pioneer Valley and all of it’s woman-lesbian-artsy-eccentric-friendliness. I’m not local anymore (I live in the Boston area), but I’d love to continue the discussion around feminist epistemology–please feel free to email me (anytime). 🙂
Also, there are few 7-sisters type references around Gender Agenda–that’s part of why I kept coming back. You’re on my Blog Surfer now, though, so I don’t miss a thing!
PS. To all, especially Irene (who commented somewhere that she was reading this book), a discussion of Whipping Girl is going down @ Feminist Reading Group, if you’re interested.
yesssss i hope to soon be moving to the boston area if i can find a job there! you can email me anytime too! orkinson@gmail.com 🙂 so happy to have met you, Undercover Punk!
I have a question. What do you mean by “qualitative research” and how is domestic violence “impossible to observe in its entirely without qualitative research”?
Also, I agree that the words “fact” and “truth” are misleading. I think a better term is “evidence.” Evidence is just bits of information, bits that tell part of a story but not the whole story. Of course, the evidence may not tell the whole story, as it may leave out important information or it can be ambiguous. Measuring everyone’s height might not tell us how well people can sing, but it can give us a sense of who is tall enough to reach the top shelf. And blood on your clothes may mean you are the murderer or you discovered the body and tried to revive the victim. The crucial part is how you use the evidence. But the point of objective science is to have reliable evidence, to have evidence that you trust and is fairly accurate about what is actually happening. Having reliable evidence is important because you need somewhere safe to start reasoning from. You need good premises to come to good conclusions. Otherwise, you get “garbage in, garbage out;” if your evidence is shoddy, your conclusions are unreliable: sometimes, out of sheer dumb luck, you might stumble onto the right answer but most times you will end up with the wrong answer.
So I can accept your arguments that Straus’s research leaves out many bits of information. But that does not invalidate the rest of the evidence from his survey. It might prompt us to do more research, to find out whether the man or woman is more likely to instigate violence, whether the rates of self defense are similar. The answer is to conduct more research, collect more information, not to throw out Straus’s study.
or maybe the answer is to accept that women have no incentive to cry wolf nor to abuse their spouses, and if they say they have been domestically abused, they probably have.
i agree that better science would make science trustworthy. but i think what irene was saying is that science, when it is so shitty so as to even consider including a study so *unscientific* as straus’s, should have as much clout in society as a load of crock. science is as unreliable and bumpy as anything else that heavily relies on reports of subjective experiences.
if anything needs to be thrown out, it is the western world’s religious faith in science’s cold, hard undeniability. yes, science is useful in a number of different ways but that does not mean that it is not deeply flawed, or has not been used as a tool to achieve extreme and improper ends.