HOW SCIENCE HAS CONSTRUCTED A ROMANCE BASED ON STEREOTYPICAL MALE-FEMALE ROLES
EMILY MARTIN
The theory of the human body is always a part of a world- picture. . . . The theory of the human body is always a part of a fantasy. [JAMES T h e M y t h of Analysis]’ HILLMAN,
As an anthropologist, I am intrigued by the possibility that culture shapes how biological scientists describe what they discover about the natural world. If this were so, we would be learning about more than the natural world in high school biology class; we would be learning about cultural beliefs and practices as if they were part of nature. In the course of my research I realized that the picture of egg and sperm drawn in popular as well as scientific accounts of reproductive biology relies on stereotypes central to our cultural definitions of male and female. The stereotypes imply not only that
Portions of this article were presented as the 1987 Becker Lecture, Cornell University. I am grateful for the many suggestions and ideas I received on this occasion. For especially pertinent help with my arguments and data I thank Richard Cone, Kevin Whaley, Sharon Stephens, Barbara Duden, Susanne Kuechler, Lorna Rhodes, and Scott Gilbert. The article was strengthened and clarified by the comments of the anonymous Signs reviewers as well as the superb editorial skills of Amy Gage.
I James Hillman, The Myth of Analysis (Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 1972), 220.
[Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 1991, vol. 16, no. 31 0 1991 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0097-974019111603-0003$01.00
Martin 1 EGG AND THE SPERM
female biological processes are less worthy than their male counter- parts but also that women are less worthy than men. Part ofmy goal in writing this article is to shine a bright light on the gender stereotypes hidden within the scientific language of biology. Exposed in such a light, I hope they will lose much of their power to harm us.