Roskilde

University

Introduction to feminist STS at work

challenging dichotomies and privileges
Willum Adrian, Stine; Skewes, Lea; Schwennesen, Nete

Published in:
Kvinder, Køn & Forskning

Publication date:
2018

Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Citation for published version (APA):

Willum Adrian, S., Skewes, L., & Schwennesen, N. (2018). Introduction to feminist STS at work: challenging
dichotomies and privileges. Kvinder, Køn & Forskning, 2018(I), 3-14.
https://tidsskrift.dk/KKF/article/view/106340/155333

General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners
and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.
• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain.
• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.
Take down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work
immediately and investigate your claim.

Download date: 21. Oct. 2024

WOMEN, GENDER & RESEARCH NO. 1 2018
1

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

Stine W. Adrian, Introduction to feminist STS at work: 3

Lea Skewes and challenging dichotomies and privileges
Nete Schwennesen

INTERVIEW

Interview with Nina Lykke Epistemology, Activism, and Entanglement 15

by Lea Skewes and – Rethinking Knowledge Production
Stine W. Adrian

ARTICLES

Lisa Lindén and The trouble of sex 33

Helena Tinnerholm Sex-determination, prenatal diagnosis and politics
Ljungberg

Theresa Ammann Nonhuman and Human 47

‘Victims’ and ‘Perpetrators’
Intra-active InSecurity Becomings
of the Ebola Outbreak

Karl Emil Rosenbæk Olie som misfittende relation 61

En nymaterialistisk analyse af det sorte gulds
klæbrige karaktertræk i Inferno (2014)

ESSAY

Tara Mehrabi Being intimate with flies 73

On affective methodologies and laboratory work
2 WOMEN, GENDER & RESEARCH NO. 1 2018

BOOK REVIEWS

Donna Haraway Manifestly Haraway 82

(Reviewed by Lis Højgaard)

Ayo Wahlberg and Selective Reproduction in the 21st Century 84

Tine Gammeltoft (eds.) (Reviewed by Lisbeth B. Knudsen)

Adele Clarke, Carrie Friese Situational Analysis 86

and Rachel S Washburn Grounded Theory after the Interpretive Turn
(Reviewed by Stine Willum Adrian)

Cordelia Fine Testosterone Rex – 88

Unmaking the myths of our gendered minds
(Reviewed by Lea Skewes)

PHD NOTICES

Michala Hvidt Breengaard How to Mother? 90

Practices of infant feeding and
the formation of maternal subjectivity
among middle-class mothers in Beijing
 3

Introduction

Introduction to
feminist STS at work
challenging dichotomies and privileges

BY STINE W. ADRIAN, LEA SKEWES

AND NETE SCHWENNESEN

W hat critical questions

and potential worlds are emerging out of
feminist STS today? What political agendas
do we challenge when we draw attention to
processes of inclusion and exclusion within
the sciences, and what political work needs
to be done and undone through science
and technologies? These are the questions
that have inspired us to propose and edit
this special issue of Women, Gender & Re-
search entitled Feminist STS at Work.
Feminist science and technology studies
(feminist STS)1 emerged out of second-
wave feminism. At its core was a politically
charged critique of the sciences and tech-
nologies, aimed at unmasking their sup-
pressive effects and investigating the poten-
tial for rethinking the hierarchies of knowl-
edge production and patriarchal power
structures. This was achieved by posing
fundamental questions such as: Who bene-
fits? Whose knowledges counts?2 These are
questions which have unveiled the social in-
equalities embedded in both science and
4 WOMEN, GENDER & RESEARCH NO. 1 2018

the use of technologies. These questions the discursive, are reconceptualized when
are just as relevant today as when they were feminist STS goes to work, as are episte-
initially formulated because inequalities are mologies.
still being produced through both science In the following text, we begin by laying
and technologies. bare the genealogical roots of feminist STS
Feminist STS is a field that provides cri- and its initial feminist critiques of science,
tiques which are aimed at reconfiguring technology and epistemology. We follow
epistemologies, methodologies and political this up with a discussion of how feminist
futures by offering feminist criteria for how STS has enabled a nuanced reconceptual-
to produce knowledge, design and tech- ization of sex and gender, as well as the di-
nologies in a more socially just manner. chotomous perception of nature and cul-
This is illustrated by inquiries into knowl- ture implicit within it. This is followed by a
edge-making at various different sites as description of how this rethinking of fun-
those in the natural sciences – more specifi- damental concepts is entangled within an
cally in physics and biology (Barad 1996, epistemological critique of how knowledge
Haraway 1988) – the technology of stan- ought to be developed and acquired in the
dards (Star 1991), and prenatal screening university. In doing so, we underline that
(Rapp 2000). From these inquiries into sci- feminist STS invites the undoing of disci-
ence and the use of technologies, reconcep- plines in the university, or rather a move to-
tualizations of both epistemology and on- wards transdisciplinarity, in order to enable
tology have followed which have pointed an analysis of complex phenomena such as
to a rethinking of feminist methodologies sex/gender.
(Harding 1986; Haraway 1988; Lykke Finally, we introduce the contributions
1996; Barad 1996, 2007). to this issue. They all offer different entry
Although feminist STS is a small field, in points into feminist STS and demonstrate
recent years it has become part of the cur- how these theoretical tools can help us in
riculum of various study programmes with- reconfiguring science and technologies
in the emerging field of science and tech- from a feminist starting point. Our hope is
nology studies (STS) in Denmark. How- that this introduction and the various con-
ever, feminist STS did not grow out of tributions can serve as an inspiration to
STS, but rather has had its own unique learn more about feminist STS.
history.
In this introduction, we seek to illustrate
why the genealogy of feminist STS mat- GENEALOGIES OF FEMINIST STS
ters. Furthermore, we wish to show how Second-wave feminist critiques of science
and why feminist STS is relevant to gender and technology grew out of the Cold War,
studies in general. Our hope is to spark in- a time when the negative consequences of
terest in the field among gender studies heavy industrialization became evident and
scholars more broadly, as we believe that its environmental consequences started to
feminist STS has important contributions emerge. In response to these political chal-
to make to gender studies, particularly re- lenges at the time, this led to radical and
garding discussions of sex/gender, episte- eco-feminist critiques of technologies that
mology and methodology. In this intro- were conceptualized as an extension of sup-
duction we zoom in on how sex/gender pressive patriarchy. However, technologies
has been reconfigured within feminist STS. also made possible feminist opportunities
We have chosen this particular focus be- and political debates on topics such as
cause it illustrates why the dichotomies be- abortion, contraception and a woman’s
tween nature and culture, the material and right to her own body, which were core po-
INTRODUCTION TO FEMINIST STS AT WORK
5

litical issues at the time. This is illustrated technology. Her figuration of the cyborg
by the feminist health collectives in Califor- challenged the distinction between the hu-
nia in the 1970’s, which: man and the non-human, as well as the bi-
nary perception of nature and culture. As
“appropriated, revised, and invented repro- part of her critique, she also argued that
ductive health care techniques: making pho- the technophilic and technophobic posi-
tographic diaries of cervical variation, crafting tions were problematic. Instead technolo-
politicized health manuals, examining men- gies ought to be analyzed as situated in the
struation with a microscope, building an practices that were unfolding (Haraway
abortion device with a canning jar and aquari- 2016b). Expressing the entanglements of
um tubing, forming artificial insemination science, theory and politics, the emergence
groups, or turning a living room into a health of new reproductive technologies has since
clinic” (Murphy 2012, 2). provoked various other theoretical develop-
ments within gender studies and feminist
These health collectives aimed to empower STS (Adrian 2014). Furthermore, feminist
women to understand and work with activism over reproductive health with re-
health issues in their own bodies indepen- spect to questions of abortion and contra-
dently of what was perceived as a suppres- ception was transformed, as these agendas
sive medical industry. This politically were incorporated into health politics
charged empowerment by means of an al- around the world (Murphy 2012).
ternative distribution of forms of medical At the same time as critiques of technol-
knowledge also took place in Denmark, ogy and science emerged from feminist ac-
where the book Our Bodies, Ourselves, ini- tivists and radical feminists, feminists within
tially written by the Boston Women’s the natural sciences also began challenging
Health Collective, was rewritten by Danish the premises of science. Anne Fausto-Ster-
women. This book has since been rewritten ling (1985), Lena Trojer (1985), Lynda
multiple times, the latest edition being Birke (1986), Donna Haraway (1987,
published in 2013 (K. Vinder, 2013). 1988), Evelyn Fox Keller (1992), Nelly
As technologies, such as in vitro fertiliza- Oudshoorn (1994) and Karen Barad
tion and sonography, emerged and became (1995) all voiced a fundamental epistemo-
more widely available in the 1980’s, cri- logical critique of modern Western science,
tiques and debates regarding potential the- in particular the Cartesian distinction be-
oretical frameworks of inquiry evolved tween nature and culture. This epistemo-
alongside them. However, within feminist logical critique was an important contribu-
discussions disagreements arose regarding tion to the critique of the dichotomous
the continuum between technophilic (Fire- perception of discourse and bodily materi-
stone 1970) and technophobic perspectives ality in Western science.
(Corea, Klein and Hamner 1985). In par- These critiques of science were devel-
ticular, a radical feminist movement, the oped in conversation with the work of the
Feminist International Network of Resis- standpoint theorist and feminist philoso-
tance to Reproductive and Genetic Engi- pher Sandra Harding. In particular, Hard-
neering (FINRRAGE), became a promi- ing’s book The Science Question in Femi-
nent critical voice in respect of the develop- nism (1986) had a significant impact on
ment of new reproductive technologies. feminist STS. She initiated a cartography of
While this radical feminist critique was different feminist epistemologies, including
taking place, in 1985 Haraway published her own reconceptualization of doing
her cyborg manifesto, which challenged the standpoint feminist research, which focused
gendered and essentializing perceptions of on how we might do better science from
6 WOMEN, GENDER & RESEARCH NO. 1 2018

the position of the subordinate. Haraway’s THE CORE CONCEPT:

classic article, Situated Knowledges: The Sci- SITUATED KNOWLEDGES
ence Question in Feminism and the Privilege In practice, situated knowledges and stand-
of Partial Perspective (1988), entered into point feminist aspirations were put to work
conversation with Harding’s work by both in studies inspired by both Harding’s and
critiquing and developing further a new Haraway’s new methodologies. In these
epistemology for feminist knowledge-mak- studies, the illusion of science as the unbi-
ing. Although Haraway was sympathetic to ased production of knowledge was ques-
the idea of knowledge being produced tioned, and new critical perspectives on sci-
from the standpoint of the subordinate, she entific practices were initiated.
criticized the notion that this was enough One example of this critical approach to
to secure better knowledge production. science, specifically biological research
Haraway questioned the relativism implicit about sex/gender, was Anne Fausto-Ster-
in Harding’s theory, arguing that, like the ling’s work, The Myths of Gender (1985). In
god trick performed by the neutral observ- this work, she systematically debunked
er, it lacks accountability. Instead, Haraway highly respected research on biologically
argued the need for a situated knowledge based sex/gender differences. This move
which could only produce partial truths. made her a part of a scientifically based, but
While this feminist critique of science also politically motivated questioning of
was unfolding, feminists of color and post- what sex/gender can tell us about an indi-
colonial feminists problematized feminism vidual’s character and abilities. Along simi-
as being predominately white and middle lar critical and politically motivated lines,
class. They rightly pointed out that white Emily Martin’s work The Egg and the
feminists had overlooked the fact that the Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Ro-
production of knowledges was deeply taint- mance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female
ed by race (Hull, Scott and Smith 1982; Roles (1991) revealed how stereotypical
Anzaldua and Moraga 1983; Mohanty perceptions of men and women biased
1984; Hill Collins 1991). As part of this what medical scientists were able to per-
critique, Crenshaw coined the term ‘inter- ceive in their research on the sperm and the
sectionality’ to underscore the need to ana- egg. Once again, unwrapping the highly
lyze gender as a category that intersected politically charged message implicit in sci-
with the categories of sex, class, race, eth- entific knowledge about a gender-stereo-
nicity and age (Crenshaw 1994). These cri- typically passive egg and a gender-stereo-
tiques from both critical race and postcolo- typically active sperm which implied that
nial scholars shaped both Harding’s devel- gender stereotypes were biologically based
opments of standpoint theory and Har- and therefore immutable. In this way, femi-
away’s conceptualization of situated knowl- nist STS made explicit that culturally based
edges (Haraway 1987; Harding 1998). To- gender stereotypes framed results in bio-
day, feminist postcolonial STS is emerging logical science that had until then been as-
(M’Chareck 2005; Tallbear 2013; Subrami- sumed to be objective and unsituated. In
am 2014), and feminist STS is becoming a other words, feminist STS facilitated an
field in which critiques of science and tech- awareness that even very basic social cate-
nology intersect with postcolonial theory gories such as ‘women’ or ‘men’ were
and critical race theory. highly charged political categories. This
means that, when we lay scientific claim to
what a woman’s or a man’s body is, we are
implicitly also laying claim to what a
woman’s or a man’s body ought to be and
INTRODUCTION TO FEMINIST STS AT WORK
7

what sort of action this female or male have women been given greater responsi-
body ought to be initiating or participating bilities in the home than men?
in. Therefore, feminist STS brings to the This ability to ‘trouble’ norms by distin-
fore that one can never achieve knowledge guishing between sex and gender exposed a
of the gendered body, nor of any topic for significant asymmetric attribution of value
that matter, from a neutral standpoint. between stereotypically feminine-defined
Knowledge is always situated or entangled tasks in the home and the stereotypically
within assumptions about epistemology masculine-defined tasks in the workplace,
and political preferences. When we are do- which were valued highly enough to be
ing research, we are therefore always also paid. To challenge this asymmetry between
doing politics and including or excluding men and women in their everyday lives,
certain bodies from certain spaces. And, new theoretical approaches started to place
contrary to traditional perceptions, it is not an emphasis on the value of stereotypically
that feminist STS introduced a political feminine over stereotypically masculine val-
agenda within scientific practices, but ues. This theoretical and political move was
rather that feminist STS make explicit that expressed in different variations within rad-
political agendas were already embedded in ical feminism (Firestone 1970), eco-femi-
the ways research was carried out and is still nism (Mies and Shiva 1993) and sexual dif-
being carried out today. ference theory (Irigaray 1985). However,
these approaches never succeeded in boost-
ing the feminine values to the level of the
THE POLITICAL WORK ON masculine ones, and therefore they inadver-
PERCEPTIONS OF SEX AND GENDER tently fed into the discourse that women
In order to illustrate this entanglement of are biologically determined to do different
research practices, epistemological research and less significant tasks than men.
critiques and politics, it might be useful to In the 1990’s Judith Butler took up the
provide a few concrete examples of the la- political battle over sex/gender by making
tent political potential of different scientific the reverse move, that is, fighting against
understandings of sex and gender. the separation of sex and gender. She did
One example is in this issue’s interview this because, in her view, this seperation
with Nina Lykke, where she presents us had led to a privileging of sex over gender.
with an illustration of the original political In her iconic book Gender Trouble (1990),
potential in the separation of sex and gen- she emphasized that, as long as we speak of
der. She illustrates the usefulness of the dis- sex and gender as two separable entities, we
tinction between sex and gender with the are reiterating sex as the biological cause of
fact that her parents both were full-time gender, thereby contributing to the power
doctors, yet only her mother took on hierarchy we are striving to challenge.
household duties. The point is that this di- Many misinterpreted Butler’s work to
vision of labor was perceived as natural at mean that the body could be reduced to
the time. Against this backdrop, a distinc- discourse. However, Butler herself did not
tion between sex and gender offered a criti- intend to deny that bodies do exist (as illus-
cal view of socio-cultural norms. In other trated by her follow up work, Bodies That
words, by driving a wedge between biolog- Matter of 1993). She merely pointed out,
ical sex and perceived gender roles, a new in agreement with such writers as Fausto-
feminist perspective on the everyday condi- Sterling, Martin and Haraway, that we can
tions of family life was unveiled, a perspec- never achieve access to an uncultured body.
tive that invited the question: if biological
sex does not determine gender roles, why
8 WOMEN, GENDER & RESEARCH NO. 1 2018

WHAT THE BRAIN CAN TELL US taxi-drivers. The research team chose this
ABOUT SEX/GENDER target group because London taxi-drivers
The highly politically charged debate about are trained to avoid using maps or GPS sys-
whether sex (represented by biology/na- tems and must therefore memorize routes
ture) and gender (represented by culture) and locations in the city. The researchers
can be separated continues to this day. Al- found that taxi-drivers’ brains had adapted
ready in the mid-1980’s, Fausto-Sterling to the cultural requirements of driving
was commenting on how scientific myths taxis, meaning that the part of the brain
that explained away the possibility of gen- that processes spatial layout (the entorhinal
der equality were always replaced by new hippocampus) was enlarged. In other
myths when the earlier ones had finally words, the taxi-drivers’ brains had been re-
been debunked scientifically. Later she also shaped in order to accommodate the socio-
elaborated on how cultural interpretations cultural requirements of taxi-driving. If one
of the brain seemed to reintroduce gender- applies this insight directly to sex and gen-
stereotypical interpretations: “despite the der, it implies that, when we study the hu-
many recent insights of brain research, this man brain in order to seek information
organ remains a vast unknown, a perfect about fundamental sex differences, we are
medium on which to project, even unwit- not studying a purely biological reference
tingly, assumptions about gender” (Fausto- point. Therefore, any conclusions we draw
Sterling 2000, 118). Similarly, Cordelia about sex differences from studies of the
Fine, in her book Testosterone Rex (2017; brain will necessarily provide information
see book review in this issue), talks about about both sex and gender, and never just
what she humorously labels the immense sex. To insist otherwise, we would need to
“staying power” of myths with determinis- assume that men and women lead identical
tic interpretations of biological sex. lives and are treated identically in all social
This highly politically charged battle interactions.
over sex and gender can be illustrated by In spite of the fact that it by now is com-
the scientific discussion over what neuro- mon knowledge that the brain is plastic,
science and the brain can tell us about na- meaning that it changes anatomically when
ture/culture, or more specifically sex/gen- exposed to external stimuli, this has not
der. This debate seems to keep occurring stopped the scientific and political search
exactly because it intersects with political for the biological essence of sex in the
attempts to silence gender-equality initia- brain. The battle that Fausto-Sterling took
tives. This is because, if brain scans can re- on in 1985 to challenge the dichotomous
veal fundamental biological differences be- distinction between sex and gender is still
tween male and female brains, these differ- being fought today by psychologist and
ences can be used to explain away cultural neuroscientist Daphna Joel. Twenty years
inequalities between men and women, the after the publication of Fausto-Sterling’s
implication being that any interventions first book, Joel still finds it necessary to
would be working against ‘nature’ and ‘trouble’ a similar notion of the sexed brain
therefore be pointless. However, this claim through the use of neuroimaging studies.
– that if men and women have radically dif- Joel, Berman and Tavor et al. (2015) do
ferent brains, this is a reflection of just sex, this by taking the binary perception at the
not gender – is flawed. One of the most fa- core of biological essentialism literally. If
mous studies showing the interconnection sex hormones like testosterone and estro-
between brain anatomy and cultural influ- gen really do create two radically different
ences (Maguire, Gadian and Johnsrude et types of brain, then it should be possible to
al., 2000) looked at the brains of London show what a typical anatomical male brain
INTRODUCTION TO FEMINIST STS AT WORK
9

looks like and what a typical female brain gender can be studied separately from sex
looks like on MRI scans. However, after and nature from culture (Alaimo and
analyzing more than 1,400 MRI scans, Heckman 2008; Adrian 2016). ‘New mate-
they find that people who have one feature rialisms’ or ‘feminist materialisms’ are um-
in one area of the brain which has been as- brella terms grouping together a number of
sociated with the male or the female sex very different theories. What they share is a
rarely have matching sex-differentiating premise of a relational ontology in which
features in other parts of the brain. They analytical attention is pointed away from
conclude that people do not have male and the essence of entities and towards relation-
female brains, but rather “gender ‘mosaic’ al dynamics. In this way, feminist materialist
features in the brain”, meaning that some theories are all reconceptualizations of the
parts present like a male brain and some world based on the premise that the world
parts like a female brain. Thus, it turns out came into being through an entangled ma-
that the brain, the typical reference point terial and discursive process. Both Har-
for essentialist biological theories, is in fact away’s (2016a) and Barad’s (2007) theo-
the ideal example of the complex entangle- ries, as well as developments within sexual
ments of nature/culture and sex/gender. difference theories (Braidotti 1994; Grosz
1994; and Shildrick 1997), were key play-
ers in these theoretical developments. In
FEMINIST MATERIALISMS, practice this has led to experimentation
AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF with the development of new transdiscipli-
THE COLLAPSE OF NATURE/CULTURE nary methodologies, as well as of new poli-
When sex/gender in the brain is shown tics and interventions. For example, schol-
empirically to be plastic and entangled in ars have been involved in rethinking social
culture, the disciplinary distinctions be- justice in the sciences through develop-
tween the sciences are also challenged. This ments at the Center of Science and Justice
point had already been voiced by many at UCSC, established and co-directed by
feminists in the 1980’s, including Lykke, Karen Barad and Jenny Readon. Together
Haraway and Barad. They all aimed a fun- they have developed methodologies and of-
damental critique at the multiple di- fer training to facilitate graduate students in
chotomies that arose out of the Cartesian rethinking science and social justice across
divide between nature and culture, or bodi- the natural sciences, social sciences and hu-
ly materiality and discourse. This is a cri- manities (Reardon et al. 2015). The Inter-
tique that aims right at the heart of the idea disciplinary Unit of Gender Studies at
of a division of labour, which leaves the so- Linköping University in Sweden is another
cial dynamics to the social sciences, the un- example of how research and teaching can
derstanding of the culture to the humani- ‘trouble’ the disciplinary boundaries in or-
ties, and the objects of the natural and the der to facilitate knowledge production in
material to the natural sciences. new and progressive ways. In the interview
If one insists that the body can be ex- with Nina Lykke in this issue, she explains
plored by the biological and medical sci- why she believes that the new methodolo-
ences in isolation from the social sciences gies she is developing with a medical scien-
and the humanities, then it leaves sex in the tist will produce better science. Another ex-
hands of the biological scientist and gender ample of a methodological development is
in the hands of the humanities, thereby re- Adele Clarke’s methodological work on sit-
iterating the Cartesian mind/body split. uational analysis, reviewed in this issue by
The emergence of new materialisms Stine W. Adrian (see Clarke, Friese and
came out of a rejection of the idea that Washburn 2018). Although Clarke’s
10 WOMEN, GENDER & RESEARCH NO. 1 2018

method has been developed for interdisci- Outbreak, by Theresa Ammann, we follow
plinary qualitative work, it enables knowl- feminist STS at work within the field of
edge-making of the entanglements of the Human Security Studies where feminist
human and the non-human, being a STS has yet to make a breakthrough. Am-
method that puts feminist STS to work in mann seeks inspiration in Karen Barad’s
relation to both science and technologies. theory of agential realism and unfolds a cri-
tique of the clear-cut distinction between
‘victim’ and ‘perpetrator’ during the Ebola
FEMINIST STS AT WORK IN THIS ISSUE outbreak in Liberia. Agential realism helps
As already demonstrated, feminist STS has Ammann to open up the possibilities in
emerged out of a politically motivated need seeing not only human but also non-hu-
to break down dichotomies such as na- man agencies, while her approach also
ture/culture, mind/body and sex/gender. draws attention to the fact that victimhood
In this introduction, we have shown this by and perpetrator-hood are not exclusive
pointing to the entanglement of feminist states but relational processes of intra-active
epistemological critiques and the evolving becomings.
politically charged concept of sex/gender. Similarly to Ammann’s work, Karl Emil
These issues are most explicitly mirrored Rosenbæk’s article, Oil as a misfitting rela-
in the interview with Nina Lykke, where tion: a new-material analysis of the black
she introduces the epistemological critique gold’s sticky character in Inferno (2014),
of science at the heart of feminist STS. In draws on feminist materialist theory. He
this way, her narrative serves as an intro- puts the theory to work in a literary analysis
duction to feminist STS and feminist of Ida Marie Hede’s novel Inferno (2014).
technoscience. Her interview also offers a This analysis taps into one of the most
genealogical tale of how the field has heated issues within feminist STS at the
emerged since she started putting feminist moment, the question of climate change
STS to work with the primary goals of and environmental disasters, which, it has
challenging existing epistemologies and re- been argued, have been caused by the an-
thinking disciplinary methodologies. She throposcene (Haraway 2016a; Alaimo
exemplifies this through a discussion of 2010; Murphy 2006; Åsberg, Neimanis
both the concrete and abstract challenges and Hendrén 2015). While these ecological
of breaking down dichotomous perceptions issues were primarily discussed by eco-femi-
of nature/culture and sex/gender, as well nists in the past, today both post-human
as disciplinary boundaries. and feminist materialist theories are joining
Lisa Lindén and Helena Tinnerholm in the conversation about the environment.
Ljungberg’s article The trouble of sex. Sex- Rosenbæk’s analytical focus on the role of
determination, prenatal diagnosis and poli- oil is a great example of this new trend.
tics, taps into the already encompassing lit- Throughout the text he explores the
erature on reproductive technologies that agency of the oil, illustrating its disabling
has been a central issue in feminist activism effects on both people and the environ-
and feminist STS since the 1980’s. In the ment with which it is entangled.
article, the authors explore how reproduc- This is followed by Tara Mehrabi’s essay,
tive selection regarding the prenatal deter- in which she reflects methodologically on
mination of sex is shaped by moral con- her experiences during participatory obser-
cerns voiced in political debates. vation in a fly lab engaged in the study of
In the following article, Nonhuman & Alzheimer’s disease. In her essay, Mehrabi
Human ‘Victims’ & ‘Perpetrators’. Intra- vividly shows how science is embodied and
active InSecurity Becomings of the Ebola relational by describing the emotions that
INTRODUCTION TO FEMINIST STS AT WORK
11

arose during her work, and what kinds of NOTES

ethical dilemmas these emotions bring 1. The field of feminist STS is also called feminist
forth. In feminist STS, relations with ani- technoscience. As science and technology studies
or STS is an emerging field in Denmark, this is the
mals often have positive connotations, as,
notion we have chosen to use in this introduction.
for instance, expressed by Haraway’s term 2. Who benefits is a question asked by Star as cui
‘companion species’. However, Mehrabi bono? in the classic text Power, technology and the
shows how human-animal relationality can phenoemenology of conventions: on being allergic to
be loaded with negative connotations of onions (Star 1991).
disgust in breeding and killing thousands of
genetically modified flies in the lab.
Finally, the review section of this issue
offers reviews of a number of newly pub-
lished books in feminist STS. Lis Højgaard LITERATURE
reviews Manifestly Haraway (2016b), in · Adrian, S.W. 2016. Nymaterielle teorier: Karen
which Højgaard revisits Haraway’s cyborg Barad. In: Schiermer, B. ed. Kulturteorier og Kul-
tursociologi. København: Hans Reitzel, 77-100.
and companion species manifestos.
· Adrian, S. W. 2014. Assisteret befrugtning, en
Lisbeth B. Knudsen contributes with a feministisk teoretisk udfordring? Kvinder, Køn &
review of Ayo Wahlberg and Tine Gam- Forskning. 23(3), 54-68.
meltofts edited volume, Selective Reproduc- · Alaimo, S. 2010. Bodily Natures: Science, Envi-
tion in the 21st Century, which focuses on ronment, and the Material Self. Bloomington: In-
how selective reproductive technologies are diana University Press.
being used and developing. · Alaimo, S. and Hekman, S. eds. 2008. Material
Stine W. Adrian reviews the second edi- Feminisms. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
tion of Situational Analysis, co-authored
· Anzaldua, G. and Moraga, C. eds. 1983. This
by Adele Clarke, Carrie Friese and Rachel Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Wom-
Washburn (2017), a book that sets out the en of Color. New York: Kitchen Table: Women of
method of situational analysis, modified to Color Press.
carry out feminist situated knowledges in · Barad, K. 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway:
practice. Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter
Finally, Lea Skewes engages with and Meaning. Durham; Duke University Press.
· Barad, K. 1995. A Feminist Approach to Teach-
Cordelia Fine’s recent book Testosterone
ing Quantum Physics. In: Rosser, S.V. ed. Teach-
Rex – Unmaking the myths of our gendered ing the Majority: Breaking the Gender Barrier in
minds (2017), which debunks the myth of Science, Mathematics, and Engineering. New York:
a biologically deterministic sex. As Skewes Athene Series, Teacher’s College Press.
concludes: “Fine frees her fellow feminist · Birke, L. 1986. Women, Feminism and Biology:
researchers, or rather, she empowers them The Feminist Challenge. Brighton: Wheatsheaf.
to free themselves with the knowledge that · Boston Women’s Health Book Collective 1971.
Our Bodies Ourselves: A Book by and for Women.
even something so apparently essential as
New York: Simon and Schuster.
differences in our sex hormone levels are · Braidotti, R. 1994. Nomadic Subjects: Embodi-
the product of everyday social and cultural ment and Sexual Difference in Contemporary Fem-
practices, and not just our extinct evolu- inist Theory. New York: Columbia University
tionary history.” Press.
· Butler, J. 1993. Bodies that Matter: On the Dis-
cursive Limits of “Sex”. New York/London: Rout-
ledge.
· Butler, J. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and
the Subversion of Identity. New York/London:
Routledge.
· Clarke, A., Friese, C. and Washburn, R. S. eds.
12 WOMEN, GENDER & RESEARCH NO. 1 2018

2018. Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory after York: The Feminist Press at the City University of
the Interpretive Turn, 2nd edition. Los Angeles: New York.
Sage. · Irigaray, L. 1985. Speculum of the Other Woman.
· Corea, G., Klein, R. and Hanmer, J. eds. 1985. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Man-Made Women: How New Reproductive · Joel, D., Berman, Z., Tavor, I et al. 2015. Sex
Technologies Affect Women. London. Hutchinson beyond the genitalia: the human brain mosaic,
and Co. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of
· Crenshaw, K. 1994. Mapping the Margins: Inter- the United States of America. 112(50), 15468-
sectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against 15473.
Women of Color. In: Fineman, M. A. and Myki- · Keller, E. F. 1992. Secrets of Life, Secrets of Death:
tiuk, R. eds. The Public Nature of Private Violence. Essays on Language, Gender and Science. London:
New York: Routledge. Routledge.
· Fausto-Sterling, A. 2012. Sex/Gender: Biology in · K.Vinder. 2013. Kvinde kend din krop – En
a Social World. New York: Routledge. håndbog. København: Tiderne Skifter.
· Fausto-Sterling, A. 2000. Sexing the Body: Gen- · Lykke. N. 1996. Between, Monsters, Goddesses
der Politics and the Construction of Sexuality. New and Cyborgs: Feminist Confrontations With
York: Basic Books. Science. In: Lykke, N. and Braidotti, R. eds. Mon-
· Fausto-Sterling, A. 1985/1992. Myths of Gender: sters, Goddesses and Cyborgs: Feminist Confronta-
Biological Theories about Women and Men. New tions With Science, Medicine and Cyberspace. Lon-
York: Basic Books. don: Zed Books, 13-29.
· Fine, C. 2017. Testerone Rex – Unmaking the · Maguire, E. A., Gadian, D. G. Johnsrude, I. S. et
myths of our gendered minds. London: Icon Books al. 2000. Navigation-related structural change in
Ltd. the hippocampi of taxi drivers, Proceedings of the
· Firestone, S. 1970. The Dialectic of Sex: The Case National Academy of Science of the United States of
For Feminist Revolution. New York: Bantam America. 97(8), 4398-4403.
Books. · Martin, E. 1991. The Egg and the Sperm: How
· Grosz, E. 1994. Volatile Bodies: Toward a Corpo- Science Has Constructed a Romance Based on
real Feminism. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indi- Stereotypical Male-Female Roles. Signs: Journal of
ana University Press. Women in Culture and Society. 16(3), 485-501.
· Haraway, D. 2016a. Staying with the Trouble: · M’Charek, A. A. 2005. The Human Genome Di-
Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham, NC: versity Project: an ethnography of scientific practice.
Duke University Press. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
· Haraway, D. 2016b. Manifestly Haraway. Min- · Mies, M. and Shiva, V. 1993. Ecofeminism. Lon-
neapolis: Minnesota University Press. don: Zed Books.
· Haraway, D. 1988. Situated Knowledges: The · Mohanty, C.T. 1984 Under Western Eyes: Femi-
Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of nist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses. bound-
Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies. 14(3), 575- ary 2. 12(3) & 13(1), 333-358.
599. · Murphy, M. 2006. Sick Building Syndrome and
· Haraway, D. 1987. Primate Visions: Gender, the Problem of Uncertainty. Durham NC: Duke
Race, and Nature in the World of Modern Science. University Press.
New York: Routledge. · Murphy, M. 2012. Seizing the Means of Repro-
· Harding, S. 1998. Is Science Multicultural? Post- duction: Entanglements of Feminism, Health and
colonialisms, Feminisms, and Epistemologies. Technoscience. Durham, NC: Duke University
Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Press.
· Harding, S. 1986. The Science Question in Femi- · Oudshoorn, N. 1994. Beyond the Natural Body:
nism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. An Archaeology of Sex Hormones. London: Rout-
· Hill Collins, P. 1991. Learning From the Out- ledge.
sider Within: The Sociological Significans of Black · Rapp, R. 2000. Testing women, testing the fetus:
Feminist Thought. In: Fonow, M. M. and Cook, the social impact of amniocentesis in America. New
J. A. eds., Beyond Methodology: Feminist Scholarship York: Routledge.
as Lived Research. Bloomington: Indiana Universi- · Reardon, J., Metcalf, J., Kenney, M. and Barad,
ty Press. K. 2015. Science and Justice: The Trouble and the
· Hull, G. T., Scott, P. B. & Smith, B. (1982): All Promise, Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience.
the Women Are White, All the Blacks Are Men, But 1(1), 1-36.
Some of Us Are Brave. Black Women’s Studies. New · Schildrick, M. 1997. Leaky Bodies and Bound-
INTRODUCTION TO FEMINIST STS AT WORK
13

aries: Feminism, Postmodernism and (Bio)ethics. Science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota

London: Routledge. Press.
· Star, S.L. 1991. Power, technology and the phe- · Trojer, L. 1985. Kvinnoperspektiv på naturveten-
noemenology of conventions: on being allergic to skapen. In: Bryld, M. and Lykke, N. eds. Kvinde-
onions. In: Law, J. ed. A Sociology of Monsters: Es- spor i videnskaben. Odense: Odense Universitets-
says on Power. Technology and Domination. Lon- forlag, 93-99.
don: Routledge, 26-56. · Åsberg, C., Neimanis, A. and Hedrén, J. 2015.
· Subramiam, B. 2014. Ghost Stories for Darwin: Four Problems, Four Directions for Environmen-
The Science of Variation and the Politics of Diversi- tal Humanities: Toward a Critical Posthumanities
ty. Illinois: University of Illinois Press. for the Anthropocene. Ethics and the Environment.
· Tallbear, K. 2013. Native American DNA. 20(1), 67-97.
Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic
14 WOMEN, GENDER & RESEARCH NO. 2-3 2017

Jessi Jumanji “Formanymoons”. Collage Serie: Afrofuturism