Intro: Harraway is particularly bent on destroying persistent dichotomies or dualisms in our culture and thinking, extending her analysis to even the concepts of fact and fiction (noting that both are indicative of something truthful, both are created through human acts, and that, though "fact" seems to be unquestionable because it was determined sometime in the past (foregone determination maybe), and fiction seems to be presently generated, it is important to note that both have theri origins in our perceptions and our making them so.)
to the extent that she seems intent on dismantling dualisms, though, she brings up a LOT of them all the time :)
She seems to be very suspicious of the narratives created by science, casting doubt on almost every . she makes even normal statements of description of things sound suspect or questionable -- like everything is calculated propaganda. after awhile, i find it a little annoying since she is, after all, also very clearly spinning her own propaganda or at least narrative about what she sees happening . . .
it also brings up this really distressing idea about what to make of data when it questions your beliefs -- the male-female stereotyping in chimpanzees, for example. Is one to accept that their beliefs may be more belief than fact (?) or that the facts are somehow wrong, that they have been so misguided or innaccurately sought that they produce the wrong conclusions? If there is no empirical evidience as yet for one's beliefs, is it right to persist in holding on to them? i'm angry about this because i want to side with empricial data, even though I acknowledge that clearly the conclusions drawn, over and over again, and the way those conclusions are framed are NOT without bias. like, she talks about "the family" and the family structure with such contempt, as if stable social groupings were completely negative, imposed by a conservative and male-centric society. regardless of whether or not nuclear families as Americans have been taught to emulate or strive for are fully based in nature, or even particularly good for thier members, i don't htink one can claim that all instances of stable groupings, referred to as families, are some kind of terrible imposition. maybe it WAS evolutionarily advantageous for there to be male-female pairs, where a complementary arrangement of skills served the group? That's not bad! Recognizing also, of course, that many social groupings are arranged rather differently than monogamous male-female pairs, that sexual relationships, even, are etremely flexible and that collective raising of young is
i wonder what harraway wold say about the very different idea of bonobos and de Waal's empathy research. Does she see that as so problematically anti-feminist like she apparently sees all the rest of science? I get frustrated because it's like that's ALL peple can see when they choose to take on that lens, though I imagine I wouldn't feelthat way if I was talking about a book by a black person noticing all the times when black people were horribly maligned in hundreds (thousands) of years of science and society.
The book seems to require a fairly deep understanding . . . knowledge of the dominant or naturalized paradigms in science and research which constitute the anti-feminist or sexist discourse as Harraway and others see it. Without an extesnive understanding even of what that naturalized background is, and how it is different within various fields such as anthropology, biology, etc. it is difficult to understand how, in conrete ways, the women foregrounded in the last three chapters of "pirmate visiosn" propose new or alternative narratives. Though some specific examples are given JDSLJDKSFS, Harraway assumes a certain level of previous understanding, which is probably quite reasonable in terms of the indended audience fo the book, but which I found, personally, to be difficult to break into. I noticed that, in sections for which I had some prior knowledge and some familiarity with names or studies (such as the Harlow study, the sweet-potato washing, Imanishi, etc.) i was definitely able to enter into the discussion mroe fully, and was deeply impressed at the new light she was able to shed on stories I felt I had a good grasp on. Aspects of those studies which I previously found most fascinating, or compelling, were set aside for new and careful analysis of context and significance. I can only assume that the sections of the book for which I had no prior knoweldge were similiarly insightful.
i do find myself struggling with this idea that Ariel brought up in class -- where one's beliefs differ from the science -- and what ot make of that kind of contradiction. As Harraway and others relentlessly point out, the framing of the questions of science, and the interpretation of those results, has KSDJDKS effects on the interpretation. on the conclusions. Even so, it is hard for me to yet shake the persistent idea that there are some things which . . . that there is data which is irrefutable, or that one must face the data and its implications regardless of what one prefers to beleive. In a few cases, Harraway points out some more concrete examples fo the ways in which . . specific ways in which the framing of the study, or tis analysis, shifts the perspective in very meaningful ways.
As are most naturalized behaviors we take for granted (perpectives) I found this book to be frsutrating at times because it begins to open up the ways in which taken-for-granted perspectives are, of course, constructed and reiteratied, reified constructions, even within the broad field of science or academic, observational study, which I would very much LIKE to believe is, though far from unbasied, at least as unbaised as we can make it through logical controls and experimental design. Harraways' book is a deep, cutting challenge to this perspective, though the eyes of feminist discourse, but coudl just as easily undermine the tenets of science on behalf of any other perspective.
It leaves me wondering what to dow with this infomration -- it was suggested in one account that rather than providing an opposition, or reversal, the key is to destabilize the current status quo. I think that was an important point to make, becasue my initial reaction was to think that if a 180 degree shift towards a bias towards females or a priviledging of femal-centric informtion, a collorary to the male bias pointed to over and over again, wouldn't really solve the situation or be any closer to determining "reality" if it is possile to do so, unless merely by cancellation (that, between 2 extremes, and effort to reconcile when would yield some kind of middle ground that stands the best chance of accuracy).
I am unsure, though, if, when the discussion becaomes so . . polemical?, if the question is really about accuracy anymore, or if it ends up being more about political posturing. I found the poitn that KDSJDK madea bout using the science to support her point disturbing, not because I don't think the male-centric scientists of hte past weren't doing the same thing, but that it appeared that many of them were largely unaware of what they were doing (not cognizant of the naturalized categories around them) while JDKSLKD is fully aware and actively manipulating the information. Both arrive at the same ends, I suppose, but I do feel uncomfortable with the admission that it is going on.
It seems to me that the debate in this case is not really about what is true or accurate or supported by data, but to waht extent the frameworks for interpretation and contextualization obscure or prevent (or INVENT) the observed truth. It's easy to accept the idea that sicne, too, is fallable, and that scientists are biased as any other human being would be, but Harraway's book ponts out ways that these biases occur that are much more difficult to understand or internalize.
The book threatens to be specific and concerned only with women's studies, like an inflated identity politics. I shouldn't say that. :) But it ends up being much bigger than that because it undermines all this science. But also, I get mad and go "what to do want then!!??" what woul dmake you happy? She seems VERY praising of the last three women in her book, though I am not sure that i see them as angelic as she might . . . ARG.
I'ma lso not really aware of the all the problematic ways in which primatology or primate research has been used to further anti-feminist or whatever discourse, so without specifics, I can only imagine general terms in which female . . . . and perhaps how studies involving other non-human primates have been used in other discourses to speak about human females as well. it seems to me that this is a pretty big error -- to assume that, because certain behaviors or differences happen wthin other animal populations, that they automatically explain some kind of origin for our own species, since we are still talking about our CONTEMPORIES who evolved alongside us and not before us or us from them. of course, that doesn't mean people won't automatically come to those conlusions, but it seems to me that one should be able tomake observations about female chimps without owrriying if the reuslts will inadvertantly lead to misogeny. ? I guess in an ideal world, I would want to see a separation, an understandign that biology is only part of a puzzle that expalins who we, and they, are and that separating out the influences of OUR culture, as well as granting them significant cultures and influence of culture seems important to constructing genders accurately within various species.
The book had stuff on the Harlow study also: (image not from that but from the 1960's "Primates" book . . .
