On Tue, 29 Apr 1997, Tonya Browning wrote:
> I'm interested in this hard science/soft science debate in terms of science
> fiction, because I believe (as people have mentioned) science fiction
> reflects a similar delineation in science.
>
> Sarah Lefanu (great critic BTW) has discussed this polarity:
> Soft mean[s] concerned with the new sciences such as psychology,
> linguistics, ecology (and sociology and town planning), with a critique of
> the uses of technology, and with the social structures of the future. Hard
> SF was associated with the traditional male writer: soft, of course, was
> what the women were" ("Sex, Sub-atomic Particles and Sociology" 179).
>
> As Donna Haraway mentions in her writing, a hesitancy to stake claims on
> male territory is indicative of stereotypical male/female roles in society,
> where men control/create the mechanized and women are figured as purely
> organic creators. The proliferation of ecologically and politically based
> feminist utopias is often used as justification for such stereotypes, based
> on the genre concept of "hard" and "soft" science fiction. In a world of
> ever-increasing technology, such dualities must be negated by female
> authorship without invalidating the feminist scholarship that has preceded
> it. For centuries females have been dissuaded from choosing the "hard"
> sciences (usually involving technology) like physics and astronomy, and in
> a prejudiced scientific community often found a higher level of acceptance
> in the "soft" sciences like sociology and psychology. A mimetic reflection
> of this tendency can be found in scientific fictions, the science fiction
> originally written for those interested in sciences. Unfortunately, the
> bad is reflected with the good, and females have been excluded from the
> respected arena of hard science fiction as a result. Feminist revisions of
> what constitutes soft science fiction have been to the genre's benefit, but
> the problem of synthesis still remains.
>
> Whew. I hope that made sense. If we agree that the polarity itself
> (hard/soft) is problematic, I guess we should take a look at women who
> write "hard" science fiction. David mentioned Melissa Scott as a hard
> science fiction writer. I would suggest Pat Cadigan for the same
> reason-both women are part of the cyberpunk/post-cyberpunk genre. As
> science fiction authors neither hesitate to use a level of technology often
> associated with hard science fiction, yet as "cyberpunk writers"
> (Cadigan's _Synners_ and Scott's _Trouble and Her Friends_) both use that
> power in order to critique the technology (& rubrics of sexuality, etc)
> itself. Their work often subverts stereotypes unlike writers like William
> Gibson or Bruce Sterling (try _Islands in the Net_ as one example).
>
> Tonya
>
Yes, Tonya, I think it made complete sense. I would argue that to the
extent that the phrase "hard science fiction" means anything today, it's
simply a political concept used to describe the work of a group of
generally (although not exclusively) conservative or libertarian science
fiction writers, most of whom are male, most of whom center their stories
on physics and engineering. These writers include, Gregory Benford, Poul
Anderson, Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, Allen Steele (the token liberal),
Charles Sheffield, Paul Preuss, Robert Forward, Michael Flynn, and a few others.
I'd also argue that the debate over whether or not women can, should, or
do write science fiction in which the sciences, hard and soft, are
central is really a case of beating a dead horse. Octavia Butler, Pat
Cadigan, Nancy Kress, Catherine Asaro, C.J. Cherryh, Lois McMaster
Bujold, Joan Slonczewski, Melissa Scott, and Linda Nagata, among others,
have all produced and are continuing to produce scientifically-based
science fiction which covers the entire range of sciences.
Mike Levy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:07 PDT