*** warning and apology : long post ******
a great discussion, with lots of interweaving threads, some of which I
would like to try and pull together a bit...
I feel the biggest problem with these issues is their complexity (and
historical and cultural contingency) and the fact that we have to discuss
them in such simplified oppositions as hard/soft, science /culture etc.
Firstly the issue of 'hard sf' and 'hard science'; I think Nicola is spot
on - the use of 'hard' and hi-tech is a very important factor in the way
that hard sf is defined. Thus a lot of novels (including especially
feminist sf) which imagines quite radical changes in technology based on
'hard sciences' such as micro-biology and nano-technology (like _Door into
Ocean_ and Butler's _xenogenesis_) do not seem to be 'hailed' as hard sf
(or 'feel' like hard sf).
What exactly do we mean when we talk about hard sf? - from the post so far
I think a lot of us would base a definition on early readings of Hienlein
and Clarke, but science and technology has developed into unimagined areas
since - not least being the turn from outer space to the 'inner space' of
genetic engineering and nano-technology.
And who gets to police these boundaries and how? As many critics have
noted, it isnt just a question of getting science 'right'. I can't help but
think here of an article which attributed the 'decline' of the sf field to
the corrupting influences of 'soft' sf written by women....
Even if we can claim that hard sf is defined according to the subject or
methodology of certain branches of the sciences, we run into problems. I
think it is Evelyn Fox Keller who details how a science like biology has
gradually developed from being a 'soft' science to a 'hard' science (the
apotheosis being of course physics). She argues that it wasnt the subject
matter of biology that changed, but its methodology. (must excuse my
vagueness here - rather late - I will get the reference and more detail if
anyone is interested).
On one important level, the distinctions between 'hard and soft' sciences
is intrinsically related to that other great divide - the 'two cultures' of
science and culture - that is, hard sciences supposedly deal with the
'natural world' while soft sciences deal with the human or cultural world.
(Obvious problem here being the separation of human and culture from
'nature')
Which leads on to what I think as one of the root problemmatics of this
debate; (and indeed, one of the problems haunting perceptions of feminist
and constructivist critiques of science - important to remember that, as
another post mentioned, it is not only feminists who have attacked the
precepts of the 'scientific method' - see critics from Thomas Kuh, to Bruno
Latour) ie how it is we actually conceptualise science, technology, culture
and nature. Many recent feminist and cultural studies of science and
technology take as their starting point the seemingly obvious position that
all are inseperable from each other, implicated and imbricated in a web of
social, cultural(racial, sexual etc ) relations. This point is worth
emphasising precisely because scientific and technological discourses so
often appear to be autonomous, independent of 'culture' or society or
'nature'. The sciences do not merely 'observe' and theorise about 'nature'
or the 'natural', but are actively involved in constructing what counts as
'nature'; technology is also invoked in establishing the boundaries of
'nature' and the 'natural' - to complicate this, just think of the
'natural' rock that becomes a tool and primitive form of technology when
used to build or grind - or at the other extreme of 'genetic technologies'
which consist of 'natural' material.
It is in this atmosphere of 'leaky borders' and dissolving boundaries that
the figure of the cyborg has come to gain such metaphorical weight.
The figure of the cyborg and its many theoretical, political, textual and
media manifestations suggests some of the fears and hopes surrounding the
potential erasure of once secure boundaries which have enormous
implications for notions about the body, subjectivity, human/not human ...
. There are many kinds of cyborgs, and ways of thinking about them - see
the changes in Haraway's ideas since the 1985 manifesto.
(must finish up and desperately trying to find a hook to bring the thread
back to feminist sf) - certainly the Gibson/Sterling brand of cyberpunk has
not had the last word on cyborgs, computers, or AIs. In light of these
issues, can we perhaps turn a fresh eye on the amazing amount of work
appearing by feminists dealing with contemporary techno-culture, from
Melissa Scott, to Nicola's hi-tech (lo-culture?!) Slow River, Bes Shahar,
Sarah Zettel, Lisa Mason, Misha, Laura Mixon, Mary Rosenblum... Should ew
call these feminist cyberpunk or cyber-feminist sf, or feminist cyborg
fiction... or maybe (my preference) just plain old feminist sf dealing with
contemporary concerns, which at the moment happen to be cyborgian relations
and information technology?
Helen
note of expanation and apology: I am writing a doctoral thesis on feminist
sf (which is why I have been lurking till now - no time!) - and you guessed
it! these issues are what my current chapters are all about so they are
foremost in my mind. All things considered, you got away quite lightly! :)
Helen Merrick
Department of History
University of Western Australia
email : hmerrick@cyllene.uwa.edu.au
Ph : 09 - 272 8461
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:08 PDT