On Thu, 1 May 1997, Heather MacLean wrote:
> You know, y'all fly off the handle pretty quickly. My very first post on
> this subject was purposefully argued from a linguistic stance. If you'd
> like, we can just go more connotative:
> _hard_ science, versus _soft_ science. Now you tell me that choice of
> adjectives is not somehow significant.
Well, obviously some people either missed that first message or did't
understand what you seem to be saying (myself included). Sorry if we (I)
misread your message(s). I don't disagree with you.
>
> _object_ive reality.
> _subject_ive reality. You think these terms, as well, are non-connotative?
> One poses the world as a manipulated commodity; the other presents a more
> manipulative relationship to the world, but with several possible realms of
> focus (all subjects can have a different reality).
>
> I said *nothing* about ... what was it?
> >Ignorance
> >Superstition
> >Religion
> >Fantasy
> (interesting choice, however--one which i won't touch with a 8" or 10-ft
> pole...) being the sole domains of feminism, sf written by women, or any
> such balderdash. Once again: the original question was: is (the notion of)
> hard science inherently sexist. Yes, it is. Doesn't invalidate it, doesn't
> make its conclusions immediately wrong, doesn't obviate *my* objective or
> subjective reality. It's just inherently a sexist concept. Basta.
I disagree. First of all, I don't think you are describing your concept
very well here. So, given the question:
"Is the separation of science into "hard" and "soft" with the current
definitions inherently sexist?" (I hope that this is your question.)
I still answer no. I doubt that many here would argue with the idea
that in our current society (read only in context, not inherently) that
the differentiation of science is sexist and patriarchal. On the other
hand, unless we define "hard" and "soft" as being directly related to sex,
I think that we could very easily envision worlds (not that dissimilar
from our own) where the distinction isn't sexist or is even sexist in the
other way.
Basta? What does that mean?
As for "hard" vs. "soft" sf, I must say that while I don't like some of
the definitions and words for them, I find some sort of distinction useful
for myself. For instance, I found _Slow_River_ to be a very satisfying
book. I do not think I would have enjoyed it nearly as much as I did if
had not included the healthy dose of science (even fictional science) it
had. On the other hand, I don't read sci-fi for the science. I think
that in the realm of science fiction, we can make a distinction between
those works that bind themselves closely to reality with a lot of science
(even fictional) or perhaps, more appropriately, details and explanations
about the scientific and/or technological underpinnings of the story, and
those that are really quite mystical and make the reader take a lot of
things "on faith" (or at least doesn't try to assuage their scientific
skepticism). I will call them "sciency" and "mystical." I thought that
_Slow_River_ was more sciency than the _Xenogenesis_ trilogy. I find that
I have traditionally like sciency sf rather than mystical sf (though a
balance is really what I need). Is this a failing of my ability to
suspend disbelief? Is it a lack of imagination? Is it just personal
preference? I don't know, but I find the distinction (which I have
hesitantly called "hard" vs. "soft" sf until now) somewhat useful.
[snip]
--Joel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:09 PDT