What do you think?
Rate this book
Nature's Body: Gender in the Making of Modern Science
Eighteenth-century natural historians created a peculiar, and peculiarly durable, vision of nature—one that embodied the sexual and racial tensions of that era. When plants were found to reproduce sexually, eighteenth-century botanists ascribed to them passionate relations, polyandrous marriages, and suicidal incest, and accounts of steamy plant sex began to infiltrate the botanical literature of the day. Naturalists also turned their attention to the great apes just becoming known to eighteenth-century Europeans, clothing the females in silk vestments and training them to sip tea with the modest demeanor of English matrons, while imagining the males of the species fully capable of ravishing women.
Written with humor and meticulous detail, Nature’s Body draws on these and other examples to uncover the ways in which assumptions about gender, sex, and race have shaped scientific explanations of nature. Schiebinger offers a rich cultural history of science and a timely and passionate argument that science must be restructured in order to get it right.
Written with humor and meticulous detail, Nature’s Body draws on these and other examples to uncover the ways in which assumptions about gender, sex, and race have shaped scientific explanations of nature. Schiebinger offers a rich cultural history of science and a timely and passionate argument that science must be restructured in order to get it right.
314 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1993
About the author
Londa Schiebinger
38 books30 followersLonda Schiebinger is the John L. Hinds Professor of History of Science at Stanford University. She is the author of the award-winning Plants and Empire: Colonial Bioprospecting in the Atlantic World (2004), among many other works.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
December 11, 2020
How Men Defined ‘Nature’ to Oppress Women:
Rutgers University Press (1993)
Swedish botanist Carl Linneaus coined the term Mammalia (mammal). This was the only one of his zoological groups that highlighted a feature associated with women: the maternal breast. A few years prior he wrote a dissertation against the “evils of wet-nursing.” During this time, it was conventional for upper class women to have wet nurses for their babies. Linnaeus argued that this violated the “laws of nature,” but really he believed that the “character of the upper-class child could easily be corrupted by the milk of lower-class nurses” (68).
Stanford Historian Dr. Schiebinger argues that there was no empirical reason for the name “mammal” and that instead Linnaeas paid homage to the maternal breast as part of a coordinated effort to undermine women’s public power and attach new value to women’s domestic roles. “The scientific fascination with the female breast helped to [reinforce] the sexual division of labor in European society by emphasizing how natural it was for females to rear their own children” (42). Naturalists used the breast to argue that it was “nature’s sign that women belonged only in the home.”
By honoring the mammal as the highest class of animals “Linnaeus assigned a new value to the female: women’s unique role in reproduction” (53). European legislators politicized breasts to locate the power of women in “nurturing the future sons of the state” (64), rather than in the fields of knowledge production they had previously occupied (like midwifery and medicine).
With the dawn of the Enlightenment men began to justify discrimination using the rhetoric of nature. In 1790 British naturalist William Smellie argued that social hierarchies came from natural hierarchies “independently of all political institutions” and that “nature herself has formed the human species into castes and ranks” (145). Male scientists argued that the natural, exclusive role for women in society was motherhood. French physician Julien-Joseph Virey argued that the word “femme” derived from “fetus” because women’s “natural destination” was to generate life.
For 18th and 19th century scientists, the focus on sex was almost exclusively about white women, This is because women were thought to shape racial characteristics (the shape of noses, lips, and skulls, hair texture, and skin color). German physician Johann Blumenbach believed that Black features were different because babies’ heads pounded against their mother’s backs as they worked and “flattened their facial features.” Accordingly, white women were important insomuch as their behavior directly impacted the status of the future generation of white men.
When Blumenbach divided the world into five major races (one of the first racial classification systems) he labeled the Caucasian skull “female” and did not mention sex for the other four skulls. (He selected the Georgian skull as representative of the white race because he believed its “great beauty revealed [Caucasians] as the archetype from which all other races had degenerated.”)
This history illustrates the great lengths European men took to define nature in a way that allowed them to absolve themselves of responsibility: they weren’t disenfranchising women and people of color, they were just doing what “nature” entailed. We should always be skeptical of people using the rhetoric of “nature” to justify discrimination. Sexism is not science.
Rutgers University Press (1993)
Swedish botanist Carl Linneaus coined the term Mammalia (mammal). This was the only one of his zoological groups that highlighted a feature associated with women: the maternal breast. A few years prior he wrote a dissertation against the “evils of wet-nursing.” During this time, it was conventional for upper class women to have wet nurses for their babies. Linnaeus argued that this violated the “laws of nature,” but really he believed that the “character of the upper-class child could easily be corrupted by the milk of lower-class nurses” (68).
Stanford Historian Dr. Schiebinger argues that there was no empirical reason for the name “mammal” and that instead Linnaeas paid homage to the maternal breast as part of a coordinated effort to undermine women’s public power and attach new value to women’s domestic roles. “The scientific fascination with the female breast helped to [reinforce] the sexual division of labor in European society by emphasizing how natural it was for females to rear their own children” (42). Naturalists used the breast to argue that it was “nature’s sign that women belonged only in the home.”
By honoring the mammal as the highest class of animals “Linnaeus assigned a new value to the female: women’s unique role in reproduction” (53). European legislators politicized breasts to locate the power of women in “nurturing the future sons of the state” (64), rather than in the fields of knowledge production they had previously occupied (like midwifery and medicine).
With the dawn of the Enlightenment men began to justify discrimination using the rhetoric of nature. In 1790 British naturalist William Smellie argued that social hierarchies came from natural hierarchies “independently of all political institutions” and that “nature herself has formed the human species into castes and ranks” (145). Male scientists argued that the natural, exclusive role for women in society was motherhood. French physician Julien-Joseph Virey argued that the word “femme” derived from “fetus” because women’s “natural destination” was to generate life.
For 18th and 19th century scientists, the focus on sex was almost exclusively about white women, This is because women were thought to shape racial characteristics (the shape of noses, lips, and skulls, hair texture, and skin color). German physician Johann Blumenbach believed that Black features were different because babies’ heads pounded against their mother’s backs as they worked and “flattened their facial features.” Accordingly, white women were important insomuch as their behavior directly impacted the status of the future generation of white men.
When Blumenbach divided the world into five major races (one of the first racial classification systems) he labeled the Caucasian skull “female” and did not mention sex for the other four skulls. (He selected the Georgian skull as representative of the white race because he believed its “great beauty revealed [Caucasians] as the archetype from which all other races had degenerated.”)
This history illustrates the great lengths European men took to define nature in a way that allowed them to absolve themselves of responsibility: they weren’t disenfranchising women and people of color, they were just doing what “nature” entailed. We should always be skeptical of people using the rhetoric of “nature” to justify discrimination. Sexism is not science.
March 2, 2022
3.5 stars
An interesting study of how ideas about gender (and to some extent race) influenced the development of science in the 18th century, and vice versa. Extensively discussed in the science chapter of Daily Life in 18th-Century England, which piqued my interest, but as it turns out I’d already gotten most of the content through that book’s treatment. It’s also one of those studies whose ideas have gained wider acceptance since they were published (in 1993) such that it may not hold many surprises for those reading it now. Nevertheless, with a text of 212 pages it’s relatively short, and although probably intended as an academic piece, I found it interesting and readable.
Some interesting facts:
- 18th century gender roles in human (specifically European) society influenced how many budding scientists viewed animals and even plants. Monkeys were generally understood through these gender norms, for instance, through paintings in which males were portrayed as active and females as passive, and an expectation that female monkeys would care about their modesty, i.e., wearing clothing and covering their genitals.
- People also got in a tizzy about the indecency of polyamorous plant sex—or, conversely, described flowers as “wedding gowns” and soil as “marriage beds.” “Male” parts of a plant were considered more important than “female” parts, because obviously; thus, classification of the male parts was ranked higher in Linnaeus’s classification system.
- Why are mammals called mammals? Also an innovation of Linnaeus’s, prior classifications having referred to them as “quadrupeds.” There are a number of features mammals have in common (hair, three ear bones, four-chambered heart), but Linnaeus settled on the mammary glands, even though males barely have them—thus focusing attention on the breast. This is in line with contemporary views of women as closer to animals than men, and women’s sexual characteristics in particular as animalian. Popular culture was also focused on nursing at the time, as some of the same scientists involved in classification urged women to nurse their babies themselves rather than sending them to wet nurses (wet nursing did in fact increase infant mortality).
- Unsurprisingly to most of us, the “default” human at the time was considered male, with women being a subset that was only studied when specific sexual characteristics came into play. Likewise, the “default” women were European. A lot of pseudo-science went into insisting that both (European) women and (male) Africans and Native Americans were somehow biologically inferior to white men.
- A few African men did actually graduate from European universities in the 18th century, and seem to have had an easier time finding work than the few European women who did so. African women in Europe mostly seem to have been displayed and studied as curiosities and not taken seriously as people.
- The term “Caucasian” was invented at this time for white people, on the following basis: 1) people in the Caucasus Mountains (specifically Georgia) were definitely white; 2) they were known for being unusually attractive (a reputation that possibly arose when they were sold as slaves in Turkey), and hence a purer form of the race; and 3) Georgia is in a temperate zone, and humoral theory (which after all arose in the Mediterranean) teaches that these are the ideal climates for human health. Ergo, white people—possibly all people!—are from Georgia. (The irony is that this term was invented by Johann Blumenbach, who seems to have been the most progressive of the anthropologists at the time and resisted the push to designate Africans as biologically inferior.)
At any rate, it is interesting stuff and it’s important to look at how science may be distorted by prevailing opinions. I do wish the author had spent a little more time setting the record straight—for instance, is there any basis for the idea of the modest and passive female ape, or was this invented from whole cloth? I suspect the number of people who would want to read the whole book today is relatively small, but it’s certainly worth a read for those interested in the subject.
An interesting study of how ideas about gender (and to some extent race) influenced the development of science in the 18th century, and vice versa. Extensively discussed in the science chapter of Daily Life in 18th-Century England, which piqued my interest, but as it turns out I’d already gotten most of the content through that book’s treatment. It’s also one of those studies whose ideas have gained wider acceptance since they were published (in 1993) such that it may not hold many surprises for those reading it now. Nevertheless, with a text of 212 pages it’s relatively short, and although probably intended as an academic piece, I found it interesting and readable.
Some interesting facts:
- 18th century gender roles in human (specifically European) society influenced how many budding scientists viewed animals and even plants. Monkeys were generally understood through these gender norms, for instance, through paintings in which males were portrayed as active and females as passive, and an expectation that female monkeys would care about their modesty, i.e., wearing clothing and covering their genitals.
- People also got in a tizzy about the indecency of polyamorous plant sex—or, conversely, described flowers as “wedding gowns” and soil as “marriage beds.” “Male” parts of a plant were considered more important than “female” parts, because obviously; thus, classification of the male parts was ranked higher in Linnaeus’s classification system.
- Why are mammals called mammals? Also an innovation of Linnaeus’s, prior classifications having referred to them as “quadrupeds.” There are a number of features mammals have in common (hair, three ear bones, four-chambered heart), but Linnaeus settled on the mammary glands, even though males barely have them—thus focusing attention on the breast. This is in line with contemporary views of women as closer to animals than men, and women’s sexual characteristics in particular as animalian. Popular culture was also focused on nursing at the time, as some of the same scientists involved in classification urged women to nurse their babies themselves rather than sending them to wet nurses (wet nursing did in fact increase infant mortality).
- Unsurprisingly to most of us, the “default” human at the time was considered male, with women being a subset that was only studied when specific sexual characteristics came into play. Likewise, the “default” women were European. A lot of pseudo-science went into insisting that both (European) women and (male) Africans and Native Americans were somehow biologically inferior to white men.
- A few African men did actually graduate from European universities in the 18th century, and seem to have had an easier time finding work than the few European women who did so. African women in Europe mostly seem to have been displayed and studied as curiosities and not taken seriously as people.
- The term “Caucasian” was invented at this time for white people, on the following basis: 1) people in the Caucasus Mountains (specifically Georgia) were definitely white; 2) they were known for being unusually attractive (a reputation that possibly arose when they were sold as slaves in Turkey), and hence a purer form of the race; and 3) Georgia is in a temperate zone, and humoral theory (which after all arose in the Mediterranean) teaches that these are the ideal climates for human health. Ergo, white people—possibly all people!—are from Georgia. (The irony is that this term was invented by Johann Blumenbach, who seems to have been the most progressive of the anthropologists at the time and resisted the push to designate Africans as biologically inferior.)
At any rate, it is interesting stuff and it’s important to look at how science may be distorted by prevailing opinions. I do wish the author had spent a little more time setting the record straight—for instance, is there any basis for the idea of the modest and passive female ape, or was this invented from whole cloth? I suspect the number of people who would want to read the whole book today is relatively small, but it’s certainly worth a read for those interested in the subject.
July 25, 2012
This book shattered my general outlook on science and gender. The major question Schiebinger poses to us in this reading I have not been able to let go of, and at some point I ask myself this question everyday. She asks us how different would science/medicine be if women would have been allowed to participate from the beginning? That question haunts me because I feel that not only science, but our world would be very different indeed.
July 1, 2010
An informative and informed history of the structural racism and sexism of science since the Enlightenment. Schienbinger excellently fleshes out the social and political contexts for her arguments, and reminds readers that science continues to be exclusionary (as most of my non-white and/or non-male scientist friends can attest to). Highly recommended to anyone who is interested in or is otherwise studying gender and race history in America, science, art history, anthropology, and philosophy (especially phenomenology, since the treatment of one's body is a large part of how one experiences the body, but obviously there are ethical philosophical issues raised in this book as well).
October 1, 2020
Postmodern crap that attacks science and the Enlightenment. Certainly the author is correct that natural science was engendered, but so what? What do you expect from that era? In the end it reads like a diatribe on why women were left out, while pointing out that "male" achievements are dubious. Man-haters and postmodern thinkers will love it, but the rest of us who strive for a better world, and are inspired by the Enlightenment, can only spit in its general direction.
January 17, 2008
A fascinating history of the construction of gender in modern science. Learn why mammals are called mammals, and how white naturalists went ape-shit when they found out plants reproduce sexually.
February 21, 2010
Thoughtful & accessible; worth reading.
March 11, 2013
Informative and easy-reading. Compared to the ambitions of some other authors writing in the same field, this book anchors its point in its materials very well and sound.
March 20, 2011
Loved this book! Especially the chapter on Mammalia. So so fascinating.
October 1, 2021
The author seeks to explore how the true relationships between the sexes and the ideological renderings of these relationships shaped 18th century European science in general and natural history in particular. The interest in vegetative sexuality that emerged from the 18th century had a strong interest in the precise distinction between animal and human sexual characteristics. And in the chapter discussing apes and humans, the author mentions that for the male naturalists of the 18th century, it was not reason, language, or the ability to create culture that distinguished female humans from animals, but rather the unique form of anatomy. In short, masculine naturalists subconsciously believed that "women are not human" or "a subspecies of human".
January 23, 2018
This book uses a feminist lens to examine how gender and to a lesser extent race, both implicitly and explicitly, shaped European science and natural history in the eighteenth century. It does so by using several specific examples, such as the labeling of different plant parts as being male and female as well as the origin of the term “mammal,” to analyze the role of gender in science on a larger scale. Gender continues to shape science today, partially due to this past influence, and scientists need to better incorporate women and their concerns in the way science is practiced.
July 14, 2020
I discovered Schiebinger through her book Plants and Empire, and she is steadily becoming one of my favourite academics/writers. Nature's Body is a really fascinating and detailed account of the way gender has impacted science, particularly during the Enlightenment and colonial era(s). A definite recommendation!
November 24, 2023
Schiebinger describes how Eighteenth-century scientists created a gendered vision of nature. She shows how the politics of participation (who gets to join in) mold scientific knowledge. The book is how knowledge is created, more specifically how we categorize and describe discovery - and how that language shapes our assumptions.
October 24, 2021
very solid 3.5/5! straightforward argument about how reliance upon female anatomy and human sexual relations in natural history in particular developed a white male scientific gaze that also has impacts on which peoples were considered able to “do” science at all
October 30, 2023
Read for Ecofeminism class, plan to re-read more in depth once I have more time after this quarter ends.
January 10, 2024
an absolute classic for those interested in the history of science
September 3, 2023
A study into how European men (*cough Carl Linnaeus*) based science in racial and gender prejudices, makes you want to throw the book against the wall with indignation
November 9, 2013
In her introduction Professor Schiebinger posits the gender traits ascribed to plants and animals change with shifting notions of masculinity and femininity in Western Culture. Through the ensuing chapters she shows such to be the case. The Swedish botanist Linnaeus, known for his system of biological classification, allowed
social convention to dictate scientific classification. During this 'age of enlightenment' when attitudes toward the universe were changing the political and scientific worlds were controlled by men. The author brings out this point as she discusses the arguments given for differences in race and sex. While there were those who felt the differences were God given and part of the chain of life others argued for the universality of Man. Schiebinger quotes English naturalist Richard Bradley --"I suppose there would not be any great difference [between peoples of the world]; if it was possible they could be all born of the same parents, and have the same education, they would vary no more in understanding than children of the same house."
The development of 'modern' European science that began during the Renaissance created problems as European mores and institutions suppressed the development of certain kinds of knowledge. There was a European disregard for local knowledge especially as they explored distant lands.
But changes also took place in Europe. For hundreds of years midwives had held a monopoly on the entire field of women's health care. They possessed knowledge of local plants that could be used for medicinal purposes. Unfortunately, beginning in 17th c. men increasingly encroached on the field of women's health and by the 19th c men had taken over the more scientific (and lucrative) parts of birthing. This takeover emerged with larger issues in science and politics. The anatomy of sex and race was caught up in 18th c politics of participation. That is, could people other than wealthy, European males have any place in the scientific and political spheres.
I enjoyed the book and would recommend it as it enhances one's understanding of the gender imbalance in science and engineering.
social convention to dictate scientific classification. During this 'age of enlightenment' when attitudes toward the universe were changing the political and scientific worlds were controlled by men. The author brings out this point as she discusses the arguments given for differences in race and sex. While there were those who felt the differences were God given and part of the chain of life others argued for the universality of Man. Schiebinger quotes English naturalist Richard Bradley --"I suppose there would not be any great difference [between peoples of the world]; if it was possible they could be all born of the same parents, and have the same education, they would vary no more in understanding than children of the same house."
The development of 'modern' European science that began during the Renaissance created problems as European mores and institutions suppressed the development of certain kinds of knowledge. There was a European disregard for local knowledge especially as they explored distant lands.
But changes also took place in Europe. For hundreds of years midwives had held a monopoly on the entire field of women's health care. They possessed knowledge of local plants that could be used for medicinal purposes. Unfortunately, beginning in 17th c. men increasingly encroached on the field of women's health and by the 19th c men had taken over the more scientific (and lucrative) parts of birthing. This takeover emerged with larger issues in science and politics. The anatomy of sex and race was caught up in 18th c politics of participation. That is, could people other than wealthy, European males have any place in the scientific and political spheres.
I enjoyed the book and would recommend it as it enhances one's understanding of the gender imbalance in science and engineering.
September 20, 2011
Thanks gender and science class.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews