Fausto-Sterling examines the idea of sexuality from an incredibly academic (as in, all academia- not just science, not just "cultural studies," etc) standpoint. Her research is also much more extensive than the research used in A Billion Wicked Thoughts. When I read Fausto-Sterling I feel like, if confronted, she would probably listen to a well put together argument against her case and, although she'd stand up for her conclusions, she'd be willing to reassess her analysis if legitimate questions and concerns were put forth. Oggadam, on the other hand, I think would probably just throw some well-chosen stats in your face and then poo-poo on everyone who disagrees.
The other thing I really liked about Fausto-Sterling's book was that she doesn't appeal to Oggadamn's idea that there's THIS one thing and THAT one other thing... and that's it. I don't think we can reduce human beings into two tight groups or, for that matter, 100 tight groups. The human mind and body is way, way too complex to even attempt to fit it into specific categories. Sexing the Body is much more flexible in it's take on humans, which is necessary considering our unmatched ability to be totally whacked out and to intentionally f-up scientific/expected patterns, etc.
My favorite aspect of Fausto-Sterling's book, I think, is her embracement of "nurture" as a totally viable cause or, I think a better word would be "element," in the development of a person's sexuality or gender or whatever. Granted, I don't want to just dismiss science completely because that's very important- I mean, genes do determine your physical body- but I think it's essential that anyone trying to determine anything about human sexuality analyze, or at least recognize, the person's environment that they grew up. It's absolutely impossible not to be influenced by your surroundings and, yes, some people will be affected by their nurturing more than others, but it has undoubtedly some kind of significance.
So, obviously, I'm way over on the Fausto-Sterling side. I think A Billion Wicked Thoughts is, I guess, interesting and stuff, but I don't think it's worth a lot. At least in comparison to Sexing the Body.
Simply put, I agree. Not sure if I have much to be criticize.
ReplyDeleteI like your point about how Fausto-Sterling is trying to engage in conversation through the text where as Oggadam is just telling you, this is how it is. I think if one can engage in a conversation through any form of communication be it art or writing is so key. To me these days, people telling you what to think or what they think in a way that doesn't engage open ended-ness is pointless. You are severely limited with regards to what you can get out of it.
I totally agree with you that Anne Fausto-Sterling offers a more realistic view on human sexuality. However, as I argued in my main post, I don't think its fair to ignore Ogaddam completely. While their research methods may not be perfect, and they may ignore many aspects of sexuality, I feel there is still something to be gained from ABWT. The discussion about classifying humans into distinct categories realy reminds me of the dirt activity we did in class when Robin brought in the bags of dirt and had us hold them up against the scale. It was quite evident that the dirt didn't fall clearly into one category or another (is it brown-grey or grey-brown?), yet that doesn't mean the scale was entirely useless. Sometimes generalizations and categories are necessary to gain knowledge or help us understand the world around us. We could throw up our hands and cry "It's all just dirt anyway, why categorize it?!" but that doesn't help us understand it at all. I guess what I'm trying to say is: while placing all humans into distinct categories might ignore our differences, ignoring our many similarities and our trends in behavior is not a good thing either! To bring our friend Latour back into this: although much information is lost at each step in reduction, we also gain something (amplification) at each step as well.
ReplyDelete