The Scientific Reality of Ethnicity & Sexism in Science

"Reality is not composed of things -in themselves or things behind phenomena - but things in phenomena." - Karen Barad

In the world of the study of science, there is a constant process. There lies the observer and the observed, within the realm of the observation. Scientists have been long known fill the observer's role. The observed can be a myriad of different subjects, from lower levels of life in the biological world to conditions of the human body. The observation is that in which both the observer and the observed function simultaneously-the observation is, indeed, an example of true reality.

Inherently, despite the aspirations of a perfect, numerical scientific method in explaining the nuances and the many mysteries of life, science is imperfect. As life is imperfect, people are also imperfect. Therefore, if people, who are the observers and calculators of the science world, are imperfect, the way in which science is poked and prodded is imperfect. This is largely due to the lack of symmetry of men and women in the science world.

In the aforementioned quote, Barad has referred to this distinct reality as an abstract version of reality, relative to the science world. Her agential realism is a Bohr-assisted interpretation of intra-action. But her words, when placed in a broader scope of everyday life, are applicable in solutions to incompetence and general ignorance. In the Western world, the ideas of social equality are preached and announced from every hill and mountain top, this reality is skewed. Men are given higher social value over women, on the whole. While women of present day are worlds away from yesteryear fights for equality in and outside of the workplace, opportunities regarding education and career options in research lean toward the male population.

Why does this matter? As an observer, one must be able to study the nature of a phenomenon, while being able to see patterns of its operation and take note of such happenings, fairly and objectively. Sandra Harding stated that "everyone is willing to acknowledge that scientific research makes possible new technologies and application of science. Science produces information that can be applied in the social world." (Harding) If fairness in the field of modern science is not made note of, the byproducts of all studies can be socially destructive and physically dangerous:

The development of contraceptives was a technological solution to what was defined by Western elites as the problem of overpopulation among ethnic and racial minorities in the First World and indigenous Third World peoples. From the perspectives of those people lives, however, there are at least equally reasonable ways to define what "the problem" is. (Harding)

Harding states that such a development is indicative of elitist behavior from the Western world, but why? Is it that the inhabitants of Third World countries lack education in conception and family planning? Is it that privileged men of science seek to correct global "wrongs"? Such solution development suggests that those of the "elite" scientific culture could view this aspect of life in the Third World as simply things-in-themselves-not things in its own phenomena.

Again, it is known that white men dominate Western research, and that the social benefits afforded to those of that status are relatively evident in present-day society; perceptions of reality are, therefore, incongruent. The sexual integration of the scientific community could possibly pose new findings and development, as women could integrate new ideas and interpretations of realities past, current, and beyond. The very fact that some of the ethics of science study and research are founded in the truth is striking when considering the reality of lack of women researchers. Of course, the truth is usually sought in the results of scientific research, experimentations, and the like. These truths that are discovered by scientists are tempered by human opinion and interpretation, but those that opine are usually men. But how can the truths that are determined by science (which are usually then presented to be weighed upon society) be actually true, when a possible institutional exclusion of women is evident? It, in some respects, reduces the agency that is science to a mere experiment itself; one could possibly pose the actual community of researchers (science, less women) against a theoretical research community (science, significantly more women) as a placebo experiment.

The field of science is that of mathematical equations. One equation is actually a key question in context of all that has been stated: does elitism equal sexism in the profession of science? Sandra Harding stated one particular false belief in her "'Physics' Is a Bad Model for Physics'" essay that would lead many to think so: "Scientists can provide the most knowledgeable and authoritative explanations of their own activities, so...feminists should refrain from making comments about fields in which they are not experts." Replace "scientists" with "men" and "feminists" with "women", and the belief and the idea becomes even clearer (it is also important to note that feminists can in fact be men who hold the idea of equal rights for women). Indeed, it seems for those who study professionally, elitism does in fact equate to sexism in the professional realm.

All in all, it is safe to state that science is a reality, as all things in life that exist are in reality. In the theoretical equation of "observer + observed = observation", the observation is dependent on the observer and observed, together, to exist in reality, as a thing-in-phenomena. But the additives are independent of each other and can therefore exist in realities, uncombined. Where could the problem lie? The observed is indirect; it is sought out, thus without responsibility in and of itself. The observation is a culmination of steps, actions, and reactions based upon the additives. If a problem exists, it lies with the observer-this is the general (dominant) representative of the Western science community-which is, again, mostly white men. In order for unbiased scientific truth to interpreted and surveyed in study, the observer must realize its properties as an independent and dependent, realistic agent. The observer must be able to see that HE neither exists as someone-in-himself or someone-behind-phenomena. HE must see that HE not only exists-in-phenomena, but that the more he holds true, professionally, to existence in himself or behind phenomena, he becomes a phenomenon and one against his counterparts of the opposite sex.

(Sources: "Physics Is A Bad Model For Physics" essay, Harding)