‘The body’ has come to represent a key signifier both within, and beyond,
cultural studies. Analyzing and challenging the underlying cultural assumptions
of scientific discourses of nature have keenly involved feminist theory in the
project of uncovering the culture of matter. The aim of this paper is to review
the important insights feminists have brought to bear on the cultural
constructions of materiality. I then go on to suggest that considering the
matter of culture might be both interesting and useful for feminist theory,
especially in opening up new sites of analysis of sexual difference. I explore
four areas of materiality that might assist feminist analyses in this area:
paradigm shifts, boundaries, technology and the evolution of sexual
difference.
AinleyM. (1990) Despite the
Odds.Montreal: Véhicle
Press.
2.
BagemihlB. (1999) Biological
Exuberance. Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity.New York: St. Martin's
Press.
3.
BaradK. (1998)
‘Getting Real: Technoscientific Practices and the
Materialization of Reality’differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies,
10(2):
87–128.
BirkeL. (1999) Feminism
and the Biological Body.Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
6.
BraidottiR. (2000)
‘Teratologies’ in
BuchananI., and ColebrookC. (eds) Deleuze and Feminist
Theory, Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press, pp.
156–172.
7.
BraidottiR., and LYKKEN. (1996) Between
Monsters, Goddesses and Cyborgs.New York: Zed
Books.
8.
Broadhurst DixonJ., and CASSIDYE. (1998) Virtual
Futures.London:
Routledge.
9.
BrockmanJ., and MATSONK. (1996) How Things
Are. A Science Tool-kit for the Mind.New York:
Phoenix.
DeleuzeG. (2001) Difference
and Repetition.Mansell.
22.
DeleuzeG., and GUATTARIF. (2002). A Thousand
Plateaus.Mansell.
23.
DelphyC. (1994)
‘Changing Women in a Changing Europe’Women's Studies International Forum, 17:
187–201.
24.
DoaneM. (1997)
‘Technology and Sexual Difference: Apocalyptic Scenarios at
Two ‘Fins de Siècle’differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies,
9(2):
1–24.
25.
DonchinA. (1989) ‘The
Growing Feminist Debate over the New Reproductive
Tehcnologies’Hypatia, 4(3):
136–149.
26.
DregerA. (1998)
Hermaphrodites and the Medical Invention of Sex.Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
27.
ElekonichM. (2001).
‘Contesting Territories: Female-Female Aggression and Song
Sparrows’ in MayberryM., SubramaniamB., and WeaselL. (eds.) Feminist Science
Studies.New York:
Routledge.
28.
Fausto-SterlingA. (2000) Sexing the
Body.New York: Basic
Books.
29.
FeatherstoneM., and BURROWSR. (1995) Cyberspace,
Cyberbodies, Cyberpunk.London:
Sage.
30.
FergusonH. (1997) ‘Me
and My Shadows: On the Accumulation of Body-Images in Western Society Part
Two - The Corporeal Forms of Modernity’Body and Society, 3(3):
1–31.
31.
FranklinS. (1995)
‘Romancing the Helix: Nature and Scientific
Discovery’ in PearceL., and StaceyJ. (eds) Romance
Revisited.London: Lawrence and
Wishart.
32.
FranklinS. (2000).
‘Life Itself’ in
FranklinS., LuryC., and StaceyJ. (eds.) Global Nature, Global
Culture.London:
Sage.
33.
FranklinS.; LuryC. and StaceyJ. (2000) Global
Nature, Global Culture.London:
Sage.
34.
GatensM. (2000)
‘Feminism as “Password”: Re- thinking the “Possible” with
Spinoza and Deleuze’Hypatia, 15(2):
59–75.
35.
GrayC. (1995) The Cyborg
Handbook.New York:
Routledge.
36.
GroszE. (1995).
‘Animal Sex. Libido as Desire and Death’ in
GroszE., and ProbynE. (eds.) Sexy Bodies.London:
Routledge, pp.
278–299.
37.
GroszE. (1999)
‘Darwin and Feminism: Preliminary Investigations for a
Possible Alliance’Australian Feminist Studies,
14(29):
31–45.
38.
Hankinson-NelsonL., and NELSONJ. (1996) Feminism,
Science and the Philosophy of Science.Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
HarawayD. (1991). ‘A
Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late
Twentieth Century’ in Simians, Cyborgs and
Women.New York:
Routledge, pp.
149–182.
41.
HarawayD. (1992).
‘When Man™ is on the Menu’ in
CraryJ., and KwinterS. (eds.) Incorporations.New York: Urzone
Books, pp.
38–44.
42.
HarawayD. (2001).
‘More than Metaphor’ in
MayberryM., SubramaniamB., and WeaselL. (eds.) Feminist Science
Studies.New York:
Routledge.
43.
HardingJ. (1996) ‘Sex
and Control: The Hormonal Body’Body and Society, 2(1):
99–111.
44.
HardingS. (1986) The Science
Question in Feminism.Ithaca: Cornell University
Press.
45.
HardingS. (1991) Whose
Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women's Lives.Ithaca: Cornell University
Press.
46.
HenrionC. (1997) Women in
Mathematics: The Addition of Difference.Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
47.
HirdM. (2000)
‘Gender's Nature: Intersexuals, Transsexualism and the ‘Sex’/
‘Gender’ Binary’Feminist Theory, 1(3):
347–364.
48.
HirdM. (2002)
‘Re(pro)ducing Sexual Difference’Parallax, 2002, 8(4):
94–107.
49.
HirdM., and GermonJ. (2001) ‘The
Intersexual Body and the Medical Regulation of Gender’ in
Backett-MilburnK., and McKieL. (eds) Constructing Gendered
Bodies.London:
Palgrave, pp.
162–178.
50.
HubbardR. (1989)
‘Science, Facts, and Feminism’ in
TuanaN. (ed) Feminism and
Science.Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, pp.
119–131.
51.
IrigarayL. (1985) This Sex
Which Is Not One.Ithaca: Cornell University
Press.
52.
JacksonJ. (2001).
‘Unequal Partners: Rethinking Gender Roles in Animal
Behavior’ in MayberryM., SubramaniamB., and WeaselL. (eds.) Feminist Science
Studies.New York:
Routledge.
53.
JonsonA. (1999)
‘Still Platonic After All These Years: Artificial Life and
Form/Matter Dualism’Australian Feminist Studies,
14(29):
47–61.
54.
KellerE. (1977).
‘The Anomaly of a Woman in Physics’ in
RuddickS., and DanielsP. (eds.) Working It Out.New York: Pantheon
Books.
55.
KellerE. (1983) A Feeling
for the Organism.New York: W.H. Freeman and
Company.
56.
KellerE. (1989) ‘The
Gender/Science System: or, is Sex to Gender as Nature is to
Science?’ in TuanaN. (ed) Feminism and
Science.Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, pp.
33–44.
57.
KerinJ. (1999) ‘The
Matter at Hand: Butler, Ontology and the Natural Sciences’Australian Feminist Studies,
14(29):
91–104.
58.
KesslerS. (1998) Lessons
From the Intersexed.New Brunswick: Rutgers University
Press.
59.
KinsmanS. (2001).
‘Life, Sex and Cells’ in
MayberryM., SubramaniamB., and WeaselL. (eds.) Feminist Science
Studies.New York:
Routledge.
60.
KirbyV. (1997) Telling
Flesh. The Substance of the Corporeal.New York:
Routledge.
KohlstedtS., and LONGINOH. (1997). Women,
Gender and Science: New Directions. Osiris 12.
63.
LaidmanJ. (2000).
‘Reproduction a Touch-and-go Thing for
Fungus’Nature, July 24:
1–3.
64.
LaqueurT. (1990) Making
Sex.Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
65.
LonginoH. (1990) Science as
Social Knowledge.Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
66.
MackenzieA. (1999)
‘Technical Materializations and the Politics of Radical
Contingency’Australian Feminist Studies,
14(29):
105–118.
67.
MargulisL., and SAGAND. (1986) Origins of
Sex.New Haven: Yale University
Press.
68.
MargulisL., and SaganD. (1991) Mystery
Dance.New York: Summit
Books.
69.
MargulisL., and SAGAND. (1995) What is
Life?Berkeley: University of
California Press.
70.
MargulisL., and SAGAND. (1997) What is
Sex?New York: Simon and
Schuster.
71.
MarshallB. (2001). ‘“The
Nature of the Body”: Heterogendered Bodies and Sexual Medicine’Paper presented at the British Sociological Association
Conference, University of Manchester, 9-12 April.
72.
MartinE. (1991) ‘The
Egg and the Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Romance Based on
Stereotypical Male-Female Roles’Signs, 16(3):
485–501.
73.
MayberryM.; SUBRAMANIAMB., and WEASELL. (2001) Feminist
Science Studies.New York:
Routledge.
74.
MeadG.H. (1934) Mind,
Self and Society.Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
75.
MeilweeJ., and ROBINSONJ. (1992) Women in
Engineering: Gender, Power, and Workplace Culture.New York: SUNY
Press.
76.
MerrickJ. (1988)
‘Royal Bees: The Gender Politics of the Beehive in Early
Modern Europe’Studies in Eighteenth-century Culture, 18:
7–37.
MunsterA. (1999) ‘Is
there Postlife after Postfeminism? Tropes of Technics and Life in
Cyberfeminism’Australian Feminist Studies,
14(29):
119–130.
79.
NietzcheF. (1974) The Gay
Science.New York: Vintage
Books.
80.
OlkowskiD. (2000).
‘The End of Phenomenology: Bergon's Interval with
Irigaray’Hypatia, 15(3):
73–91.
81.
OudshoornN. (1990) ‘On
the Making of Sex Hormones: Research Materials and the Production of
Knowledge’Social Science Studies, 20:
5–33.
82.
OudshoornN. (1994) Beyond the
Natural Body. And Archaeology of Sex Hormones.London and New York:
Routledge.
83.
OverallC. (1989) The Future
of Human Reproduction.Toronto: The Women's
Press.
84.
PetersonA. (1998)
‘Sexing the Body: Representations of Sex Differences in
Gray's Anatomy, 1858 to the Present’Body and Society, 4(1):
1–15.
85.
PlantS. (1997) Zeros and
Ones.London: Fourth
Estate.
86.
PrigogineI., and StengersI. (1984) Order Out
of Chaos: Man's New Dialogue With Nature.New York:
Bantam.
87.
RabinowP. (1992).
‘Artificiality and Enlightenment: From Sociobiology to
Biosociality’ in CraryJ., and KwinterS. (eds.) Incorporations.New York: Urzone
Books, pp.
234–253.
RothblattM. (1995) The
Apartheid of Sex.New York: Crown
Publishers.
91.
SaganD. (1992)
‘Metametazoa: Biology and Multiplicity’ in
CraryJ., and KwinterS. (eds) Incorporations.New York: Urzone
Books, pp.
362–385.
92.
SawickiJ. (1999).
‘Disciplining Mothers: Feminism and the New Reproductive
Technologies’ in PriceJ., and ShildrickM. (eds.) Feminist Theory and the
Body.Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
93.
SchattenG., and SCHATTENH. (1983).
‘The Energetic Egg’, The
Sciences, September/October:
28–34.
94.
SchiebingerL. (1989) The Mind
Has No Sex?Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
SheridanS. (2002)
‘Words and Things: Some Feminist Debates on Culture and
Materialism’Australian Feminist Studies,
17(37):
23–30.
97.
SoperK. (1995) What is
Nature?Oxford and Cambridge, Mass.:
Blackwell.
98.
SpalloneP., and STEINBERGD. (1987) Made to
Order: The Myth of Reproductive and Genetic Progress.New York: Pergamon
Press.
99.
SpanierB. (1995) Im/Partial
Science.Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
100.
StengersI. (1997) Power and
Invention.Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
101.
StengersI. (2000)
‘Another Look: Relearning to Laugh’Hypatia, 15(4):
41–54.
102.
The Biology and Gender Study
Group (1989) ‘The Importance of
Feminist Critique for Contemporary Cell Biology’ in
TuanaN. (ed) Feminism and
Science.Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, pp.
172–187.
103.
ThomasL. (1974) The Lives
of a Cell.New York: The Viking
Press.
104.
TuanaN. (1989) ‘The
Weaker Seed: The Sexist Bias of Reproductive Theory’ in
TuanaN. (ed) Feminism and
Science.Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, pp.
147–171.
105.
Van LoonJ. (2000)
‘Parasite Politics: On the Significance of Symbiosis and
Assemblage in Theorizing Community Formations’ in
PiersonC., and TormeyS. (eds) Politics at the
Edge.New York: St. Martin's
Press.
106.
WaldbyC. (1999)
‘IatroGenesis: The Visible Human Project and the Reproduction
of Life’Australian Feminist Studies,
14(29):
77–90.
107.
WeirL. (1998).
‘Pregnancy Ultrasound in Maternal Discourse’
in ShildrickM., and PriceJ. (eds.) Vital Signs.Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
108.
WertheimM. (1995) Pythagoras’
Trousers: God, Physics and the Gender Wars.New York: Random
House.
109.
WilsonE. (1996). ‘On the
Nature of Neurology’.
110.
WilsonE. (1998) Neural
Geographies. Feminism and the Microstructure of Cognition.New York and London:
Routledge.
111.
WilsonE. (2000)
‘Scientific Interest: Introduction to Isabelle Stengers,
“Another Look: Relearning to Laugh”’Hypatia, 15(4):
38–40.
112.
WitzA. (2000)
‘Whose Body Matters? Feminist Sociology and the Corporeal
Turn in Sociology and Feminism’ Body and Society, 6(2):
1-24. Zakin, E. (2000) ‘Bridging the Social and the Symbolic: Toward a
Feminist Politics of Sexual Difference’Hypatia, 15(3):
19–44.
