Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-gnk9b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-12-20T04:27:48.256Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dismantling the Self/Other Dichotomy in Science: Towards a Feminist Model of the Immune System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Lisa Weasel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite the development of a vast body of literature pertaining to feminism and science, examples of how feminist phifosophies might be applied to scientific theories and practice have been limited. Moreover, most scientists remain unfamiliar with how feminism pertains to their work. Using the example of the immune system, this paper applies three feminist epistemologies feminist empiricism, feminist standpoint theory, and feminist postmodernismtoassess competingchims of immune function within a feminist context.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , Winter 2001 , pp. 27 - 44
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Barad, Karen. 1996. Meeting the universe halfway: Ambiguities, discontinuities, quantum subjects and multiple positionings in feminism and physics. In Femi' nism, science and the phihsophy of science: A dialogue, ed. Nelson, Lynn H. and Nelson, Jack. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Billingham, R. E., Brent, L., and Medawar, P. 1953. Actively acquired tolerance of foreign cells. Nature 172: 603–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bloor, David. 1976. Knowledge and social imagery. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Bock, Kenneth, and Sabin, Nellie. 1997. The road to immunity: How to survive and thrive in a toxic world. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Bonney, Elizabeth, and Matzinger, Polly. 1997. The maternal immune system's interactions with circulating fetal cells. Journal oflmmunohgy, 158: 40–47.Google Scholar
Burnet, F. Macfarlane, and Fenner, F. 1949. The production o/antifxxlies. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cohen, Philip. 1996. Tearing up immunity's rulebook. New Scientist, 149: 14.Google Scholar
Collins, Patricia Hill. 1986. Learning from the outsider within: The sociological significance of black feminist thought. Social problems 33.Google Scholar
Dreifus, Claudia. 1998. Blazing an unconventional trail to a new theory of immunity. The New York Times, 16 June.Google Scholar
Economist, . 1993. Self destruction, self control. The Economist, 326: 83–84.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, Paul. 1957. Ges. Dtsch. Naturforsch. Aerzte. In The collected papers of Paul Ehrlich, vol. 2. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Fee, Elizabeth. 1982. A feminist critique of scientific objectivity. Science for the People, 14: 8–35.Google Scholar
Forsthuber, Thomas, Yip, Hualin C., and Lehmann, Paul V. 1996. Induction of TH1 and TH2 immunity in neonatal mice. Science, 271: 1728–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gross, Paul, and Levitt, Norman. 1994. Higher superstition: The academic left and its quarrels with science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1988. Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies 14 (3): 575–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haraway, Donna 1989. The biopolitics of postmodern bodies: Determinations of self in immune system discourse, Differences, 1: 3–43.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1986. The science question in feminism. Milton Keynes, U.K.: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra 1991. Whose science? Whose knowledge! Thinking from women's lives. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra 1995. Strong objectivity: A response to the new objectivity question. Synthese 104: 331–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartsock, Nancy. 1983. The feminist standpoint: Developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism.In Discovering reality: Feminist perspectives on epistemohgy, metaphysics, methodology and philosophy of science, ed. Harding, Sandra and Hintikka, Merrill. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing.Google Scholar
Hoffmeyer, Jesper. 1993. Signs of meaning in the universe. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Jaret, Peter. 1986. Our immune system: The wars within. National Geographic (June): 702–35.Google Scholar
Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1978. Gender and science. Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Thought, 1: 409–33.Google Scholar
Keller, Evelyn Fox 1982. Feminism and science. Signs 7: 28–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, Evelyn Fox 1985. Reflections on gender and science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kendall, Marion. 1998. Dying to live: How our bodies fight disease. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, E. Anne. 1998. Toward a feminist natural science: Linking theory and practice. Women's Studies International Forum, 21: 95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Jan. 1982. Immunology.The science of self‐nonself discrimination. New York: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Larkin, Marilyn. 1997. Polly Matzinger: Immunology's dangerous thinker. The Lancet, 350: 38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen. 1990. Science as social knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen 1996. Cognitive and non‐cognitive values in science: Rethinking the dichotomy. In Feminism, science and the philosophy of science, ed. Nelson, L. H. and Nelson, J.Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen, and Hammonds, Evelyn. 1990. Conflicts and tension in the feminist study of gender and science.In Conflicts in feminism, ed. Hirsch, Marion and Keller, Evelyn Fox. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Martin, Emily. 1994. Flexible, bodies: Tracking immunity in American culture from the days of polio to the age of AIDS. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Matzinger, Polly. 1994. Tolerance, danger and the extended family. Annua! Review of Immunology, 12: 991–1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medawar, Peter B. 1944. The behavior and fate of skin autographs and skin homografts in rabbits. Journal of Anatomy, 78: 176–99.Google Scholar
Nelson, Lynn Hankinson. 1990. Who knows: From Quine to feminist empiricism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Pennisi, Elizabeth. 1996. Teetering on the brink of danger. Science, 271: 1665–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, Sarah. 1996. The end of the self. Discover, 17: 80–88.Google Scholar
Ridge, JohnFuchs, Ephraim, and Matzinger, Polly. 1996. Neonatal tolerance revisited: Turning on newborn T cells with dendritic cells. Science, 271: 1723–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, Hilary. 1983. Hand, brain and heart: A feminist epistemology for the natural sciences. Signs 9: 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosser, Sue. 1988. Good science: Can it ever be gender free? Women's Studies International Forum, 11: 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruddick, Sarah. 1989. Maternal thinking: Towards a politics of peace. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Sarzotti, M., Robbins, D. S., and Hoffman, P. M. 1996. Induction of protective CTL response in newborn mice by a murine retrovirus. Science 271: 1726–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spanier, Bonnie. 1995. Imlpartial biology: Gender ideology in molecufor biology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar