Take a photo of a barcode or cover
11corvus11 's review for:
Feminism in the Wild: How Human Biases Shape Our Understanding of Animal Behavior
by Ambika Kamath, Melina Packer
Feminism in the Wild is the type of science book I feel like I've been waiting for for a long time. I often run into science texts that don't take bias and social justice or cultural influences into account at all. On the other hand, I'll sometimes find books that do tackle those things and try to connect them with science that don't do very well in grasping the science side. There have been some books that have bridged this gap, but Ambika Kamath and Melina Packer's book one of the best ones in my opinion.
As I expected, one of the authors' focus is on how humans' interpretation of research resumes is highly informed by bias, patriarchal norms, cisgender heterosexual dominance, and other cultural limitations. For instance, the existence homosexuality in many species has been known for a very long time, but scientists jumped through hoops to find other reasons why the animals were acting the way they were. Some scientists still try to deny that homosexual behavior exists in other animals despite it being extensively documented and tons of species. The idea of sex as a simplistic binary is another realm in which scientific results have been ignored to fit into dominant narratives.
At the same time the authors are clear that they want to avoid placing any sort of strict binarist explanations on to the worlds of other animals. This means neither projecting a patriarchal capitalist hellscape sort of evolutionary hierarchy on to them, nor treating them as if they live in some feminist utopia full of magical fairy creatures. I am an avid birder and in viewing thousands (millions?) of birds from hundreds of species, I can say that there is great variance both within and across species in terms of culture, communication, behavior, sexuality, and so on. I have seen touching affection and cooperation as well as aggression almost too hard to watch. Much like many encounters I've had with humans.
Kamath and Packer also focus on positional knowledge and the importance of cooperation throughout the natural world. Despite some scientists' claims that nature is a world full of competition and conflict, the authors, like many who have come before them, demonstrate that cooperation is often far more common and is not the aberration it's often made it to be. Individualist self-interest is not what is driving everything, even if colonialist scientists did their best to try to fit their findings into that narrative.
Another standout section is where they talk about evolution. One of my biggest pet peeves of something like 90% of science books I read that discuss evolution is that they treat every trait as if it is advantageous. They jump through thousands of hoops trying to find a reason that every single thing another animal does is due to evolutionary fitness and reproduction. Kamath and Packer rightly criticize the optimalist way of viewing things. They acknowledge the reality that evolution is a bunch of random shit happening and proliferating over millions of years. There are advantageous traits that end up being passed on through reproduction and attraction, sure, but latched on to those are plenty of other things that range from nonsensical to weakening to a hell of a good time regardless of the cost. There are always going to be things that all species have and do that are not in line with reproduction and survival of the fittest at every second of their complex lives.
The authors also take the evolutionary discussion a step further, seeing it through a queer and feminist lens. I had not thought about it exactly that way before, but it makes a lot of sense. Some of the biggest objections to lgbtq and feminist causes from social darwinists is that they aren't in line with perceived hierarchy, evolution, or other animal behavior (all of which they are also usually wrong about.) But, they don't have to be because that's not how animals work. We are all in amalgamation of many things and some of those are indeed very linked to survival. There are also endless non-adaptive explanations. Reducing our lives and that of other animals to a simple race for procreation and survival is frankly very silly. It's not true and it's the opposite of how we know evolution to act.
The only criticisms I have of this book are that they regularly use the term "differently abled" instead of disabled (or people/animals with disabilities which would have been ok.) I have no idea why they did this given how clear and expansive their knowledge of anti-oppression frameworks is as "differently ables" has been fairly well discussed as an insulting. It was created by a person without any disabilities and treats disability as a dirty word instead of a basic reality. The other problem I had was a section where they discuss domestic chickens in very archaic language that was completely out of place in the book- including how they discuss domestic and lab animals in general. Claiming a genetic researcher "solved" the welfare problem (of forcing tons of birds into a cage the size of a shoe box to live out their miserable horrific lives- as is the case of most farmed birds) by selectively breeding for less reactivity to crowded atrocious conditions was insulting. This was brief, and felt like it came from an entirely different book. It was later followed by extensive discussion about the lives and experiences of animals in more considerate and accurate terms, so I'm not sure what happened there.
This leads me to what is one of the most refreshing parts about this book. At the end of the book they actually confront the issue with researching other animals who do not consent to our intervention. They do not conveniently avoid the oppressive and consent violating nature that is the laboratory animal research industry. They do not avoid discussing research of animals outside of captivity and how we need to consider their consent as well. They dwell in the contradiction that is both reporting results of nonconsensual research and having a discussion about if that research should occur. It is written respectfully and carefully, I am sure as not to scare away their colleagues who have been taught their entire education to immediately reject such concerns. The authors acknowledge that there may be times that we need to forgo knowing something in order to respect the animals we are studying. They acknowledge the truth that we can and should find new methods of study.
This is a brave and refreshing take for science writers as even some of the more considerate science texts, which acknowledged the cruelty in some experiments or who highlight the individual desires and experiences of other animals, will not go as far as to say maybe these experiments shouldn't happen in the first place. There is an ignorant knee-jerk reaction to any criticism by many animal researchers and their kin who claim that there is no other way to do things (or worse, simply demean their subjects as objects or unworthy- like us enough to extrapolate data from, but not like us enough that they suffer and deserve consideration.) Yet, many human research endeavors are now seen as atrocities and we have found new ways to study our own species. There have also been miniscule changes in laws around the use of a (minority) of animals wherein certain methods are not longer permitted. There are plenty of brilliant minds in these fields with the ingenuity and creativity needed to find new ways of knowing. I appreciate that Kamath and Packer acknowledge the archaic nature of a lot of this research and encourage science to move forward.
I want to note that, since I focused on the general arguments of the book rather than the specifics, there are a lot of data in the text. The authors give evidence from many studies of many species to support their points. This is not a detached theoretical exercise. This was a refreshing book to read and I hope the authors continue to write in ways that are able to convey scientific realities and how they intertwine with our and others' lived experience.
This was also posted to my goodreads and blog.
As I expected, one of the authors' focus is on how humans' interpretation of research resumes is highly informed by bias, patriarchal norms, cisgender heterosexual dominance, and other cultural limitations. For instance, the existence homosexuality in many species has been known for a very long time, but scientists jumped through hoops to find other reasons why the animals were acting the way they were. Some scientists still try to deny that homosexual behavior exists in other animals despite it being extensively documented and tons of species. The idea of sex as a simplistic binary is another realm in which scientific results have been ignored to fit into dominant narratives.
At the same time the authors are clear that they want to avoid placing any sort of strict binarist explanations on to the worlds of other animals. This means neither projecting a patriarchal capitalist hellscape sort of evolutionary hierarchy on to them, nor treating them as if they live in some feminist utopia full of magical fairy creatures. I am an avid birder and in viewing thousands (millions?) of birds from hundreds of species, I can say that there is great variance both within and across species in terms of culture, communication, behavior, sexuality, and so on. I have seen touching affection and cooperation as well as aggression almost too hard to watch. Much like many encounters I've had with humans.
Kamath and Packer also focus on positional knowledge and the importance of cooperation throughout the natural world. Despite some scientists' claims that nature is a world full of competition and conflict, the authors, like many who have come before them, demonstrate that cooperation is often far more common and is not the aberration it's often made it to be. Individualist self-interest is not what is driving everything, even if colonialist scientists did their best to try to fit their findings into that narrative.
Another standout section is where they talk about evolution. One of my biggest pet peeves of something like 90% of science books I read that discuss evolution is that they treat every trait as if it is advantageous. They jump through thousands of hoops trying to find a reason that every single thing another animal does is due to evolutionary fitness and reproduction. Kamath and Packer rightly criticize the optimalist way of viewing things. They acknowledge the reality that evolution is a bunch of random shit happening and proliferating over millions of years. There are advantageous traits that end up being passed on through reproduction and attraction, sure, but latched on to those are plenty of other things that range from nonsensical to weakening to a hell of a good time regardless of the cost. There are always going to be things that all species have and do that are not in line with reproduction and survival of the fittest at every second of their complex lives.
The authors also take the evolutionary discussion a step further, seeing it through a queer and feminist lens. I had not thought about it exactly that way before, but it makes a lot of sense. Some of the biggest objections to lgbtq and feminist causes from social darwinists is that they aren't in line with perceived hierarchy, evolution, or other animal behavior (all of which they are also usually wrong about.) But, they don't have to be because that's not how animals work. We are all in amalgamation of many things and some of those are indeed very linked to survival. There are also endless non-adaptive explanations. Reducing our lives and that of other animals to a simple race for procreation and survival is frankly very silly. It's not true and it's the opposite of how we know evolution to act.
The only criticisms I have of this book are that they regularly use the term "differently abled" instead of disabled (or people/animals with disabilities which would have been ok.) I have no idea why they did this given how clear and expansive their knowledge of anti-oppression frameworks is as "differently ables" has been fairly well discussed as an insulting. It was created by a person without any disabilities and treats disability as a dirty word instead of a basic reality. The other problem I had was a section where they discuss domestic chickens in very archaic language that was completely out of place in the book- including how they discuss domestic and lab animals in general. Claiming a genetic researcher "solved" the welfare problem (of forcing tons of birds into a cage the size of a shoe box to live out their miserable horrific lives- as is the case of most farmed birds) by selectively breeding for less reactivity to crowded atrocious conditions was insulting. This was brief, and felt like it came from an entirely different book. It was later followed by extensive discussion about the lives and experiences of animals in more considerate and accurate terms, so I'm not sure what happened there.
This leads me to what is one of the most refreshing parts about this book. At the end of the book they actually confront the issue with researching other animals who do not consent to our intervention. They do not conveniently avoid the oppressive and consent violating nature that is the laboratory animal research industry. They do not avoid discussing research of animals outside of captivity and how we need to consider their consent as well. They dwell in the contradiction that is both reporting results of nonconsensual research and having a discussion about if that research should occur. It is written respectfully and carefully, I am sure as not to scare away their colleagues who have been taught their entire education to immediately reject such concerns. The authors acknowledge that there may be times that we need to forgo knowing something in order to respect the animals we are studying. They acknowledge the truth that we can and should find new methods of study.
This is a brave and refreshing take for science writers as even some of the more considerate science texts, which acknowledged the cruelty in some experiments or who highlight the individual desires and experiences of other animals, will not go as far as to say maybe these experiments shouldn't happen in the first place. There is an ignorant knee-jerk reaction to any criticism by many animal researchers and their kin who claim that there is no other way to do things (or worse, simply demean their subjects as objects or unworthy- like us enough to extrapolate data from, but not like us enough that they suffer and deserve consideration.) Yet, many human research endeavors are now seen as atrocities and we have found new ways to study our own species. There have also been miniscule changes in laws around the use of a (minority) of animals wherein certain methods are not longer permitted. There are plenty of brilliant minds in these fields with the ingenuity and creativity needed to find new ways of knowing. I appreciate that Kamath and Packer acknowledge the archaic nature of a lot of this research and encourage science to move forward.
I want to note that, since I focused on the general arguments of the book rather than the specifics, there are a lot of data in the text. The authors give evidence from many studies of many species to support their points. This is not a detached theoretical exercise. This was a refreshing book to read and I hope the authors continue to write in ways that are able to convey scientific realities and how they intertwine with our and others' lived experience.
This was also posted to my goodreads and blog.