composition and laboratories

Composition is often characterized as a femininized discipline due to a preponderance of women and favored pedagogical practices that foreground cooperation, collaboration, and interdependency (see Lauer, 1995). While the consequences, extent, and the sources of this feminization are uncertain, composition continues to maintain its feminine ethos. Women, conversely, are largely absent from the scientific laboratory, both historically and contemporarily. Donna Haraway (1997) asserted that “the male identity of science is no mere artifact of sexist history; throughout most of its evolution, the culture of science has not simply excluded women, it has been defined in defiance of women...” (p. 29). Consider Haraway’s discussion of Robert Boyle’s open laboratory. High-born women might attend Boyle’s demonstrations, but they could not witness them. Even if they were in attendance at an experiment, women’s names were never included among those testifying to the veracity of experimental reports (Potter, 2001, p. 18). In 1667, Margaret Cavendish (1623-1673), Duchess of Newcastle, requested permission to attend a session of the all-male Royal Society. Ultimately, society leaders begrudgingly acquiesced to her request to avoid alienating a relatively powerful member of the aristocracy. But the first full-fledged female member of the Royal Society was admitted—again, under duress—roughly 300 years after Cavendish’s exceptional visit (Haraway, 1997, p. 32). Shoehorning composition into a wireless laboratory, a place “defined in defiance of women,” sends an unfortunate message to students and instructors learning and teaching composition in these settings. But of course there are other options.

Read a few conclusions.