In her talk Toward an Environmental Theory of Early Sexuality, Dr. Greta LaFleur explored the connection between race, environment and sexuality studies of humans. She discussed how early scientists used taxonomic “varieties” to differentiate between humans. Through this, human sexuality was considered in taxonomy science. Similarly, she explored the environmental factors (e.g. distance from the equator, climate etc.) and their effects on human sexuality and more broadly human sexuality. Interestingly, she incorporated a few contemporary examples. One example highlighted “cuffing season” which is the idea that people pair off into relationships during the colder months. Dr. LaFleur’s talk reminded me of Dr. Projit Bihari Mukharji’s talk collecting bodies. Dr. Mukharji’s talk similarly, discussed how science could be manipulated to further a racist agenda- although he research focused more directly on India.
During the Q & A session, someone asked what is meant by the term “climate” as used by race/sexuality scientists. Dr. LaFleur responded by saying that defining and searching for a coherent answer in the field is virtually impossible. There is a range of answers depending on who you ask. This struck me because it highlights the relative vs absolute nature of science. Oftentimes, we view science as the end all be all to questions but, I really appreciated Dr. LaFleur’s perspective that science/scientists can have their own biases. It also highlights how science can be manipulated to meet racial agendas- as Dr. LaFleur highlighted in her talk.
Both Dr. LaFleur ( and the Q & A) and Dr. Mukharji’s lectures reflect the human tendency to find evidence that matches our own belief systems. In both professor’s research, they noted different fields of study (e.g. environmental and sexuality studies) incorporating science as a way to further the agendas of the academics and their respective fields. I think this begs the question of how do we hold academics and entire fields accountable for the introduced bias?
In an attempt to answer my own question, I will consider two solutions that to varying extents exist in the status quo. Firstly, I think that it’s imperative that peer review remains a crucial part of all academia. I further question how we can make peer review more holistic and interdisciplinary. Given, the often very academic and insular nature of high-level research in each field how do make conclusions of academic findings reviewable by a wide range of professionals? Can there be more interdisciplinary journals? Similarly, related to my first point, I see a possible solution being increased collaboration between academic fields and departments. Most, issues (like race that LaFleur and Mukharji) discuss cross multiple fields. Thus, it is imperative that we increase collaboration and communication between fields. I think one way to do this is by creating more summaries that are accessible to the public/lay reader. Things at the level of a NYT article will raise awareness and spark conversations between different academic fields could ultimately increase collaboration and hold academics more accountable.