Graduate studies at Western
Phronesis 52 (3):251-69 (2007)
The aim of this paper is to evaluate the level of gender bias in Aristotle’s Generation of Animals while exercising due care in the analysis of its arguments. I argue that while the GA theory is clearly sexist, the traditional interpretation fails to diagnose the problem correctly. The traditional interpretation focuses on three main sources of evidence: (1) Aristotle’s claim that the female is, as it were, a “disabled” (πεπηρωμένον) male; (2) the claim at GA IV.3, 767b6-8 that females are a departure from the kind; and (3) Aristotle’s supposed claim at GA IV.3, 768a21-8 that the most ideal outcome of reproduction is a male offspring that perfectly resembles its father. I argue that each of these passages has either been misunderstood or misrepresented by commentators. In none of these places is Aristotle suggesting that females are imperfect members of the species or that they result from the failure to achieve some teleological goal. I defend the view that the GA does not see reproduction as occurring for the sake of producing males; rather, what sex an embryo happens to become is determined entirely by non-teleological forces operating through material necessity. This interpretation is consistent with Aristotle’s view in GA II.5 that females have the same soul as the male (741a7) as well as the argument in Metaphysics X.9 that sexual difference is not part of the species form but is an affection (πάθος) arising from the matter (1058b21-4). While the traditional interpretation has tended to exaggerate the level of sexism in Aristotle’s
developmental biology, the GA is by no means free of gender bias as some recent scholarship has claimed. In the final section of the paper I point to one passage where Aristotle clearly falls back on sexist assumptions in order to answer the difficult question, “Why are animals divided into sexes?”. I argue that this passage in particular poses a serious challenge
to anyone attempting to absolve Aristotle’s developmental biology of the charge of sexism.
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
J. M. E. Moravcsik (1967). Aristotle. Garden City, N.Y.,Anchor Books.
Jeremy Byrd (2010). The Necessity of Tomorrow's Sea Battle. Southern Journal of Philosophy 48 (2):160-176.
Aristotle (1992). De Partibus Animalium I and De Generatione Animalium I (with Passages From Book II. 1-3). Clarendon Press.
Robert Friedman (1986). Necessitarianism and Teleology in Aristotle's Biology. Biology and Philosophy 1 (3):355-365.
Devin Henry (2009). Aristotle’s Generation of Animals. In Georgios Anagnostopoulos (ed.), A Companion to Aristotle. Blackwell-Wiley.
Thomas V. Upton (2003). Aristotle on Monsters and the Generation of Kinds. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 77 (1):21-36.
Devin Henry (2006). Aristotle on the Mechanisms of Inheritance. Journal of the History of Biology 39 (3):425-455.
Mariska Leunissen & Allan Gotthelf (2010). What's Teleology Got to Do with It? A Reinterpretation of Aristotle's Generation of Animals V. Phronesis 55 (4):325-356.
Karen M. Nielsen (2008). The Private Parts of Animals: Aristotle on the Teleology of Sexual Difference. Phronesis 53 (s 4-5):373-405.
Devin M. Henry (2007). How Sexist Is Aristotle's Developmental Biology? Phronesis 52 (3):251 - 269.
Added to index2010-03-16
Total downloads82 ( #11,476 of 739,352 )
Recent downloads (6 months)16 ( #7,994 of 739,352 )
How can I increase my downloads?