This is the title of an essay by Dwayne Day published in this week’s issue of The Space Review. In the article he notes that space policy, like much of the rest of American politics, has seen a shift from “masculine” language like leadership to “feminine” language, where, as he puts it, “virtually all policies are justified in terms of their impact on children.” This transition had already been noted by others observing mainstream politics; Day applies it to space policy, noting that Bush’s January speech unveiling the new space initiative makes no mention of American leadership in space, unlike the space race rhetoric of the 1960s. I must admit that I didn’t think of policy in terms of masculine or feminine language before, but he makes a compelling case in his essay. The question remains, though, whether this shift in language will prove beneficial to the new initiative.
After reading this essay, I was struck by the incongruence of President Bush NOT talking about space policy in terms of American leadership when leadership is the central focus of the Bush political identity and American foreign policy.
Are there any other policy arenas where President Bush has personally made a similiar shift in language? Since strong leadership is the central plank of the Bush re-election campaign, perhaps this de-emphasis of leadership in the space arena signals a lack of genuine interest.
= = =
While the nuances of language are important and Dwayne Day may well have made some legitimate observations, I am less convinced that choosing the words “masculine” or “feminine” as metaphors is useful as it can interject political issues unrelated to space policy into the discussion.
Any attempt to define “masculine” or “feminine” with any degree of precision will surely take us places I do not wish to go.
I know Dwayne peruses this blog, so this will be addressed to him personally. Apologies for the length in advance.
“There is probably no returning to the masculine rhetoric of space exploration of days past, even if space policy has adopted more ambitious and challenging goals. Politicians and bureaucrats will try to develop new language and descriptions to broaden the appeal of these plans.”
Is this supposed to be a bad thing, or is this just a normatively neutral observation?
If it is supposed to be neutral, in my opinion it fails in its goal, as the only positive description of the “feminization” shift is the statement above, and that statement doesn’t even imply that the purported goal of broadening support is actually furthered by the shift in language. The many references to “days past” and the days of the Apollo program make it seem as it you are nostalgic for the days when men were men, and women stayed off the launch pad. Furthermore, the reference to feminization without any attempt to discuss what this means (beyond the circular definition by example provided in the rest of the piece), in my mind at least, implies some action by “feminists”, a nebulous term that is often used as a derogatory label (in many cases with justification) outside of its limited community.
If the shift to “feminine language” is supposed to be a bad thing, we’ve got major problems. I kind of like the idea of space having a broad appeal. There is a pretty good argument that it is necessary to attaining continued funding, and promoting future economic leadership. If we want the public to find space relevant enough to them to continue spending tax dollars on it, targeting less than half the population isn’t such a great idea.
Mostly Factual issues:
If NASA banned the use of the phrase “manned space program” apparently no one got the memo (or maybe it is just NASA that isn’t using the phrase, either way “space policy” makers still use the term). This phrase is still synonymous with the program to put people in space, as is demonstrated most frequently by the rhetoric of the manned space v. robotic space debate (one will also find a discussion of humans v. robots, but in the vast majority of the discussions the term “manned space” is used at least once even if it is not the go to term). In fact, I have considered writing on the need to move away from “manned space” rhetoric in order to better stimulate the interest of young women in space (Uh oh, did I just appeal to the children, better check my testicles to see if I’m still masculine. Sorry for the snideness Dwayne, I couldnt resist that one).
Since when has exploration been held to be a “feminine” concept? Exploration is less hegemony centered than domination or colonization, but that is a far cry from making something feminine (even if it is possible and useful to essentialize gender roles).
Final questions:
What is a feminine, a masuline, or a feminization, or at least in what sense are you using the terms (I am familiar with the physical distinctions, and with at least three competing definitions based on behavioral distinctions, which are you using)? What level of space policy are you discussing (government, private, White House, NASA, etc.)? Does the shift in public relations rhetoric mirror a change in the way policymakers conceptualize issues, is it merely a way to garner public support, is it a combination of the two, or some other alternative? Does the shift actually function to garner public support? Does the shift function to hinder development in any way?
I applaud your attempting to bring rhetorical theory into the space policy discussion (even though as Bill suggests, this might be more of a distraction from more influential factors than it is worthwhile, at least in the very short term), but I would respectfully suggest that you have further to go in your analysis before it provides more answers than questions.
Due to a shortage of time, I am going to make several posts responding to your issues one by one.
“Is this supposed to be a bad thing, or is this just a normatively neutral observation? ”
First, it is meant to be neutral. I am not longing for the rhetoric of days past, nor am I even longing for the _policies_ of days past. What I was attempting to do was note that both the policies _and_ the rhetoric have changed over the years and–here is the big point–even if the policies change again, the rhetoric will not change back. If an American president wants to re-do Apollo today, he will use different language than was used in the 1960s because some of that language is anachronistic and some of it is now considered at least slightly offensive. I was trying not to say that this is a good or bad thing, but to note that it has happened.
A little background: A few weeks ago a senior space policy writer mentioned that “leadership” had long been a central foundation of American space policy. I thought about this and it occurred to me that this term is not generally used in American space policy discussions these days. In fact, as I remembered a bit (and my memory is fallible), I seem to recall that around 1993-94 or so the Russians complained that NASA officials were treating them as second-class partners, rather than equals in the space station effort. The result was that NASA deliberately started editing their own language so as not to upset the Russians. For instance, they would not call the Russians “junior partners” or anything like that. (There was another effect as well–the Europeans started complaining that although they had been early partners in the space station program, they were now relegated to positions behind the Russians. The Europeans felt that their complaints about this were ignored.)
Now “leadership” when used in American space policy documents used to mean something very specific–beating the Russians with undefined space spectaculars. But once the Cold War ended, it was no longer necessary to keep demonstrating that the United States was technologically superior to the Soviet Union in space. So the term “leadership” really lost its meaning around this time. (And note that I also mentioned that other Big Science projects such as SSC and fusion used to justify their budgets in terms of “leadership” against the USSR as well.)
So I started thinking about how this word “leadership” had begun disappearing from civil space policy documents and speeches after the end of the Cold War. I searched through Bush’s speech and did not find it there, but did find a lot of mention of “exploration.” This prompted me to think about other terms that were no longer used. It also prompted me to think about policy changes that had also occurred. The policies and the rhetoric are closely related, but not completely related.
As I discussed this with people, some of them suggested looking at both Carnes Lord’s book and Kathleen Hall Jamieson’s book. Both of them applied the terms “masculine” and “feminine” to define certain policies and rhetoric.
(Sidenote: Hall Jamieson’s book dates from 1988, when feminist language criticism was in the ascendant. Lord’s book is much more recent. Someone told me that if I had written my essay on space policy in 1989, feminist scholars would barely note it, because they themselves were focusing on these issues. But she also said that using the terms “masculine” and “feminine” to describe rhetorical language is anachronistic in the gender studies field. I am no expert on this, however.)
Lord equates “leadership” with a willingness to disadvantage someone and he says that this is a “masculine” term. He doesn’t say that women cannot be leaders and I never said that either. In fact, Hall Jamieson’s book fits in to this discussion well because what she discussed is _how_ women chose to compete with men for leadership positions in politics. She said that they developed their own style of rhetoric and speech–and also their own issues. For instance, female political candidates realized that if they tried to debate men on strictly national security issues (bombs and guns and foreign policy), they had a greater chance of losing because American society was biased against women in these areas. So women political candidates picked different issues and different styles and used these against men. What Hall Jamieson also noted is that, rather surprisingly, male candidates began adopting what she called “the Effeminate Style.” This was a way for male candidates to expand their appeal to other groups of voters (particularly women). If you find a copy of her book, look at chapter 4.
I could have substituted other words for “masculine” language and “feminine” language–I could have called them “Type 1″ and “Type 2.” That would have carried less baggage, but I also think it would have brought less to the discussion, because gender is involved in this to some extent. After all, there has been a change over the years in American space policy to try and include more women. They were largely excluded in the early years of spaceflight (no women astronauts being the best example). Once they were included, the image of the agency changed, and the language that the agency used also changed as well.
So, to get back to your question that I re-posted above, I was not pining toward the “good ole days” when men were in charge and could say whatever they wanted. I was trying to note that policies and rhetoric have changed and using this as a jumping off point for further discussion. What does it mean? Where is it going?
I’ll also admit, however, that the ending of the essay is weak. But this essay was mainly supposed to be a discussion piece and certainly not a polemic. I looked at this and thought “there’s something going on here, but I’m not sure what it is or what it means.” So I wrote it up and tossed it out into the world for discussion.
More later.
Bill White wrote:
“I am less convinced that choosing the words “masculine” or “feminine” as metaphors is useful as it can interject political issues unrelated to space policy into the discussion.”
Two points:
First, as I noted in the piece, I didn’t come up with this idea. Others have already written about it (I cited Lord and Hall Jamieson, but I’m sure there are others). Lord was interested in the idea as it applies to political leadership in the modern day. Hall Jamieson was interested in the idea as it applies to how male and female politicians speak and campaign. I simply applied it to space policy. It is possible that there are actually better terms to define these policy and rhetorical changes. If so, I’m open to suggestions.
Second, I actually think that gender plays a role here and cannot be ignored. Women were _excluded_ from civil spaceflight for many years. They did not hold management positions at NASA and they could not be astronauts. That did not begin to change until the late 1970s.
Now once this change occurred, the policies and the language changed as well. I think it is worthwhile asking how policies and language changed as a result of the increasing numbers of women involved in American space policy, particularly NASA.
In addition, the rhetoric in American politics (outside of space) changed over the same time, in part to start including women rather than excluding them. I doubt that there is anybody who would argue that women are less involved in politics today than they were in 1962. Clearly they play a much greater role.
Politicians, whether male or female, always want to expand their voting block (that is, they want more people to vote for them). They realized that by appealing to issues that women were interested in, they could attract more votes. It is worth asking if bureaucracies (like NASA) did this as well. I think that one can make a good case that NASA officials made a conscious effort to appeal to a broader base of support. They wanted to appeal to women and minorities and so they changed their language and other symbolism.
I have not done this myself, but I bet that you could survey NASA literature, like public affairs brochures, and see a big change. Look at brochures from the 1960s and you will see white men. Look at the 1970s and the 1980s and later and you will see women and minorities in the photographs. The inherent message is that NASA is friendly to these groups. (Universities do this all the time. Virtually every university admissions brochure has a photograph of a group of ethnically and gender diverse students smiling while sitting on the steps of an idyllic campus library–usually in the fall. “Diversity” is a major goal of universities in their admissions policies and they try to communicate this goal through the photographs and language they use in their literature.)
Whether or not you think this good or bad is a personal decision. But it happens and I think it’s worth noting.
Bill White also wrote:
“Any attempt to define “masculine” or “feminine” with any degree of precision will surely take us places I do not wish to go.”
Yeah, I figured that even attempting to do this topic (especially since I have no training in gender studies) was fraught with danger. I actually have no strong opinions on this either way (and I’m not going to care if somebody writes a 2000-word essay proving that I’m completely wrong). I simply thought that it was an interesting observation and I would like to see it discussed.
Nathan Horsley wrote:
“Furthermore, the reference to feminization without any attempt to discuss what this means (beyond the circular definition by example provided in the rest of the piece), in my mind at least, implies some action by “feminists”, a nebulous term that is often used as a derogatory label (in many cases with justification) outside of its limited community.”
I never mentioned “feminists” once. And if you imply that they are a “limited community” then you would probably offend many people.
I used the word “feminization” four times, two of them in title headings. But it should have been clear from the context that I was using it as Carnes Lord defined it, and also trying to extend it out. National security is no longer used to justify civilian space policy, but other issues such as inspiring children are. Can you provide a better term that explains this change in issues and rhetoric? Perhaps “democratization” would work, but I don’t think it does, because the change has not simply been intended to expand the appeal to new groups of supporters, but has also moved away from some old issues (leadership vs. other nations) and toward new ones.
Nathan Horsley wrote:
“If we want the public to find space relevant enough to them to continue spending tax dollars on it, targeting less than half the population isn’t such a great idea.”
And this is a big reason why it has occurred–in order to expand the constituency. It has certainly been happening in American politics in general. There used to be many political issues that were not publicly debated at all until relatively recently (the past 20 years or so).
Nathan Horsley wrote:
“If NASA banned the use of the phrase “manned space program” apparently no one got the memo (or maybe it is just NASA that isn’t using the phrase, either way “space policy” makers still use the term).”
Here there has been a shift. I have not researched the use of “human spaceflight” vs. “manned spaceflight” in NASA literature. But there was a time when NASA actually had offices with “manned” in the title and now those offices have “human” in the title instead. What year did that happen and why?
Dan Goldin used to get very mad if he ever heard the term “manned spaceflight” and he would yell at the speaker. But I have been told that these days the term is used more at NASA than it used to be in the 1990s, even if it is official policy not to use it. So it would seem that the pendulum has swung backwards a bit.
I was primarily concerned with civil space policy at the White House-NASA level, not with commercial space policy or military space or private groups, although I think that they have changed as well.
Nathan Horsley wrote:
“Since when has exploration been held to be a “feminine” concept? Exploration is less hegemony centered than domination or colonization, but that is a far cry from making something feminine (even if it is possible and useful to essentialize gender roles).”
Here is what I wrote in the essay:
“In order to build the coalitions necessary to pursue this new policy, Bush could not embrace the old language about conquering the heavens or even leading the world. So he has adopted the word exploration as a compromise term.”
“Compromise term.” In other words, I never said that exploration was a “feminine concept.” What I did say was that Bush justified this exploration plan not in terms of conquest or leadership (traditionally “masculine” terms), but in terms of inspiring children.
The pendulum swung back a bit–as one would expect to happen when a conservative president takes over–but there are limits to what language Bush can use. I think it’s an interesting excercise to try and identify those limits.
Insofar as Constance Adams is currently one of my top space hero(ines) maybe I was too quick to bash the gender thing. If her style of analysis is feminine, then okay I am all for feminine.
= = =
But setting that aside, what is “exploration” anyway?
Bill White wrote:
“But setting that aside, what is “exploration” anyway?”
I know that I have not finished answering Mr. Horsley’s excellent questions yet, but I think that your question above is a good one. In fact, it is something that I have been discussing with several colleagues of mine. One of them, an astrophysicist, said that at first his colleagues in the astronomy community were happy that NASA was finally going to make this distinction. They wanted a clear distinction so that people would not justify human exploration as “science” when it had very little science component.
The problem is that the two terms have not been defined. And this is leading to confusion within NASA. One danger is that now that “exploration” has been labeled the agency’s top priority, anything that is perceived as “merely science” could be eliminated.
Personally, I think that somebody should take a crack at defining the differences and similarities of exploration and science, and how they overlap and diverge.
Dwayne,
Thanks for clarifying. You’ve certainly dealt with my major concern. As a piece designed to raise questions, I agree with it whole heartedly. My major concern was that the baggage your language carried seemed to tilt the message (course that baggage could be my interpretation, so take this at face value).
I still would argue against using the masculine and feminine labels on the grounds that it sends the signal that there is such a thing as an essential feminine or masculine (which is a huge side issue I sure dont want to have to get into). However, I can understand your reason for doing so and agree that it is something that ought to be considered carefully. As a suggestion for alternate labels, I would turn to the “dominance feminism” theories of Judy Butler. The argument is that behavior is more accurately explained by describing the relative power of the people involved than by looking to historical conceptions of maleness or femaleness. This sort of idea is extended in the study of the rhetoric of international relations in the conception of unilateralism/hegemonic v. multilateralism/cooperative. This I think better echoes the concerns that are driving policy makers (or publicists as the case may be) to be careful in thier language. While they are catering to women to be sure, they are also trying to cater to everyone else. This then brings up the only question that you did not specifically address: what is the reason for the change in rhetoric? (not really looking for an answer, just encouraging thought, but an answer would of course be welcome)
Nostalgia for my old philosophy days aside, I would agree with the concensus that finding out the meaning of “exploration” is the more important concern for the exploration initiative.
For me the term has less meaning in itself than it reflects the nature of the space policy and advocacy circles. It is a “vision” without actually being a discrete plan; and it has to be given the lack of conscensus in the space community. Exploration is what you make of it. It is everything that the space community wants all at once and allows each person to insert their own specific plan and have reason to beleive that if they work for it, they can make the overall vision reflect their meaning of exploration. I see it is as the PR portion of a great space “vision”. But I’m interested to see how others percieve it.