Biological Tool: How Naturalized Narratives Are Used For & Against

Biology has no shape, nor does it resemble anything. The natural sciences are meant to study reality, offer explanations, and the results of such studies are only as real as thoughts are; the theoretical is meant to be a reflection of life, yet they are not life itself. What can be seen, touched, perceived with our five senses, is what is real, what is life. A concept. Even if we don’t see it fully, we can fool ourselves into believing to be the case, or let ourselves be fooled.

Primarily inspired by Sara Ahmed’s work, What’s The Use?: on the uses of use (2019), this essay will delve into how nature itself is used for social justification of exclusion, normative conditioning of cis/heterosexuality, and human behavior. The relationship between nature and biology are to be questioned and considered as to understand how the latter becomes a tool in discussion, in social and medical fields alike. From the material found in the United States based National Library of Medicine digital collection, the publication Sexual hygiene, from an osteopathic view-point: a scientific discussion of physiological and pathological sexual relations by Eugene Howe Henry (1922) will be discussed on what role social beliefs play in understanding nature where biology is ever present conceptually, but not literally.

When the question of immutability comes up, the concept of what relates to life – in this case biology, and by extension nature – is stripped off of its conceptual existence and given a form. When biology is put to use, to be used for or against, it shapes itself in a way only certain things can pass through, and what cannot is determined to be against nature, unnatural. This shape is attributed to biology as a whole despite its actual relation to a whole field of science, and despite the shape itself still being mutable and subject to change. When in reality, the shape is what biology or “nature” needs to be in order to become a tool.

In Ahmed’s example of the door and how it dictates who gets to occupy and enter somewhere, it serves as a clear indication of a closed space that excludes some and invites others: “the signs are not referring to the toilets themselves as men and women but to the users of the facilities.” (Ahmed, 30). It is a very physical symbol of something that is the main tool of entrance; and as the door as an object does not move by itself, it is not this tangible proof of exclusivity that is the decider, but the user, opening it. The door cannot make decisions, and so the persons still possess the ability to use, define and even redefine if they wish to create or destroy accessibility.

This decision, however, does not mean complete freedom: even when a door can be opened, the space will still be unwelcome to those not meant to occupy it. In the same chapter, Ahmed states that use often comes with instructions (28). This forms the basis of many historical, as well as current, educational texts on sexuality, marriage, mental health written with the intention to guide. The book Sexual Hygiene contains twelve lectures where Chapter I emphasizes the “Need of Sexual Instruction” from educated persons rather than parents, in a proper manner, as it leads to neurotic behavior otherwise. In the same paragraph, Henry also states eugenics are “proper and necessary” (Henry, 8-9).

E. H. Henry was a professor in the American School of Osteopathy; although osteopathy in most countries is not considered a medical field, this is the case for the United States as well as certain anglophone countries. Although osteopathy is stated to be scientific, Nicholas P. Lucas and Robert W. Mora argue in an editorial that various glossary definitions of osteopathy provide an inaccurate portrayal of it. (Lucas and Moran, 86) This is in line with the redefinition aspect of inclusion, where the field by these definitions becomes less rigid and covers a broader area of methods. This leads to inconsistency with scientific methods, despite the initial definition, as it is more aligned with philosophy instead.

Osteopathy is not directly affiliated with biology, yet the constant case of allusion to the natural when discussing matters of sexuality and drawing direct parallels to the wilderness and primal urges is curious in the case of immutability. Even when the biological nature of the human is out of the boundaries of the (by American definition) medical field, Henry uses it as the basis of many points in his lectures. It is curious to note, however, that biology and nature are not what makes the argument itself – the main focus, despite the scientific nature of these lectures, is still morality.

Chapter II on marriage begins with the claim that “sexual impulse and its gratification is the primary and fundamental reason for marriage” (Henry, 18). The case of animal instincts manifests in Henry’s lecture as a need for companionship which can only be attained through heterosexual marriage, legally, as these instincts will still exist within the human but can only be gratified illegally otherwise. This is not solely a justification for the institution of marriage, but also an attempt to show normality as something that is different from the primal; even when it is the main reference of why humans must legalize their companionship, it is still used as the basis for exclusivity.

In Donna Haraway’s Simians, Cyborgs and Women, this is tied to the existence of capitalism in a post-religious world where the continuation of reproduction for the capital has geared itself towards sociobiological reasoning for morality instead. By insisting on the continuation of the heterosexual family dynamic, “the logic of naturalization provided a cornerstone of historical explanation based on reproduction. The dynamic was management, not repression.” (Haraway, 53). This is in line with the lectures aiming to instruct younger generations in a shift from religion to science, with scientific fields reaching new highs in the 20th century, as the instruction to be moral also comes with the promise of a healthy life for all individuals – involved and obedient ones, that is.

Sexual intercourse, though in the case of this archival material not immediately portrayed as just the means of reproduction and takes the pleasure of both male and female participants in consideration, is compared to the “lower” animals in the same sense. Though the natural instinct is described as the need for evacuation and relief, the difference with the “higher” form of life – that being humans, lies in the definition of “the union of two individuals of the opposite sex, which must be preceded by an impulse to approach, touch and caress one of the other sex.” (Henry, 65). While the companionship aspect of marriage is there, the instinctual habits of animal instincts are softened to become gestures that is associated with romance instead – to make it more appealing.

“The male usually finds some pleasure in exerting force and perhaps delights in domination, while the female derives pleasure in experiencing force and rather enjoys submission,” (Henry, 111) begins the Chapter X, “Pain, A Pre-requisite to Pleasure”. In this chapter, sadism and masochism is discussed as perversions with family history of insanity, prefacing Chapter XI, “Sexual Perversions”. Even with such importance given to legality of heterosexual marriage, that alone is not enough to uphold morality. This publication does contain a more empathetic approach to divorce and abortion, though still states learning and following instructions will prevent such things happening in the first place. These instructions are endless, and dictates an entire life of harmonious married life: the roles are ready to be fit by the individuals. Although such rigidity is not “natural”, it is a worthy sacrifice. After all, there is still the promise of a healthy life at play.

Haraway defines this construction as behaving machines, and sex as a modern innovation to dictate reproduction under a capitalist regime, with the maximization given the most importance. Not a single part of the heteronormative notions of existence are excluded from Sexual Hygiene. Even when the female is still inferior to the male, the book means to educate both members and gives them almost equal treatment quantitatively – Haraway explains the claim that “sociobiology establishes the ultimate equality of males and females by showing that they compete equally - if by different strategies - in the only game that counts, amassing genetic profit.” The goal is not to educate young people for the sake of their own health, but rather the collective benefit for the nation: sociobiology has been a tool of the capitalist system from the beginning.

In the case of the Perverts: homosexuality was grouped together with other such perversions that, even within opposite sexes, defy the moral definition of proper and natural companionship. Tobetter understand the differentiation of natural instincts within legal, heterosexual relations and the nature of perversion, another word can take the place of nature: wilderness. Unlike the natural, wilderness refers to a life before civilization; though this should mainly be understood as a western and colonial civilization, as what is moralized most often excludes non-white people. Jack Halberstam, in line with Haraway’s point of sex being an invention, explains in Wild Things that through the illusion of the moral natural and normativity, power structures dictating social stability actually are meant to portray certain groups as “irrational, unstable, and violent” (Halberstam, 7).

This is in line with criminalization of homosexuality and the synonymous usage of sexual pervert and criminal, especially in eugenicist organizations promoting the sterilization of queer people. In Ahmed’s example of the use and disuse of law concerning eugenics and the concern over the “lower” class of people reproducing too much, what is clearly challenged here is not the moral existence and a better life for men and women, but a guarantee that reproduction not only happens under certain conditions but involving individuals who fit the mold of the natural human perfectly. By deeming certain individuals as less human, the behaving machines are simultaneously put to use: “the eugenicist hand as the breeder’s hand; the strong must reproduce more.” (Ahmed, 100.)

All of the claims by Henry regarding homosexuality has little scientific basis, with ridiculous ones such as there being more homosexuals in eastern countries and Brazil, or a relationship between two men being unnatural unless one of them has sold himself for money (Henry, 122-123). This anecdotal chapter stands out as taking a considerable amount of time to exemplify what is wrong and immoral by portraying the unnatural human psyche in a completely negative light, insisting on (a non-existent) logic.

Curiously, the only perversion Henry has a more sympathetic view towards is bestiality, as there is no possibility of conception occurring or the individual himself contracting any venereal infection (Henry, 129). This is scientifically false; venereal infections (STDs) such as warts and herpes are both common and similar in animals (Oriel and Hayward, 418). With this, the scientific standing of this book is called further into question – although the article and all references are stated to be after 1950s, way after the publication of Sexual Hygiene, there still is no scientific evidence provided for Henry’s claims.

Additionally, following bestiality, pederosis (pedophilia) is not put on the same level of sexual perversions and instead, the mental state of a man who seeks satisfaction in young girls is called into question and is almost excused as merely a symptom rather than a pathological difference (Henry, 130-131). The classification of children and animals and the treatment of such perversions in relation are categorized differently than those between adults, which is easier to classify as moral or immoral. Halberstam puts the two right on the line between nature and culture, as they “represent a kind of otherness to the adult human subjectivities against which they are always deemed to be lacking.” (Halberstam, 56).

This difference in treatment is not an accident. To use biology as a tool of oppression for the wild, those belonging to the uncivilized nature, the subject must be punished. Even today, crimes against children, animals and even women in cases of sexual and domestic violence are left without punishment. As a class, the masculine rules over all three in terms of morality: a man’s desire for violence, like in the example of force exertion given by Henry, is part of the nature which has not been abandoned. It is part of the biological reality that still finds its place in the moral and social reality, without jeopardizing the heteronormative living.

Children and animals do not possess the same morality, as they have not been subjected to education yet. They are othered in a way that is different than the perverts, as an adult human can still be held accountable. Any perversion or crime committed against animals are not given importance, as the nature of the crime (sexual) has no chance of leading to reproduction. With children, as Henry considers them to not be of the right mind meant to raise children, it still falls out of moral reasoning when they are unfit to become “mothers” who will bring the new generation of superior human beings, who will need to be properly educated and raised in a so-called healthy environment. The lack of mention about rape, or any sexual crime involving women in heterosexual settings outside of fetishism and exhibitionism, further confirms that reproduction is still an end goal even in a publication meant to promote good sexual relations between the two sexes.

Sexual Hygiene, existing in the National Library of Medicine, is not odd considering the United States’ stance on Osteopathy as a medical field. However, the lack of scientific evidence provided in a medical publication shows that what is dealt with is rather the concept of biology itself, weaponized against those unfit to reproduce healthy children for the prosperity of nation under eugenicist practices. There is not a point where human nature is called to question or rejected; only redefined in a way that emphasizes morality and culture. Where biology becomes a hand, like in Ahmed’s example, it is never caressing; both for the punishment of the criminal perverts and the guidance of the heterosexual couple, it is a force that was created to discriminate in the first place.

A concept becomes real through force, and nature stands unbothered. The social reality of the human feels the need to justify its validity through a belief in something, whether its religion or science, when humans have already abandoned nature for the sake of culture long ago – all that is left is a constructed normal to uplift the “strong” and crush the “weak”.

References

Ahmed, Sara. What’s the Use?: On the Uses of Use. Duke University Press, 2019.

Halberstam, Jack. Wild Things: The Disorder of Desire. Duke University Press, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1215/9781478012627.

Haraway, Donna Jeanne. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York, United States of America: Routledge, 1991.

Henry, Eugene Howe, D.O. Sexual Hygiene, From an Osteopathic View-point: A Scientific Discussion of Physiological and Pathological Sexual Relations. Kirksville, Missouri, United States of America: J.F. Janisch Supply House, 1922. http://resource.nlm.nih.gov/02220060R.

Lucas, Nicholas P., and Robert W. Moran. “Is There a Place for Science in the Definition of Osteopathy?” International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine 10, no. 4 (November 26, 2007): 85–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijosm.2007.10.001.

Oriel, J D, and A H Hayward. “Sexually-transmitted Diseases in Animals.” Sexually Transmitted Infections 50, no. 6 (December 1, 1974): 412–20. https://doi.org/10.1136/sti.50.6.412.