REACTION TO LESLEY DEAN JONE'S THE CULTURAL CONSTRUCT OF THE FEMALE BODY IN CLASSICAL GREEK SCIENCE.
Editor’s note: In this paper, Henry M. (‘17) analyses Lesley Dean-Jones’ article, The Cultural Construct of the Female Body in Classical Greek Science.
In the article The Cultural Construct of the Female Body in Classical Greek Science, Lesley Dean-Jones investigates Greek views on bodies and how they use physical characteristics to define societal roles. Jones explains how the Greeks were writing ‘laws’ with the prior belief “ that the female body was inherently inferior to that of the male” (4). She focuses on two Greek theories, the Hippocratic theory and Aristotle's theory, which had differences but both shared the same cultural assumption of inferiority in the female body.
Jones’ analysis of the Hippocratic theory challenges their assumptions and scientific evidence. The Hippocratic theory of bodies was that both sexes started with the same body, which are similar until puberty is hit. Once puberty hits, women have two major changes, menstruation and breasts, both of which are explained by the theory as weaknesses. They believe that female flesh becomes “loose and spongy”, and they are characterized as porous and weak (5). The Hippocratics use the word glands to describe the women’s breasts and argue that the women do nothing but soak up liquid, explaining the development of breasts and how menstruation is the release of that stored up liquid. Jones argues against this by challenging the initial assumption of the Hippocratics, which states that soft flesh of a woman is worse than the firm and compact flesh of a man. The Hippocratic theory also states that the lack of labor would make someone’s flesh soft, which leads Jones to the question of whether a woman could get firmer flesh by working hard (like all female slaves did). This question is unanswered and severely weakens the ‘scientific’ evidence that the Hippocrates are relying upon.
Although Aristotle’s argument differs from the Hippocratic theory in some fundamental ways, it is still challenged just as heavily by Jones. Aristotle was more interested in finding a theory of why and how females were similar and different to men, and his theory took upon some Hippocratic ideas with changes. Aristotle believed that menstruation caused a woman’s body to be weak, which is different than the Hippocratic idea that menstruation is caused by a woman’s weak, porous body. Aristotle believed not that the menstruation was a release of excess matter, but in fact a release of strength that he “attributes a woman’s paleness and deficiency of physique” to (7). Jones does not endorse either of these theories and in her analysis of their cases, questions the validity behind their reasoning. Jones also introduces the ‘wandering womb’, which was a Hippocratic idea that a woman who was not regularly having intercourse could be prone to their womb moving around their body. This belief was started as a scientific discovery to try to explain a prolapsed uterus, which is a real medical condition that existed both for the Greeks and people today. The wandering womb condition was ‘proven’ by the Hippocratic doctors and was “a convenient explanation for various illnesses in a woman’s body…” and “deprived a woman of independent control over her own sexuality” (9). The Hippocratics used this to once again prove how women’s bodies were inferior, and Aristotle, although he does not believe the womb is active, does agree on a few of their points. He believes in the possible shrinking or slight shift in the uterus due to a lack of intercourse and agrees with the smell test method that the Hippocratic doctors used.
Jones critiques these methods severely by bringing up the lack of evidence that it actually worked and the severe cultural bias that was not being seen by the Greeks. Jones argues that both Aristotle and the Hippocratics seem to make wide sweeping arguments with little to no factual basis to them except as a need to explain something. Jones is convincing in her takedown of the two theories, but spends a long time dissecting the ‘evidence’ of both Greek theories and does not spend a lot of time discussing why these theories were created or even accepted so readily. She gives several examples of very flawed logic by our 21st century thinking, but does not do a good job of putting the arguments of the Greeks into context. Obviously today the ‘wandering womb’ is a ridiculous theory, but why did the Greeks believe it so readily and what scientific equipment and theory were they working off of? To give context of the Greeks prior knowledge and an analysis comparing the thinking at that time would have strengthened Jones’ argument and made it more interesting rather than bringing up several examples of extremely flawed Greek logic.
Jones’ analysis of the Hippocratic theory challenges their assumptions and scientific evidence. The Hippocratic theory of bodies was that both sexes started with the same body, which are similar until puberty is hit. Once puberty hits, women have two major changes, menstruation and breasts, both of which are explained by the theory as weaknesses. They believe that female flesh becomes “loose and spongy”, and they are characterized as porous and weak (5). The Hippocratics use the word glands to describe the women’s breasts and argue that the women do nothing but soak up liquid, explaining the development of breasts and how menstruation is the release of that stored up liquid. Jones argues against this by challenging the initial assumption of the Hippocratics, which states that soft flesh of a woman is worse than the firm and compact flesh of a man. The Hippocratic theory also states that the lack of labor would make someone’s flesh soft, which leads Jones to the question of whether a woman could get firmer flesh by working hard (like all female slaves did). This question is unanswered and severely weakens the ‘scientific’ evidence that the Hippocrates are relying upon.
Although Aristotle’s argument differs from the Hippocratic theory in some fundamental ways, it is still challenged just as heavily by Jones. Aristotle was more interested in finding a theory of why and how females were similar and different to men, and his theory took upon some Hippocratic ideas with changes. Aristotle believed that menstruation caused a woman’s body to be weak, which is different than the Hippocratic idea that menstruation is caused by a woman’s weak, porous body. Aristotle believed not that the menstruation was a release of excess matter, but in fact a release of strength that he “attributes a woman’s paleness and deficiency of physique” to (7). Jones does not endorse either of these theories and in her analysis of their cases, questions the validity behind their reasoning. Jones also introduces the ‘wandering womb’, which was a Hippocratic idea that a woman who was not regularly having intercourse could be prone to their womb moving around their body. This belief was started as a scientific discovery to try to explain a prolapsed uterus, which is a real medical condition that existed both for the Greeks and people today. The wandering womb condition was ‘proven’ by the Hippocratic doctors and was “a convenient explanation for various illnesses in a woman’s body…” and “deprived a woman of independent control over her own sexuality” (9). The Hippocratics used this to once again prove how women’s bodies were inferior, and Aristotle, although he does not believe the womb is active, does agree on a few of their points. He believes in the possible shrinking or slight shift in the uterus due to a lack of intercourse and agrees with the smell test method that the Hippocratic doctors used.
Jones critiques these methods severely by bringing up the lack of evidence that it actually worked and the severe cultural bias that was not being seen by the Greeks. Jones argues that both Aristotle and the Hippocratics seem to make wide sweeping arguments with little to no factual basis to them except as a need to explain something. Jones is convincing in her takedown of the two theories, but spends a long time dissecting the ‘evidence’ of both Greek theories and does not spend a lot of time discussing why these theories were created or even accepted so readily. She gives several examples of very flawed logic by our 21st century thinking, but does not do a good job of putting the arguments of the Greeks into context. Obviously today the ‘wandering womb’ is a ridiculous theory, but why did the Greeks believe it so readily and what scientific equipment and theory were they working off of? To give context of the Greeks prior knowledge and an analysis comparing the thinking at that time would have strengthened Jones’ argument and made it more interesting rather than bringing up several examples of extremely flawed Greek logic.
