The Evolutionary Brotherhood: Manliness and Experimental Zoology in 19th-century America

This week, I had the fortune to attend a YouTube Live talk called “The Evolutionary Brotherhood: Manliness and Experimental Zoology in 19th-century America.” It was given by Jenna Tonn, who previously taught in Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at Harvard before moving on to teach at Boston College. This event in particular caught my attention because while we have discussed the role of gender (and the power dynamics associated with it) in science before, we have not discussed the specific norms at play in enforcing it. Additionally, I had never heard of an “evolutionary brotherhood” before, so I thought this would be a good learning opportunity for me!

Generally speaking, the talk covered what it meant to be a man of science in 19th century America. Specifically, we explored what “space” there was in science for masculinity, particularly with respect to laboratory-based experimental zoology, during this time. We also learned about the specific standards of masculinity that were exclusive to not just women, but to men as well. And finally, we critically examined the work and the students of E.L. Mark in order to understand how the idea of the “evolutionary brotherhood” was constructed. 

What was most surprising to me was the notion that the standards for defining a “man of science” could actually be exclusive to even white men. A specific example of this is the intense physicality that lab work often required. Professor Tonn noticed that Mark’s graduate students often complained about their hot/stuffy work environments, having to do field work for data collection, and the physical suffering associated with operating equipment or moving things around in the lab. Thus, strength/fitness and physical self-sacrifice became conceptualized as part of what it takes to be a “man of science”. Essentially, one’s physical constitution was equated with one’s gender performance, which was then equated with one’s laboratory skills. This often resulted in the graduate students making judgements about one another on the basis of their physical appearances. There was one individual in particular who was singled out as being excessively dainty and gentlemanly; because he was perceived as being physically weak, other students did not view him as a true “man of science”. Of course, one can also imagine quite clearly how this would carry over into the exclusion of women from scientific laboratories. Ultimately, what I learned from this is that the concept of exclusion is not always black and white. As much as we try to use an “us vs. them” mindset to try to understand marginalization, it is actually much more nuanced than that. The conceptualization of certain roles and ideals is sometimes so specific that it excludes even people who are not traditionally considered part of a marginalized group. Specifically using scientific gender norms to understand experimental zoology allowed me to understand the idea of the laboratory as a socially and culturally constructed space better than ever before. 

Of course, this conversation is not complete without bringing in the women. Unfortunately, we did not formally discuss their role as much due to time constraints and a lack of information, so I still have a lot of questions on this front. Professor Tonn talked about the correspondence between Marks’ graduate students and their wives/fianceés, describing the importance of these emotional intimacies in helping the scientists endure their “physical suffering for the scientific truth.” We, however, don’t have any records on what the women might have written back, which is definitely a pity. I wonder, even if Professor Tonn described their role as primarily emotional, whether the wives/fianceés might have conceptualized themselves as also taking part in the experimental zoology work by being in correspondence with their significant others about it? Did they ever try to formally learn some of the knowledge? Did they ever stop by the lab to see the work for themselves? As we have often learned in class, whenever knowledge is shared (even at the level of the individual!), it is changed or re-constructed in some way. I feel like this picture of gender in experimental zoology is not complete without the women’s point of view -- and perhaps the fact that this half of the correspondence is not preserved says something about how much (or rather, how little) their thoughts were valued at the time.