x + y by Eugenia Cheng
x + y: A Mathematician’s Manifesto for Rethinking Gender
by Eugenia Cheng
Publisher: Profile Books
ISBN-13: 9781541646513
Pages: 288* This book was provided by Profile Books for a review.*
In her book, x + y: A Mathematician’s Manifesto for Rethinking Gender, Eugenia Cheng presents a dauntless idea that will attract many detractors across the spectrum but her thesis is worth discussing. Cheng’s research field is category theory. In mathematics, category theory entails the study of relationships between objects rather than intrinsic characteristics. Cheng proposes to apply category theory to problems relating to gender bias. Historically masculinity and femininity have been described in terms of biological differences that in turn reflect behavioral differences. Elsewhere, gender is considered a social construct. The question of whether human behavior is based on biological/sexual or societal constructs leads to a quagmire of conflicts and confusion. So how can mathematics show a path in this age-old problem?
Category theory gives an opportunity to address the issue of whether men and women are inherently different and if they are should they be treated differently? Cheng lays out a systematic approach to treat this issue with examples from STEM academia, one with which she is most familiar. She begins by showcasing the fallacies of weak arguments that rely on statistical findings. For example, statistics show that men have more academic citations than women in physics and since citations are typically the measure of your academic success it is easily concluded that men are better than women at physics. But this conclusion is flawed since it is an observation of a particular slice of time in a particular socio-economic condition. Men might be more successful because they are favored more than women in the world. Correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation. Hence, a number of citations don’t necessarily mean he or she is a good physicist.
The author also posits problems with biological evidence regarding intelligence or brain size to determine gender differences. Scientific inferences depend on controlled experiments and something as nuanced and multifaceted as ‘intelligence’ is tricky to ‘enumerate’ in a controlled setting. The initial chapters dissect the problems with averages and statistical significance of sociological observations that people use to argue their points about gender-related prejudices. Such arguments are myopic. What category theory brings is focus on the role of a person in a particular context rather than his or her inherent (biological) traits.
The second part of the book ‘Ungendered Thinking’ takes off with a contemplation on the importance of language on gender. Though sparsely written from a semantic point of view, words such as ‘feminism’, ‘patriarchy’, ‘mansplain’, ‘misogyny’, etc. have gendered roots and hence are inherently divisive. Are there words to explain a set of behaviors that can be attributed to humans in general? Rather than calling behavioral patterns like aggression and competitiveness masculine and cooperativity and empathy feminine, we can classify these traits with terminology that has nothing to do with a person’s gender. Cheng suggests two words: ‘ingressive’ and ‘congressive’. ‘Ingressive’ means ‘going into things’ and ‘congressive’ means ‘bringing things together.’ These descriptive terms can free us from all gender connotations. Ingressive can be used to describe any person who is individualistic, competitive, and prefers single-track thought processes. Congressive people focus on collaboration, the importance of community, interdependence and prefer collective thought processes. With this framework, the author shows that every human being is actually on a spectrum between ingressive and congressive traits irrespective of their gender.
Which of the two traits benefits the society at large is discussed in the latter half of the book. Several examples such as the education system in Finland which focuses on cooperation rather than competition among students and the congressive nature of collaborative research in mathematics and physics (like the imaging of the black hole) show how a congressive path can lead to fruitful results.
The book has a short glossary of real-life examples where responses are given when people have spoken to the author in an ingressive manner. It shows how adopting a congressive manner in conversations can open avenues of cooperation and empathy. I leave the readers with one such example here:
‘You’re not very scientific are you.’
Ingressive: Said the pot to the kettle. So when was your last scientific paper
published?
Passive: I’m being perfectly scientific.
Congressive: Which particular part of my argument do you disagree with?
The author clarifies often that present inequalities in our institutions cannot be simply banished by such an approach nor can we do away with the concept of gender. A lot of talk goes around about the state of emancipation and various shades of feminism in academia but in fact, the problem lies in our interpersonal attitudes and relationships with one another. What this approach can do is create healthy and productive conversations at our schools, offices, homes, and universities. X+Y is one of the books which changed the way I speak about gender differences. It helped me personally to adopt the vocabulary to talk about problems I see around myself. A fine approach to a murky problem is always appreciated.
