Read the paper here.

Introduction

The 2016 paper “Glaciers, gender, and science: A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research” by Mark Carey, M. Jackson, Alessandro Antonello, and Jaclyn Rushing, published in Progress in Human Geography (Glaciers, gender, and science), introduces a feminist glaciology framework that examines how gender dynamics influence the study of glaciers. The authors propose four components: knowledge producers, gendered science, systems of scientific domination, and alternative representations of glaciers. They argue that glaciers are not just physical entities but are embedded in social, cultural, and political contexts, challenging the notion that “ice is just ice.” While this interdisciplinary approach has sparked interest for its inclusivity, it has also faced significant criticism for claims perceived as unscientific or overly ideological, such as attributing sentience to glaciers or equating artistic representations with scientific knowledge. These claims, often labeled as controversial, have been debated in academic and public spheres, with critics arguing they dilute scientific rigor (National Post). This essay critically examines these claims and refutes them using scientific principles, emphasizing the importance of empirical evidence in glaciological research.

Claim 1: Glaciers as Sentient or Culturally Active

One of the paper’s most striking assertions is the inclusion of indigenous “folk glaciologies,” which suggest glaciers possess agency or sentience, such as narratives from Canada’s Yukon Territory where glaciers are believed to “listen” or be offended by actions like cooking with grease (Cruikshank, 2005). The authors present these beliefs as valid forms of knowledge, challenging the dominance of Western scientific perspectives. While indigenous narratives are valuable for understanding cultural relationships with the environment, they do not align with scientific definitions of sentience. Sentience, in biological terms, refers to the capacity to perceive or feel, typically requiring a nervous system or cognitive structures found in living organisms. Glaciers, composed of compressed snow and ice, are inanimate physical systems governed by physical processes like accumulation and ablation. No empirical evidence supports the idea that glaciers can perceive or respond to human actions in a sentient manner. Conflating cultural beliefs with scientific knowledge risks undermining the objectivity required for studying glacier dynamics, which is critical for addressing climate change. While respecting cultural diversity, science must prioritize testable, reproducible data over spiritual or anecdotal interpretations.

Claim 2: Masculinist Domination in Glaciology

The paper argues that glaciology has been shaped by “masculinist ideologies,” with scientific credibility historically tied to attributes like heroism, risk-taking, and conquest, often associated with masculinity. It cites examples like 19th-century glaciologist John Tyndall, whose mountaineering feats bolstered his scientific reputation, and notes that women comprised less than 20% of authors in major glaciology journals in 2009 (Carey et al., 2016). The authors suggest that these gendered dynamics marginalize alternative knowledge forms. While it is true that science, including glaciology, has historically been male-dominated, the validity of scientific research should be judged by its methodology, data, and conclusions, not the gender of its producers. Modern science strives for objectivity and inclusivity, with significant progress in diversifying STEM fields. For instance, the National Science Foundation’s 2021 report, Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering (NSF 2021 Report), indicates that women now earn more bachelor’s and master’s degrees than men across all fields, and their representation in science and engineering has increased, with women earning 27% of doctoral degrees in these fields in 2018. Initiatives like the NSF’s ADVANCE program further promote gender equity in STEM. While acknowledging historical imbalances, the focus should remain on the quality of scientific output, which transcends gender.

Claim 3: Art and Literature as Valid Scientific Knowledge

The paper advocates for incorporating art and literature, such as Katie Paterson’s glacier sound projects or literary works reimagining gender in polar exploration, as legitimate ways of understanding glaciers. These “alternative representations” are presented as enriching glaciological knowledge by emphasizing emotional and cultural dimensions. While art and literature can provide valuable insights into human perceptions of glaciers, they do not meet the standards of scientific inquiry, which relies on systematic observation, experimentation, and reproducibility. For example, scientific studies of glaciers involve measuring ice core data or modeling glacial retreat, which provide quantifiable insights into climate change. Artistic works, while evocative, lack the rigor and verifiability required for scientific conclusions. Critics of the paper, as noted in a 2016 National Post article (Feminist Glaciology Backlash), have called such claims “gibberish” for blurring the lines between science and subjective expression. While art can complement scientific understanding by raising awareness or inspiring action, it should not be equated with the empirical methods needed to address environmental challenges.

Claim 4: Western Science as Colonial and Patriarchal

The authors assert that glaciology is complicit in colonial, imperial, and patriarchal systems, citing examples like Cold War ice core drilling for military purposes. They argue that these systems marginalize non-Western and indigenous knowledge, such as folk glaciologies. While science has historically been influenced by societal power structures, the scientific method itself is a universal tool designed to produce objective, reproducible results. Ice core data, for instance, has provided critical insights into past climates, benefiting global climate research regardless of its historical context. The critique of Western science as inherently colonial overlooks the fact that science is practiced globally, with contributions from diverse cultures. The NSF’s 2021 report highlights increasing diversity in STEM, including efforts to include underrepresented groups, suggesting that science is evolving to be more inclusive. While historical critiques are valid, they should not overshadow the scientific method’s ability to generate reliable knowledge when applied rigorously.

Claim 5: Rejection of “Ice is Just Ice”

The paper challenges the notion that glaciers are neutral, apolitical objects, framing them as “cryoscapes” with social, cultural, and gendered significance. While glaciers indeed hold cultural importance—evident in indigenous stories or artistic depictions—their scientific study focuses on physical properties like mass balance and melting rates, which are critical for understanding climate change. The assertion that glaciers are inherently gendered or political risks overcomplicating their study without contributing to actionable scientific outcomes. For example, glacier retreat models rely on physical data, not cultural narratives, to predict sea-level rise. While interdisciplinary perspectives can enrich public engagement with science, the core of glaciological research must remain grounded in empirical evidence to address pressing environmental issues effectively.

Conclusion

The feminist glaciology framework offers a thought-provoking perspective on how gender and culture intersect with environmental science, highlighting the need for inclusivity in knowledge production. However, claims such as attributing sentience to glaciers, equating art with science, or framing science as inherently colonial stretch beyond the boundaries of empirical inquiry. These assertions, while aiming to broaden perspectives, risk diluting the scientific rigor needed to study glaciers and address climate change. A balanced approach that respects cultural and artistic contributions while prioritizing evidence-based methods is essential for advancing our understanding of glaciers and their role in a changing world. By focusing on data-driven research and fostering inclusivity, science can remain both equitable and effective.