Vetenskapskrig och det goda samtalets retorik - biologer talar om »tokfeminism«

Abstract

In this case study based article, Holmberg analyses a Swedish science based debate from 2002. The debate concerned what came to be labelled "crazy-feminism" ("tokfeminism"). The first aim is to highlight how talk about the "science war" becomes contrasted, and yet intertwined, with talk about the "good conversation". A second aim is to show how, what at a first glance can be interpreted as a hopeless and unfruitful controversy may include a subversive potential for unexpected alliances. The case study is based on a range of empirical material, newspaper articles, e-mail letters, private correspondence, webbased contributions and conference lectures. The material is analysed from the sociology of science perspective, with focus set on the rhetorical nature of discourse. In the analysis Holmberg uses concepts such as categorisation, contrast structures and rhetoric strategies and she investigates howeach pole of this debate builds up rhetorical credibility primarily by way of irony, citation and extreme case formulations, attaching the opponents to the context of the science war, while at the same time distancing "us" from that same war. This is done by both sides, as they embrace the ideal principle of the good and fruitful scientific conversation.