It must be the case, given their cultural coevolution and the ways these
notions have been used interdependently over centuries, that gender
ideals and ideas of Agency have become semantically and ideologically
linked. Active/Passive is a reflex of the traditional Masculine/Feminine
dichtomy; and Agentive/non-Agentive is very deep in the semantics of
most grammars (certainly English and its Indo-European cousins).
The same kinds of arguments that Walkerdine makes regarding the links of
Rational/Emotional to Scientific/Intuitive to Masculine/Feminine would
seem plausible for Agency issues as well.
When thinking about robots, for example, especially threatening or
powerful ones, is there not an implicit sense (and explicitly in
fiction) of masculine gender and dispositions? Contrast the most common
artifact of large scale to take feminine gender, the ship, which can be
boarded, must be steered, is important mainly for its interior, and has
little connotation of autonomous agency. (Perhaps the historically
accurate contrast with ship is the locomotive engine ...)
So when we think about tools, including intelligent agents in the AI
sense, and about the moral and political dimensions of agency, I think
we may be in for some interesting surprises about the connections to our
notions of masculinity. These presumably carry over into design issues
as well. I'm not prepared to take these up right now, but I hope we
will keep coming back to them.
JAY.