This essay is one of the 2025 winners of the Brenda Trenowden Essay Prize for Feminist Analysis.
Elizabeth Wilson's biological unconscious theory (2004; 2015), has gained significant attention for its innovative approach to understanding the relationship between biology and culture. It was published during a time when feminist theory was grappling with the implications of the "material turn," a shift which emphasised the importance of materiality and the physical and embodied aspects of existence, and the increasing influence of neuroscience and biology (Sheldon, 2017). This turn emerged as a response to the limitations of approaches that emphasised language and discourse in shaping social reality (Van Der Tuin, 2011). Wilson's work offers a fresh perspective on the complex interplay between the body and the mind, drawing on insights from new materialism, psychoanalysis theory, and science and technology studies to challenge traditional understandings of embodiment and agency (Sheldon, 2017).
Wilson acknowledges the important role of early feminist thinkers in liberating feminist theory from biological determinism. However, she challenges the strict separation between biological and cultural factors that have been a core concept in feminist theory for a long time (Wilson, 2015). She argues that this separation is not only artificial but also detrimental to our understanding of the complex interplay between the body and the mind. Wilson's theory proposes that the enteric nervous system (ENS), or the "second brain" in the gut, plays a crucial role in shaping our mental processes and behaviour, and that this biological reality cannot be divorced from cultural and social influences (Wilson, 2015). To support her argument, Wilson draws on the work of psychoanalyst Melanie Klein, particularly her concept of object relations. Klein emphasised the importance of early experiences, especially the infant's relationship with the mother's breast, in shaping psychological development. Wilson extends Klein's ideas to the gut, arguing that the infant's early experiences of feeding and digestion play a crucial role in the formation of the self (Woudstra, 2017). She suggests that "the gut is not just a metaphor for the self, but a key site of its constitution" (Wilson, 2015, p. 43).
This perspective aligns with Ian Hacking's concept of "looping effects," which describes how categories of human experience and identity are shaped by the interplay between biological and social factors (Hacking, 1995). According to Hacking, the ways in which we classify and describe human experiences and behaviours can have a profound impact on how those experiences and behaviours are understood and experienced. In other words, the categories we use to make sense of the world are not simply descriptive, but also productive, shaping the very phenomena they seek to explain. In the context of Wilson's theory, this suggests that the categories and concepts we use to understand the relationship between the gut and the mind are not simply neutral or objective, but are shaped by social, cultural, and historical factors.
By exploring what she calls an entanglement or imbrication of biology and culture, Wilson offers a new perspective on the nature of embodied experience. As she writes "the body is not a passive surface awaiting the imprint of culture, but a dynamic entity that actively participates in the production of meaning and experience" (Wilson, 2015, p. 21). This quote highlights Wilson's key argument that the body is an active participant in shaping our experiences and identities, rather than a mere recipient of cultural influences. By emphasising the significance of biological factors in shaping human experience and the need for exchange and interaction between biological and cultural factors, Wilson challenges feminist theory to reconsider its relationship to biology . She advocates for a more integrative approach to understanding the body and the mind, one that acknowledges the complex entanglement of biology and culture in shaping our experiences and identities (Sheldon, 2017).
Gayle Rubin's groundbreaking work in feminist and queer theory has had a significant impact on Elizabeth Wilson's thinking and the development of the biological unconscious theory. Rubin's influential essay "The Traffic in Women" (1975) and her later work on the "charmed circle" (1985) of sexuality have been pivotal in shaping contemporary understandings of gender and sexuality as socially constructed rather than biologically determined. Her emphasis on the cultural and historical factors that shape sexual norms and practices has been widely influential in feminist theory and has helped to challenge essentialist notions of gender and sexuality (Rubin, 2011). While Wilson acknowledges the importance of Rubin's work, she also argues that many feminist thinkers have neglected biological data in their work, failing to engage with it in the same way they engage with historical and anthropological data. Rubin's statement that "no examination of the body or its parts can explain the nature and variety of human social systems" exemplifies this tendency to separate the biological from the social and cultural, a separation that Wilson seeks to challenge through her theory of the biological unconscious (Rubin, 1975, p. 147).
According to Wilson, much of feminist theory, including Rubin's work, has tended to treat biology as a static and deterministic force rather than as a dynamic and interactive factor in shaping human experience (Rubin, 2018). Wilson contends that by neglecting these biological factors, Rubin's work and other feminist approaches risk perpetuating a mind-body dualism that fails to capture the complexity of human experience. In contrast, she argues for a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between biology and culture, one that recognizes the ways in which these factors are deeply entangled and mutually constitutive (Wilson, 2015). At the same time, Wilson is careful to emphasise that her critique of Rubin's work is not intended to dismiss the importance of social and cultural factors in shaping gender and sexuality. Rather, she advocates for a more integrative approach that acknowledges the complex interplay between biology and culture and takes seriously the ways in which these factors are mutually constitutive. By engaging critically with Rubin's work, Wilson aims to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between the body and the mind in shaping human experience (Sheldon, 2017).
One of the main critiques of Wilson's biological unconscious theory is the risk of biological reductionism. Some critics argue that by emphasising the role of biological factors such as the enteric nervous system and the gut-brain axis in shaping human experience, Wilson's theory risks oversimplifying complex phenomena and reducing them to purely biological processes. This critique is exemplified by the work of Myra J. Hird (2018), who that Wilson's focus on the biological aspects of experience may inadvertently reinforce essentialist notions of gender and sexuality. Hird suggests that by privileging biological explanations over social and cultural ones, Wilson's theory risks perpetuating the very mind-body dualism that it seeks to challenge (Hird, 2018). As Hird states, "Wilson's attention to the gut as a site of feminist theory is both provocative and productive … In particular, we need to be cautious about the potential for biological explanations to be used to reinscribe essentialist notions of gender and sexuality" (Hird, 2018, p. 23). She argues that while acknowledging the importance of biological factors, these must be understood in relation to the broader social and cultural contexts in which they operate. Hird also raises concerns about the potential political implications of Wilson's theory, suggesting that an overemphasis on biology could be used to justify existing power structures and inequalities (Hird, 2005). In response to this critique, defenders of Wilson's theory might argue that the biological unconscious is not intended to reduce human experience to purely biological processes, but rather to highlight the ways in which biology and culture are deeply entangled. They may suggest that by taking seriously the role of biological factors in shaping experience, Wilson's theory opens up new possibilities for understanding the complexity of embodiment and for challenging reductive forms of biological determinism (Sheldon, 2017). However, in doing so they would also need to address the legitimate concerns raised by critics like Hird about the potential risks of privileging biological explanations and perpetuating further inequalities.
Astrida Neimanis (2013) raises important concerns about the potential risks of engaging with biological and scientific thought in feminist theory. Neimanis points out that feminist thinkers have often been reluctant to engage with biological data out of concern that it could be used to "congeal, reify or essentialize aspects of our embodiment in ways that incarcerate and oppress us" (Neimanis, 2013, p. 15). She argues that treating science as the ultimate authority can have disastrous effects on marginalised groups, including women, indigenous people , people of colour, people who have disabilities, and queer people (Neimanis, 2013). These concerns are particularly relevant to Elizabeth Wilson's work (2015) which engages extensively with biological data and scientific theories. While Wilson's approach has been praised for its interdisciplinary engagement and its challenge to the mind-body dualism that has long dominated Western thought, it also runs the risk of reinforcing the very dualisms and power structures that feminist thinkers have worked so hard to dismantle (Neimanis, 2013). In this context, Wilson's work requires careful consideration and critical engagement from feminist scholars who are committed to developing more nuanced and integrative approaches to embodiment and experience. While acknowledging the potential insights offered by Wilson's engagement with biological data, feminist thinkers must also remain attentive to the ways in which such data can be used to oppress and marginalise certain groups. As such, any engagement with biological and scientific thought in feminist theory must be accompanied by a critical interrogation of the power structures and assumptions that underlie such thought, and a commitment to developing more inclusive and liberatory approaches to embodiment and experience.
Wilson's work (2015) draws on a range of empirical evidence from various fields, including neuroscience, physiology, and microbiology, to support her arguments about the role of the gut in shaping human experience. However, the extent and nature of this evidence have been a subject of debate among scholars engaging with her work. Wilson (2015) cites numerous scientific studies and findings to illustrate the complex interactions between the gut, the brain, and the rest of the body. For example, she discusses research on the enteric nervous system (ENS), the role of gut microbes in influencing mood and behaviour, and the connection between gastrointestinal disorders and mental health conditions (Wilson, 2015). However, some critics have argued that the empirical evidence presented in her 2015 work is limited or anecdotal, and that Wilson's theory relies heavily on speculative or theoretical arguments. For instance, in her review of the book, Rebekah Sheldon suggests that while Wilson's work is "theoretically generative," it "sometimes lacks the empirical heft to fully substantiate its claims" (Sheldon, 2017, p. 238). Angela Willey (2016) provides a more detailed critique of the empirical evidence of Wilson’s (2015) Work. Willey acknowledges that Wilson's engagement with scientific research on the gut-brain connection is innovative and thought-provoking. However, she also points out that much of this research is still in its early stages, and that the conclusions drawn from these studies are often tentative or speculative (Willey, 2016). Willey argues that while the gut-brain connection is a promising area of inquiry for feminist theory, more robust empirical research is needed to fully understand the implications of this relationship. She suggests that future studies should employ more rigorous methodologies, larger sample sizes, and longitudinal designs to provide a more comprehensive understanding of how the gut influences human experience and behaviour (Willey, 2016). Furthermore, Willey cautions against uncritically accepting scientific findings without considering the social, cultural, and political contexts in which they are produced. She emphasises the need for feminist scholars to engage critically with scientific research and to interrogate the assumptions and biases that may underlie such work (Willey, 2016). Despite these critiques, Wiley praises Wilson’s work for its innovative approach to feminist theory and its engagement with cutting-edge scientific research. While the empirical evidence presented in the book may not be exhaustive, it does provide a compelling foundation for Wilson's arguments and opens up new avenues for feminist inquiry into embodiment and experience. As the field continues to develop, it will be important to develop more sophisticated methodologies and research designs for testing the claims of the biological unconscious theory and for integrating its insights with other approaches to understanding the complexity of human experience.
The critiques of Elizabeth Wilson's biological unconscious theory raised by scholars such as Hird (2018) and Willey (2016) highlight the need for a more integrative and politically engaged approach to understanding the relationship between biology and culture. As Deboleena Roy (2018) argues that while Wilson's theory offers important insights into the entanglement of biology and culture, it may not fully grapple with the political and ethical implications of this entanglement. Roy (2018) suggests that feminist engagements with biology must go beyond simply acknowledging the role of biological factors in shaping human experience and must also consider the ways in which these factors are shaped by and implicated in broader structures of power and inequality. This means taking seriously the ways in which biological research and biotechnologies are embedded in histories of colonialism, racism, and other forms of oppression, and considering how feminist theories and practices can work to challenge and transform these histories (Roy, 2018). One potential direction for future research in this area is to develop more nuanced and context-specific understandings of the relationship between biology and culture, ones that take seriously the ways in which these factors intersect with other dimensions of social and political life (Roy, 2018). This might involve, for example, examining how the biological unconscious operates differently in different cultural and historical contexts, or exploring how it is shaped by factors such as race, class, and disability (Hird, 2018; Willey, 2016).
In conclusion, Elizabeth Wilson's biological unconscious theory offers a provocative and generative framework for understanding the complex relationship between biology and culture (Wilson, 2015). By challenging the mind-body dualism that has long characterised Western thought and emphasising the ways in which biological factors such as the enteric nervous system and the gut-brain axis shape human experience, Wilson's theory opens up new possibilities for feminist and queer engagements with the body and the mind (Woudstra, 2017). However, as critics like Hird (2018) and Willey (2016) have pointed out, Wilson's approach also risks reinforcing biological determinism if not carefully framed within a broader social and political context. To fully realise the potential of the biological unconscious theory, feminist scholars must grapple with the complex social and political realities in which this entanglement of biology and culture is embedded, and engage critically with the ethical and political implications of our evolving understandings of the body and the mind (Roy, 2018). Only by developing more integrative and transformative approaches that take seriously the intersections of biology, culture, and power can we hope to advance a truly liberatory feminist politics of embodiment and experience.