Fai clic su di un'immagine per andare a Google Ricerca Libri.
Sto caricando le informazioni... Nature's Body: Gender in the Making of Modern Science (1993)di Londa Schiebinger
Nessuno Sto caricando le informazioni...
Iscriviti per consentire a LibraryThing di scoprire se ti piacerà questo libro. Attualmente non vi sono conversazioni su questo libro. nessuna recensione | aggiungi una recensione
Premi e riconoscimenti
Winner of the Ludwik Fleck Book Prize, Society for Social Studies of Science, 1995 Eighteenth-century natural historians created a peculiar, and peculiarly durable, vision of nature--one that embodied the sexual and racial tensions of that era. When plants were found to reproduce sexually, eighteenth-century botanists ascribed to them passionate relations, polyandrous marriages, and suicidal incest, and accounts of steamy plant sex began to infiltrate the botanical literature of the day. Naturalists also turned their attention to the great apes just becoming known to eighteenth-century Europeans, clothing the females in silk vestments and training them to sip tea with the modest demeanor of English matrons, while imagining the males of the species fully capable of ravishing women. Written with humor and meticulous detail, Nature's Body draws on these and other examples to uncover the ways in which assumptions about gender, sex, and race have shaped scientific explanations of nature. Schiebinger offers a rich cultural history of science and a timely and passionate argument that science must be restructured in order to get it right. Non sono state trovate descrizioni di biblioteche |
Discussioni correntiNessunoCopertine popolari
Google Books — Sto caricando le informazioni... GeneriSistema Decimale Melvil (DDC)574.094Natural sciences and mathematics Life Sciences, Biology Biology Biography; History By Place EuropeClassificazione LCVotoMedia:
Sei tu?Diventa un autore di LibraryThing. |
Examining Linnaeus’ taxonomy of plants, Schiebinger writes, “Linnaeus simply brought traditional notions of gender hierarchy whole cloth into science. He read nature through the lens of social relations in such a way that the new language of botany incorporated fundamental aspects of the social world as much as those of the natural world” (pg. 17). Further, “differences between the two sexes were reflections of a set of dualistic principles which penetrated the cosmos as well as the bodies of men and women” (pg. 38). Examining the classification of mammalia, Schiebinger writes, “Linnaeus created his term Mammalia in response to the question of humans’ place in nature. In his quest to find an appropriate term for (what we would call) a taxon uniting humans and beasts, Linnaeus made the breast – and specifically the fully developed female breast – the icon of the highest class of animals” (pg. 53). Schiebinger continues, “Early accounts of anthropoid apes pouring into Europe in this period often told more about European customs than about the natural habits of apes” (pg. 76). She writes, “By and large, female sexual organs were studied in order to highlight the animal side of human life. In some instances woman’s sexual organs were said to link her directly to apes” (pg. 89). In terms of race, Schiebinger writes, “For European anatomists, blacks were exotic. But, as we shall see, to men of the academy, European women were in many ways just as exotic” (pg. 116). Much of their taxonomic studies took into account aesthetics, classifying race based on ideas of beauty. Schiebinger writes, “The consolidation of the (predominately male) medical profession coincided with a scientific revolution in definitions of sex and the development of a new image of women as essentially nonscientific. It also coincided with the revolution in definitions of race and the attempt to ground scientifically the exclusion of men of color from science” (pg. 142). Schiebinger further writes, “Scientific racism and scientific sexism both taught that proper social relations between the races and the sexes existed in nature. Many theorists failed to see, however, that their notions of racial and sexual relations rested on contradictory visions of nature” (pg. 146). Additionally, “Racial science interrogated males and male physiology, while sexual science scrutinized European subjects” (pg. 146). In this way, “Naturalists did not draw their research priorities and conclusions from a quiet contemplation of nature, but from political currents of their times” (pg. 183). ( )