FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2011796629> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2011796629 endingPage "138" @default.
• W2011796629 startingPage "135" @default.
• W2011796629 abstract "[Gender and Early-Modern Science Cluster] Introduction Mary Terrall (bio) No one in the academy today can be unaware of the rising tide of gender studies. History of science has come rather late to paying serious attention to this trend. The following papers were written for a workshop at the William A. Clark Library in Los Angeles in February 1994, exploring the uses of gender analysis specifically for the history of early modern science. In organizing the workshop, I was inspired by Joan Scott’s seminal article “Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis,” in which she suggested ways of bringing gender into discussions of power, culture, and politics that seemed to have obvious implications for the study of science. 1 Gender, Scott points out, can serve a legitimizing function because of the ways it is used to signify difference. Gender relations have to do with power differentials, but often in more nuanced ways than simply opposing dominator to oppressed, or included to excluded. If we take Scott’s point that gender has been used to express any number of meanings, we can begin to investigate how science and its practitioners have been defined in gendered terms. Since the pioneering work of Carolyn Merchant and Evelyn Fox Keller, historians attentive to issues of gender in early modern science have taken one of two approaches. 2 Some efforts have been [End Page 135] made to identify contributions by women outside the canon, which has had the salutary effect of shifting definitions of what counts as doing science. The other approach has been to analyze the treatment of women’s bodies and minds as objects of scientific investigation. 3 Londa Schiebinger followed both these lines in her influential book The Mind Has No Sex? 4 Now that a certain amount of groundbreaking work has been done, I think we can cast our nets more widely, looking for evidence of how gendered categories work to define scientific practices as well as ideas. This means looking more generally at the complex meanings and values of gendered terms. As Ludmilla Jordanova has remarked, “Gender is emphatically not another way of talking about women.” 5 If women were largely absent from early modern science, gender was not. Defining the culture and practice of science as the province of men meant manipulating and refining concepts of masculinity and femininity. These concepts could also be used to subvert the status quo. For the historian there remains the tricky problem of how to recover definitions and uses of gender for local contexts. Retrieving gendered meanings from the historical record, especially when they are not transparently about sex, requires interpretation. In old- regime Europe, gender was clearly not the only hierarchy of power operating. Indeed, some historians have argued that difference in this period was marked predominantly by class, and that only with the French Revolution, with its rhetoric of universality, freedom, and equality, did gender become a primary marker of domination and submission. 6 But, however the modes of representing gender difference changed with the Revolution, those markers were certainly at work earlier, along with distinctions of class rank. The following papers examine cases from four institutional and national contexts. All the papers address issues associated with how science was practiced and defined in different settings. Part of this, [End Page 136] of course, concerns who practiced it, or who could practice it, and part concerns how practitioners justified and represented what they were doing. While avoiding the trap of using gender as a totalizing explanation for science, we attempt in various ways to show where and how gender operated in the development of scientific ideas, institutions, and practices. In the course of making knowledge about nature, how did individuals and institutions define their identities? And more particularly, how did gender enter into these definitions? Masculinity turns out to have been a key to scientific identity, not surprisingly, but not always in just the same way. Mario Biagioli shows, for example, that among the Lincei, brotherly love was linked to an ideal of undogmatic and freely acquired knowledge. This ideal required freedom from material constraints and physical distractions, especially the desire for women. In attempting to create this rarefied..." @default.
• W2011796629 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2011796629 creator A5025716599 @default.
• W2011796629 date "1995-01-01" @default.
• W2011796629 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2011796629 title "[Gender and Early-Modern Science Cluster] Introduction" @default.
• W2011796629 cites W1988993838 @default.
• W2011796629 cites W2019093947 @default.
• W2011796629 cites W2028159168 @default.
• W2011796629 cites W2056936322 @default.
• W2011796629 cites W2068425252 @default.
• W2011796629 cites W2092495229 @default.
• W2011796629 cites W2128158263 @default.
• W2011796629 cites W2131918978 @default.
• W2011796629 cites W3138484439 @default.
• W2011796629 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/con.1995.0014" @default.
• W2011796629 hasPublicationYear "1995" @default.
• W2011796629 type Work @default.
• W2011796629 sameAs 2011796629 @default.
• W2011796629 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2011796629 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2011796629 hasAuthorship W2011796629A5025716599 @default.
• W2011796629 hasConcept C107993555 @default.
• W2011796629 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2011796629 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2011796629 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2011796629 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2011796629 hasConcept C153651392 @default.
• W2011796629 hasConcept C163258240 @default.
• W2011796629 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2011796629 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2011796629 hasConcept C2776762731 @default.
• W2011796629 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W2011796629 hasConcept C85659524 @default.
• W2011796629 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2011796629 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2011796629 hasConceptScore W2011796629C107993555 @default.
• W2011796629 hasConceptScore W2011796629C111472728 @default.
• W2011796629 hasConceptScore W2011796629C121332964 @default.
• W2011796629 hasConceptScore W2011796629C138885662 @default.
• W2011796629 hasConceptScore W2011796629C144024400 @default.
• W2011796629 hasConceptScore W2011796629C153651392 @default.
• W2011796629 hasConceptScore W2011796629C163258240 @default.
• W2011796629 hasConceptScore W2011796629C17744445 @default.
• W2011796629 hasConceptScore W2011796629C199539241 @default.
• W2011796629 hasConceptScore W2011796629C2776762731 @default.
• W2011796629 hasConceptScore W2011796629C62520636 @default.
• W2011796629 hasConceptScore W2011796629C85659524 @default.
• W2011796629 hasConceptScore W2011796629C94625758 @default.
• W2011796629 hasConceptScore W2011796629C95457728 @default.
• W2011796629 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2011796629 hasLocation W20117966291 @default.
• W2011796629 hasOpenAccess W2011796629 @default.
• W2011796629 hasPrimaryLocation W20117966291 @default.
• W2011796629 hasRelatedWork W1982398341 @default.
• W2011796629 hasRelatedWork W2060423786 @default.
• W2011796629 hasRelatedWork W2073139053 @default.
• W2011796629 hasRelatedWork W2327986918 @default.
• W2011796629 hasRelatedWork W2606457072 @default.
• W2011796629 hasRelatedWork W2965864834 @default.
• W2011796629 hasRelatedWork W3014293527 @default.
• W2011796629 hasRelatedWork W3144581128 @default.
• W2011796629 hasRelatedWork W3156593364 @default.
• W2011796629 hasRelatedWork W3205297375 @default.
• W2011796629 hasVolume "3" @default.
• W2011796629 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2011796629 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2011796629 magId "2011796629" @default.
• W2011796629 workType "article" @default.