FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2022576500> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2022576500 endingPage "126" @default.
• W2022576500 startingPage "104" @default.
• W2022576500 abstract "Technology Knows Best: The Cultural Work of Hospital Birth in 21st Century Film Jennifer Ellis West (bio) In 2007, three films that each received some measure of critical and box-office success drew their narrative drive from the events surrounding unexpected pregnancy. Jason Reitman and Diablo Cody’s indie-turned-major release Juno, which won an Academy Award in 2008 for Best Original Screenplay, focuses on a teenage girl and her decision to give her baby up for adoption; Judd Apatow’s mainstream box office hit, Knocked Up, explores unexpected parenthood for an unlikely pair in their twenties, largely from the father’s point of view; and Adrienne Shelly’s less popular but widely reviewed independent film, Waitress, follows an unhappily married woman through an unwanted pregnancy in the small-town South. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in the same year these films were released, more babies were born to American women than ever before, the first time the birth rate had exceeded the baby boom, which peaked in 1957. The data from that report generated considerable media attention. Two of the most reported statistics include the 31.8 percent of women who gave birth by cesarean section, the highest percentage ever, and the continued increase in birth rates for teens and unmarried women in their twenties and thirties.1 The connection between the latter statistics and media representations of unplanned pregnancy—not just in these films, but also in the celebrity narratives of Jamie Lyn Spears and Bristol Palin, television series like The Secret Life of the American Teenager, and the news coverage of the so-called “pregnancy pact” at a high school in Massachusetts—made its circuit around the mainstream media and the blogosphere. Thanks to a series of related news stories speculating on this connection, one can now find a Wikipedia entry for the “Juno Effect.”2 What has gone virtually undiscussed, and what I will take up in this article, is the [End Page 104] relationship between these on-screen representations of pregnancy and the implications of the first statistic: the increasing reliance on medical technology in childbirth. Cultural studies scholars, of course, have been arguing for decades that popular representation has a weighty effect on material life. Stuart Hall has called this process the “cultural circuit.” He writes that representation, especially through mass media, is one way meanings are produced in a culture, and through the interpretation and consumption of such representations, “our material interests and our bodies can be called to account, and differently implicated, depending on how meaning is given and taken, constructed and interpreted in different situations.”3 Teasing out how this process operates is especially important for those working to critique and intervene in debates about science and medicine; not only does much of what the public learns about those disciplines come in the form of popular media, but as a number of scholars in science and medicine studies have argued, the institutions of science and medicine themselves are also being shaped by mainstream representation. Leslie J. Reagan, Nancy Tomes, and Paula A. Treichler’s recent collection, Medicine’s Moving Pictures, for instance, is based on the simple notion that the public has always learned about health, bodies, disease, and medicine from watching television and films. They contend that a “symbiotic relationship” between medicine and mass media enables such representations to exert a significant influence on “health-related public debates and controversies.”4 Susan Merrill Squier, in her work on reproductive technologies, has also argued that fictional representations of science and medicine serve an epistemological function, as they are shaped by scientific knowledge, and in turn, are shaping what we know and what is possible to know. In fact, for Squier, literature and science are always working together to produce knowledge: “Whenever we see literature (culturally scripted as the domain of subjectivity), we should expect that there’s also science (the culturally accepted home of objectivity). For literature and science operate together in culture and society to produce subjects and objects.”5 The kind of literary text I’m focusing on here is the visual narrative of film, but what interests me in Squier’s reciprocal..." @default.
• W2022576500 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2022576500 creator A5085443336 @default.
• W2022576500 date "2011-01-01" @default.
• W2022576500 modified "2023-10-15" @default.
• W2022576500 title "Technology Knows Best: The Cultural Work of Hospital Birth in 21<sup xmlns:m=http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML xmlns:mml=http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML xmlns:xlink=http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink>st</sup> Century Film" @default.
• W2022576500 cites W1486961958 @default.
• W2022576500 cites W1520387187 @default.
• W2022576500 cites W1527389313 @default.
• W2022576500 cites W1546438406 @default.
• W2022576500 cites W1603664960 @default.
• W2022576500 cites W1970569454 @default.
• W2022576500 cites W1985356369 @default.
• W2022576500 cites W1996307874 @default.
• W2022576500 cites W2000735354 @default.
• W2022576500 cites W2010036628 @default.
• W2022576500 cites W2017655128 @default.
• W2022576500 cites W2021321226 @default.
• W2022576500 cites W2045782212 @default.
• W2022576500 cites W2047693288 @default.
• W2022576500 cites W2053575717 @default.
• W2022576500 cites W2058881529 @default.
• W2022576500 cites W2073696963 @default.
• W2022576500 cites W2088403760 @default.
• W2022576500 cites W2334404270 @default.
• W2022576500 cites W2416507653 @default.
• W2022576500 cites W2795506461 @default.
• W2022576500 cites W2796775257 @default.
• W2022576500 cites W2799190929 @default.
• W2022576500 cites W2802563204 @default.
• W2022576500 cites W2972852846 @default.
• W2022576500 cites W560708041 @default.
• W2022576500 cites W590173024 @default.
• W2022576500 cites W597070690 @default.
• W2022576500 cites W641283760 @default.
• W2022576500 cites W652582666 @default.
• W2022576500 cites W652875379 @default.
• W2022576500 cites W3184487708 @default.
• W2022576500 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/lm.2011.0307" @default.
• W2022576500 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21954665" @default.
• W2022576500 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W2022576500 type Work @default.
• W2022576500 sameAs 2022576500 @default.
• W2022576500 citedByCount "6" @default.
• W2022576500 countsByYear W20225765002016 @default.
• W2022576500 countsByYear W20225765002017 @default.
• W2022576500 countsByYear W20225765002019 @default.
• W2022576500 countsByYear W20225765002020 @default.
• W2022576500 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2022576500 hasAuthorship W2022576500A5085443336 @default.
• W2022576500 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W2022576500 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2022576500 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2022576500 hasConcept C149923435 @default.
• W2022576500 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2022576500 hasConcept C199033989 @default.
• W2022576500 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2022576500 hasConcept C2776444593 @default.
• W2022576500 hasConcept C2777617010 @default.
• W2022576500 hasConcept C2908647359 @default.
• W2022576500 hasConcept C29595303 @default.
• W2022576500 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2022576500 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2022576500 hasConceptScore W2022576500C124952713 @default.
• W2022576500 hasConceptScore W2022576500C142362112 @default.
• W2022576500 hasConceptScore W2022576500C144024400 @default.
• W2022576500 hasConceptScore W2022576500C149923435 @default.
• W2022576500 hasConceptScore W2022576500C17744445 @default.
• W2022576500 hasConceptScore W2022576500C199033989 @default.
• W2022576500 hasConceptScore W2022576500C199539241 @default.
• W2022576500 hasConceptScore W2022576500C2776444593 @default.
• W2022576500 hasConceptScore W2022576500C2777617010 @default.
• W2022576500 hasConceptScore W2022576500C2908647359 @default.
• W2022576500 hasConceptScore W2022576500C29595303 @default.
• W2022576500 hasConceptScore W2022576500C71924100 @default.
• W2022576500 hasConceptScore W2022576500C95457728 @default.
• W2022576500 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2022576500 hasLocation W20225765001 @default.
• W2022576500 hasLocation W20225765002 @default.
• W2022576500 hasOpenAccess W2022576500 @default.
• W2022576500 hasPrimaryLocation W20225765001 @default.
• W2022576500 hasRelatedWork W1583826057 @default.
• W2022576500 hasRelatedWork W2101450440 @default.
• W2022576500 hasRelatedWork W2278675928 @default.
• W2022576500 hasRelatedWork W2352463596 @default.
• W2022576500 hasRelatedWork W2360099860 @default.
• W2022576500 hasRelatedWork W2377237701 @default.
• W2022576500 hasRelatedWork W2380850119 @default.
• W2022576500 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2022576500 hasRelatedWork W567472484 @default.
• W2022576500 hasRelatedWork W2886761502 @default.
• W2022576500 hasVolume "29" @default.
• W2022576500 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2022576500 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2022576500 magId "2022576500" @default.
• W2022576500 workType "article" @default.