FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2591775805> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2591775805 endingPage "149" @default.
• W2591775805 startingPage "133" @default.
• W2591775805 abstract "The Time Travellers:Alfred Russel Wallace and Peter Kropotkin Kathleen Lowrey (bio) introduction Alfred Russel Wallace and Peter Kropotkin both enjoyed enormous reputations that were built in the nineteenth century and steadily shrank during the twentieth. Each was eclipsed during the twentieth century by a counterpart who was in some respects a rival and in others a comrade: Charles Darwin for Wallace, Karl Marx for Kropotkin. In each case, Wallace and Kropotkin were not simply overshadowed but quite specifically ridiculed and for much the same reason: the gentleness and the sentimentality of their biopolitical1 vision. I will examine here why it is that Wallace and Kropotkin have now “time travelled,” both seeming to be nineteenth-century figures surprisingly fitted for the early twenty-first century in the same measure that they were elbowed out of the twentieth. The fond and bemused manner of Wallace’s and Kropotkin’s relegation—the way critics have acknowledged the admirable aspects of their minds and lives while simultaneously dismissing them as unserious—is familiar and evocative in its gendered stereotypy, for all that it divides one pair of gloriously bearded Victorian gentlemen from another such duo of hirsute patriarchs. The favourable re-evaluation of Wallace and Kropotkin over the last decade or so is correlated with the impact of feminism on both politics and scholarship. In the present essay, I draw upon feminist literary analyses of the rise and fall of sentimental literature (often written by and for women) across the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, using these to illuminate the pervasiveness and force of the divide that separated Wallace from Darwin and Kropotkin from Marx during the twentieth century. In so doing, I hope to persuade the reader of the gendered nature of the divergent posthumous fates of each pair in this quartet of bewhiskered old beans. Understanding this divide helps to explain why their relative positional supremacy is currently under revision. A political and scientific conversation began during the nineteenth century in which only some of the parties seemed to continue speaking during much of the twentieth. Now in the twenty-first, however, a sort of belated rejoinder is crossing the threshold of societal and scientific audibility. Despite enjoying simultaneous popular, scholarly, and scientific influence in the nineteenth and into the first years of the twentieth century, by the end of [End Page 133] the twentieth century, both Wallace and Kropotkin were characterized as well-meaning but misguided eminences whose contributions to science and politics were marred by a moony faith in the benignity of the ultimate order of things, which could not be credibly sustained in the face of the manifest scientific and political evidence accrued in the years since their deaths (1913 for Wallace, 1921 for Kropotkin). Darwin and Marx, though rather older and thus sooner dead (1882 and 1883, respectively) emerged as the real visionaries: hard and serious analysts, each with a keen eye for the cheerless practical and utilitarian facts underlying life in its strictly biological and its complex social manifestations. That these characterizations map so neatly onto gender stereotypes cannot but excite a certain disquieted awareness on the part of anyone with any bent toward feminism, and my own twig certainly inclines thus. But, on their own, they do not suggest anything about the vector of causality. I will argue here that Kropotkin and Wallace ended up sidelined for so many years because their analyses invoked dynamics coded as feminine and thus were dismissed (scientific and political merit very much aside) as unserious. However, in the absence of other kinds of evidence, it would be equally possible to posit that Wallace and Kropotkin lost on the scientific and political merits and then, as losers, were coded as feminine because of the sexism of the larger social context. I will argue that the second causal chain is wrong in this case, though to argue for it could also produce a feminist analysis. I belabour this point because it is often supposed that the deployment of a feminist intellectual apparatus means only certain kinds of causal relationships will be entertained. This supposition is not true, and its falsity is relevant to questions in the sociology of science that..." @default.
• W2591775805 created "2017-03-16" @default.
• W2591775805 creator A5061988561 @default.
• W2591775805 date "2015-01-01" @default.
• W2591775805 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2591775805 title "The Time Travellers: Alfred Russel Wallace and Peter Kropotkin" @default.
• W2591775805 cites W1480587170 @default.
• W2591775805 cites W1533612502 @default.
• W2591775805 cites W1546507879 @default.
• W2591775805 cites W1588146270 @default.
• W2591775805 cites W1608608161 @default.
• W2591775805 cites W1749718721 @default.
• W2591775805 cites W1990859186 @default.
• W2591775805 cites W2007179619 @default.
• W2591775805 cites W2015476475 @default.
• W2591775805 cites W2020427682 @default.
• W2591775805 cites W2060014068 @default.
• W2591775805 cites W2083696188 @default.
• W2591775805 cites W2156296918 @default.
• W2591775805 cites W2164113877 @default.
• W2591775805 cites W2294964883 @default.
• W2591775805 cites W563701859 @default.
• W2591775805 cites W606705454 @default.
• W2591775805 cites W2288613773 @default.
• W2591775805 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/vcr.2015.0004" @default.
• W2591775805 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W2591775805 type Work @default.
• W2591775805 sameAs 2591775805 @default.
• W2591775805 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2591775805 countsByYear W25917758052022 @default.
• W2591775805 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2591775805 hasAuthorship W2591775805A5061988561 @default.
• W2591775805 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W2591775805 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2591775805 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2591775805 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2591775805 hasConcept C2778061430 @default.
• W2591775805 hasConcept C52119013 @default.
• W2591775805 hasConcept C74916050 @default.
• W2591775805 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2591775805 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2591775805 hasConceptScore W2591775805C124952713 @default.
• W2591775805 hasConceptScore W2591775805C142362112 @default.
• W2591775805 hasConceptScore W2591775805C17744445 @default.
• W2591775805 hasConceptScore W2591775805C199539241 @default.
• W2591775805 hasConceptScore W2591775805C2778061430 @default.
• W2591775805 hasConceptScore W2591775805C52119013 @default.
• W2591775805 hasConceptScore W2591775805C74916050 @default.
• W2591775805 hasConceptScore W2591775805C94625758 @default.
• W2591775805 hasConceptScore W2591775805C95457728 @default.
• W2591775805 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2591775805 hasLocation W25917758051 @default.
• W2591775805 hasOpenAccess W2591775805 @default.
• W2591775805 hasPrimaryLocation W25917758051 @default.
• W2591775805 hasRelatedWork W1932206522 @default.
• W2591775805 hasRelatedWork W2042258497 @default.
• W2591775805 hasRelatedWork W2047378000 @default.
• W2591775805 hasRelatedWork W2112457552 @default.
• W2591775805 hasRelatedWork W2153026786 @default.
• W2591775805 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2591775805 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2591775805 hasRelatedWork W2903772597 @default.
• W2591775805 hasRelatedWork W4321369465 @default.
• W2591775805 hasRelatedWork W945337578 @default.
• W2591775805 hasVolume "41" @default.
• W2591775805 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2591775805 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2591775805 magId "2591775805" @default.
• W2591775805 workType "article" @default.