摘要:

AbstractThe objective mode of scientific inquiry has increasingly been called into question especially within feminist theory. I have tried to introduce two methodological approaches in examing a small area of medical opinion‐making in the medical press at a period in which the question of women doctors was being discussed, but very few women doctors were actually practicing in Germany. Methodologically feminist history sees gender as a structural component used to ascribe sexual division of labour and to form concepts of “masculinity” and “femininity” in a society. It does not define “women's history” as a separate sphere additive to other traditional areas of historical writing including history of science. The second methodological approach is that of deconstruction: “objective” statements in medicine and the biological sciences are part of social and cultural preconceptions. I have examined the pattern of unreflected scientific statements about women's claims to want to become doctors. The pattern is one of preventive prejudice: representative doctors wrote about women in physiological and biological terms of being “weak” and “unfit”. This was an effective strategy for maintaining a status quo of dequalification. The historical examination of women entering the professions has not so much to do with their own capacities, but rather with socially conceived forms of argumentation indirectly applied: preventive statements in medicine about biological function, the “weaker” sex, intellectual denigration, physiological determinism. Some of the statements I found are amusing, but the humour becomes bitter when the consequences e

ISSN:0170-6233    

DOI:10.1002/bewi.19870100402

出版商:WILEY‐VCH Verlag    

年代:1987

数据来源: WILEY

ISSN:0170-6233    

DOI:10.1002/bewi.19870100403

出版商:WILEY‐VCH Verlag    

年代:1987

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

AbstractNaturbildung, written by B. H. Blasche in 1815, seems a typical philanthropic study about science education private organized. But it also demonstrates romantic philosophy influences, which led at least from describing natural history to biology. There was no success in Blasche's reformatory efforts: first reason because the idea of private education‐institution was out of discussion. Second reason was, on the way to stateorganized schoolsystem in Germany classic philology dominated and repressed deeply science educatio

ISSN:0170-6233    

DOI:10.1002/bewi.19870100404

出版商:WILEY‐VCH Verlag    

年代:1987

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

AbstractThis paper poses the question of the place of rhetoric as a discipline. It addresses the topical demand that nature, art, and exercise have to be combined by way of an analysis of Isocrates'Against the Sophists. Its thesis is that the call for a “combination” of art and nature solves the disciplinary problems of rhetoric, even though such a synthesis is in fact inconceivable. Rhetoric is not a science, and does not have access to a methodical correlation of rhetorical strategies and their effects upon the audience. Isocrates' criticism of those rhetoricians who assume that their art could be taught in much the same way as the art of writing is of paramount importance here. The case of Isocrates is instructive because it shows how rhetorical success depends on re‐designing the institutional structure of rhetoric and on the capacity to cope with its lack of methodical knowledge. As a result of its para‐scientific nature, rhetoric refers to various models and metaphors to present itself as a discipline. Of these theorator perfectus, theorator imperfectus, and the sophist model of the art of writing as criticized by Isocrates are discussed. This paper attempts a rhetorical reading of the discourse of rhetoric by exploring the implications of these metaphors. At the same time it argues for a history of science which does not shrink away from an analysis of such para‐sciences as rhetoric. It is precisely the lacking scientificity of rhetoric as a discipline which warrants increased attention from the point of view of the history o

ISSN:0170-6233    

DOI:10.1002/bewi.19870100405

出版商:WILEY‐VCH Verlag    

年代:1987

数据来源: WILEY

ISSN:0170-6233    

DOI:10.1002/bewi.19870100406

出版商:WILEY‐VCH Verlag    

年代:1987

数据来源: WILEY

ISSN:0170-6233    

DOI:10.1002/bewi.19870100407

出版商:WILEY‐VCH Verlag    

年代:1987

数据来源: WILEY

ISSN:0170-6233    

DOI:10.1002/bewi.19870100408

出版商:WILEY‐VCH Verlag    

年代:1987

数据来源: WILEY

ISSN:0170-6233    

DOI:10.1002/bewi.19870100409

出版商:WILEY‐VCH Verlag    

年代:1987

数据来源: WILEY

ISSN:0170-6233    

DOI:10.1002/bewi.19870100410

出版商:WILEY‐VCH Verlag    

年代:1987

数据来源: WILEY

ISSN:0170-6233    

DOI:10.1002/bewi.19870100411

出版商:WILEY‐VCH Verlag    

年代:1987

数据来源: WILEY