证明怀孕:Felicity M. Turner 所著的《十九世纪美国的性别、法律和医学知识》(评论)

IF 0.8 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY
Miriam Rich
{"title":"证明怀孕:Felicity M. Turner 所著的《十九世纪美国的性别、法律和医学知识》(评论)","authors":"Miriam Rich","doi":"10.1353/soh.2024.a925458","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span>\n<p> <span>Reviewed by:</span> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> <em>Proving Pregnancy: Gender, Law, and Medical Knowledge in Nineteenth-Century America</em> by Felicity M. Turner <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Miriam Rich </li> </ul> <em>Proving Pregnancy: Gender, Law, and Medical Knowledge in Nineteenth-Century America</em>. By Felicity M. Turner. Gender and American Culture. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2022. Pp. xviii, 228. Paper, $29.95, ISBN 978-1-4696-6970-0; cloth, $99.00, ISBN 978-1-4696-6969-4.) <p>In <em>Proving Pregnancy: Gender, Law, and Medical Knowledge in Nineteenth-Century America</em>, Felicity M. Turner offers a compelling and innovative examination of infanticide cases in the nineteenth-century United States. Turner persuasively identifies knowledge and authority as key themes in this history, revealing how suspected infanticide cases implicated competing assertions of control over knowledge about bodies and reproduction. Turner frames “[k]nowledge of pregnancy and child birth” as “a form of personal property” that initially belonged to women (p. 8). She argues that this property was later claimed by white male professionals as part of a broader late-nineteenth-century assertion of medical and legal authority over women’s bodies.</p> <p>The opening chapters focus on investigations of infanticide in the first half of the nineteenth century. Turner shows that early-nineteenth-century inquests reflected a widespread recognition of women’s (particularly midwives’ and older married women’s) expertise in the examination and interpretation of bodies and childbearing, though this recognition was modulated by hierarchies of race, class, and familial position. Turner details how white and Black <strong>[End Page 422]</strong> women of varying social and legal statuses participated in investigations of infanticide. While white male physicians also participated in antebellum inquests, they did not hold exclusive authority. The middle chapters shift the focus to broader cultural and political meanings of infanticide. The third chapter charts how competing antebellum narratives of infanticide were deployed both to oppose and to defend slavery, while the fourth chapter explores how popular and legal rhetoric cast infanticide “as a crime associated with Blackness” in the Reconstruction era (p. 106). The last chapters examine the ascendancy of professional medical authority in later nineteenth-century legal settings, exploring how infanticide investigations increasingly privileged “the expertise of white male medical professionals” on matters of pregnancy and childbearing (p. 133). The final chapter analyzes Reconstruction-era assertions of medical authority over the interpretation of women’s bodies and minds.</p> <p>Turner’s archival source base prominently includes nineteenth-century coroners’ inquests and court cases, primarily from Connecticut and North Carolina. These legal records are supplemented by sources from across the nineteenth-century United States, including newspaper articles, pamphlets, and medical literature. Turner reads these sources in impressively robust and nuanced ways, providing vivid and granular insight into how individuals experienced and interpreted pregnancy, childbearing, and infant death in shifting nineteenth-century contexts. She offers a richly multidimensional rendering of this material, attentive to domains of sensory and embodied experience in addition to more abstract legal, social, and political contexts.</p> <p>The book’s central framing of knowledge as property both facilitates and at times constrains intriguing avenues of analysis. Turner uses this framework to bring together critical questions of law, medicine, gender, race, reproduction, and the body in her expansive and multifaceted analysis. Yet even with Turner’s notable efforts to offer nuance and to enlarge conventional notions of property, the analytic of property does not always do justice to the full scope of the book’s material. The book’s richly detailed vignettes of nineteenth-century infanticide cases, interspersed throughout the chapters, skillfully portray on-the-ground processes of knowledge production as collective, dynamic, and diffuse. Even when attributed to a particular individual, knowledge of the body was made and remade through a dense array of social, political, material, and environmental relationships and interactions. But by positioning knowledge as an object owned by a discrete individual or group, the knowledge-as-property framework tends to constrict possibilities for analyzing knowledge of the body as relational and in flux, even as it points toward meaningful new approaches to the legal and intellectual history of property.</p> <p>Overall, <em>Proving Pregnancy</em> makes a valuable contribution to the literature on gender, law, medicine, and reproduction in U.S. history. It will be of interest to scholars and students across...</p> </p>","PeriodicalId":45484,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF SOUTHERN HISTORY","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Proving Pregnancy: Gender, Law, and Medical Knowledge in Nineteenth-Century America by Felicity M. Turner (review)\",\"authors\":\"Miriam Rich\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/soh.2024.a925458\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span>\\n<p> <span>Reviewed by:</span> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> <em>Proving Pregnancy: Gender, Law, and Medical Knowledge in Nineteenth-Century America</em> by Felicity M. Turner <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Miriam Rich </li> </ul> <em>Proving Pregnancy: Gender, Law, and Medical Knowledge in Nineteenth-Century America</em>. By Felicity M. Turner. Gender and American Culture. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2022. Pp. xviii, 228. Paper, $29.95, ISBN 978-1-4696-6970-0; cloth, $99.00, ISBN 978-1-4696-6969-4.) <p>In <em>Proving Pregnancy: Gender, Law, and Medical Knowledge in Nineteenth-Century America</em>, Felicity M. Turner offers a compelling and innovative examination of infanticide cases in the nineteenth-century United States. Turner persuasively identifies knowledge and authority as key themes in this history, revealing how suspected infanticide cases implicated competing assertions of control over knowledge about bodies and reproduction. Turner frames “[k]nowledge of pregnancy and child birth” as “a form of personal property” that initially belonged to women (p. 8). She argues that this property was later claimed by white male professionals as part of a broader late-nineteenth-century assertion of medical and legal authority over women’s bodies.</p> <p>The opening chapters focus on investigations of infanticide in the first half of the nineteenth century. Turner shows that early-nineteenth-century inquests reflected a widespread recognition of women’s (particularly midwives’ and older married women’s) expertise in the examination and interpretation of bodies and childbearing, though this recognition was modulated by hierarchies of race, class, and familial position. Turner details how white and Black <strong>[End Page 422]</strong> women of varying social and legal statuses participated in investigations of infanticide. While white male physicians also participated in antebellum inquests, they did not hold exclusive authority. The middle chapters shift the focus to broader cultural and political meanings of infanticide. The third chapter charts how competing antebellum narratives of infanticide were deployed both to oppose and to defend slavery, while the fourth chapter explores how popular and legal rhetoric cast infanticide “as a crime associated with Blackness” in the Reconstruction era (p. 106). The last chapters examine the ascendancy of professional medical authority in later nineteenth-century legal settings, exploring how infanticide investigations increasingly privileged “the expertise of white male medical professionals” on matters of pregnancy and childbearing (p. 133). The final chapter analyzes Reconstruction-era assertions of medical authority over the interpretation of women’s bodies and minds.</p> <p>Turner’s archival source base prominently includes nineteenth-century coroners’ inquests and court cases, primarily from Connecticut and North Carolina. These legal records are supplemented by sources from across the nineteenth-century United States, including newspaper articles, pamphlets, and medical literature. Turner reads these sources in impressively robust and nuanced ways, providing vivid and granular insight into how individuals experienced and interpreted pregnancy, childbearing, and infant death in shifting nineteenth-century contexts. She offers a richly multidimensional rendering of this material, attentive to domains of sensory and embodied experience in addition to more abstract legal, social, and political contexts.</p> <p>The book’s central framing of knowledge as property both facilitates and at times constrains intriguing avenues of analysis. Turner uses this framework to bring together critical questions of law, medicine, gender, race, reproduction, and the body in her expansive and multifaceted analysis. Yet even with Turner’s notable efforts to offer nuance and to enlarge conventional notions of property, the analytic of property does not always do justice to the full scope of the book’s material. The book’s richly detailed vignettes of nineteenth-century infanticide cases, interspersed throughout the chapters, skillfully portray on-the-ground processes of knowledge production as collective, dynamic, and diffuse. Even when attributed to a particular individual, knowledge of the body was made and remade through a dense array of social, political, material, and environmental relationships and interactions. But by positioning knowledge as an object owned by a discrete individual or group, the knowledge-as-property framework tends to constrict possibilities for analyzing knowledge of the body as relational and in flux, even as it points toward meaningful new approaches to the legal and intellectual history of property.</p> <p>Overall, <em>Proving Pregnancy</em> makes a valuable contribution to the literature on gender, law, medicine, and reproduction in U.S. history. It will be of interest to scholars and students across...</p> </p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45484,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JOURNAL OF SOUTHERN HISTORY\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JOURNAL OF SOUTHERN HISTORY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/soh.2024.a925458\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF SOUTHERN HISTORY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/soh.2024.a925458","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

以下是内容的简要摘录,以代替摘要:审稿人: 证明怀孕:Felicity M. Turner Miriam Rich 《证明怀孕:十九世纪美国的性别、法律和医学知识》:十九世纪美国的性别、法律和医学知识》。作者:Felicity M. Turner。性别与美国文化》。(教堂山:北卡罗来纳大学出版社,2022 年。Pp.纸质版,29.95 美元,ISBN 978-1-4696-6970-0;布质版,99.00 美元,ISBN 978-1-4696-6969-4)。In Proving Pregnancy:在《证明怀孕:19 世纪美国的性别、法律和医学知识》一书中,Felicity M. Turner 对 19 世纪美国的杀婴案件进行了令人信服的创新性研究。特纳令人信服地指出,知识和权威是这段历史的关键主题,揭示了疑似杀婴案件如何牵涉到对身体和生殖知识控制权的竞争主张。特纳将 "怀孕和生育知识 "视为 "一种个人财产",最初属于妇女(第 8 页)。她认为,这种财产后来被白人男性专业人士索取,成为 19 世纪晚期对妇女身体的医学和法律权威的广泛主张的一部分。开篇几章重点介绍了 19 世纪上半叶对杀婴事件的调查。特纳表明,19 世纪早期的死因调查反映出人们普遍承认妇女(尤其是助产士和年长的已婚妇女)在检查和解释身体和生育方面的专业知识,尽管这种承认受到种族、阶级和家庭地位等级制度的制约。特纳详细介绍了不同社会和法律地位的白人和黑人 [第422页完] 妇女是如何参与杀婴调查的。虽然白人男性医生也参与了前贝卢姆时期的死因调查,但他们并不独占权威。中间几章将重点转向杀婴的更广泛的文化和政治含义。第三章描绘了前贝卢姆时期关于杀婴的相互竞争的叙述是如何被用来反对和维护奴隶制的,而第四章则探讨了在重建时期,大众和法律修辞是如何将杀婴 "作为一种与黑人相关的罪行 "的(第 106 页)。最后几章研究了专业医学权威在 19 世纪后期法律环境中的上升,探讨了杀婴调查如何在怀孕和生育问题上日益享有 "白人男性医学专业人员的专业知识 "的特权(第 133 页)。最后一章分析了重建时期对妇女身心解释的医学权威主张。特纳的档案资料主要包括 19 世纪验尸官的验尸报告和法庭案例,主要来自康涅狄格州和北卡罗来纳州。除这些法律记录外,还有来自 19 世纪美国各地的资料,包括报纸文章、小册子和医学文献。特纳对这些资料进行了深入细致的解读,生动而细致地揭示了在十九世纪不断变化的背景下,个人是如何体验和解释怀孕、生育和婴儿死亡的。她对这些材料进行了丰富的多维解读,除了更抽象的法律、社会和政治背景外,还关注了感官和身体体验领域。本书的核心框架是将知识视为财产,这既促进了分析,有时又限制了引人入胜的分析途径。特纳利用这一框架将法律、医学、性别、种族、生殖和身体等关键问题汇集到她广博而多层面的分析中。然而,即使特纳在提供细微差别和扩大传统财产概念方面做出了显著努力,对财产的分析并不总能公正地反映出本书材料的全部范围。书中穿插的 19 世纪杀婴案件的小故事内容丰富详实,巧妙地将知识生产的实地过程描绘成集体的、动态的和分散的。即使归属于某个特定的个人,有关身体的知识也是通过一系列密集的社会、政治、物质和环境关系与互动来创造和重塑的。但是,知识即财产的框架将知识定位为离散的个人或群体所拥有的客体,往往会限制将身体知识作为关系性和流动性知识进行分析的可能性,即使它为财产的法律和知识史指出了有意义的新方法。总之,《证明怀孕》为美国历史上有关性别、法律、医学和生殖的文献做出了宝贵的贡献。它将引起不同领域的学者和学生的兴趣。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Proving Pregnancy: Gender, Law, and Medical Knowledge in Nineteenth-Century America by Felicity M. Turner (review)
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:

  • Proving Pregnancy: Gender, Law, and Medical Knowledge in Nineteenth-Century America by Felicity M. Turner
  • Miriam Rich
Proving Pregnancy: Gender, Law, and Medical Knowledge in Nineteenth-Century America. By Felicity M. Turner. Gender and American Culture. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2022. Pp. xviii, 228. Paper, $29.95, ISBN 978-1-4696-6970-0; cloth, $99.00, ISBN 978-1-4696-6969-4.)

In Proving Pregnancy: Gender, Law, and Medical Knowledge in Nineteenth-Century America, Felicity M. Turner offers a compelling and innovative examination of infanticide cases in the nineteenth-century United States. Turner persuasively identifies knowledge and authority as key themes in this history, revealing how suspected infanticide cases implicated competing assertions of control over knowledge about bodies and reproduction. Turner frames “[k]nowledge of pregnancy and child birth” as “a form of personal property” that initially belonged to women (p. 8). She argues that this property was later claimed by white male professionals as part of a broader late-nineteenth-century assertion of medical and legal authority over women’s bodies.

The opening chapters focus on investigations of infanticide in the first half of the nineteenth century. Turner shows that early-nineteenth-century inquests reflected a widespread recognition of women’s (particularly midwives’ and older married women’s) expertise in the examination and interpretation of bodies and childbearing, though this recognition was modulated by hierarchies of race, class, and familial position. Turner details how white and Black [End Page 422] women of varying social and legal statuses participated in investigations of infanticide. While white male physicians also participated in antebellum inquests, they did not hold exclusive authority. The middle chapters shift the focus to broader cultural and political meanings of infanticide. The third chapter charts how competing antebellum narratives of infanticide were deployed both to oppose and to defend slavery, while the fourth chapter explores how popular and legal rhetoric cast infanticide “as a crime associated with Blackness” in the Reconstruction era (p. 106). The last chapters examine the ascendancy of professional medical authority in later nineteenth-century legal settings, exploring how infanticide investigations increasingly privileged “the expertise of white male medical professionals” on matters of pregnancy and childbearing (p. 133). The final chapter analyzes Reconstruction-era assertions of medical authority over the interpretation of women’s bodies and minds.

Turner’s archival source base prominently includes nineteenth-century coroners’ inquests and court cases, primarily from Connecticut and North Carolina. These legal records are supplemented by sources from across the nineteenth-century United States, including newspaper articles, pamphlets, and medical literature. Turner reads these sources in impressively robust and nuanced ways, providing vivid and granular insight into how individuals experienced and interpreted pregnancy, childbearing, and infant death in shifting nineteenth-century contexts. She offers a richly multidimensional rendering of this material, attentive to domains of sensory and embodied experience in addition to more abstract legal, social, and political contexts.

The book’s central framing of knowledge as property both facilitates and at times constrains intriguing avenues of analysis. Turner uses this framework to bring together critical questions of law, medicine, gender, race, reproduction, and the body in her expansive and multifaceted analysis. Yet even with Turner’s notable efforts to offer nuance and to enlarge conventional notions of property, the analytic of property does not always do justice to the full scope of the book’s material. The book’s richly detailed vignettes of nineteenth-century infanticide cases, interspersed throughout the chapters, skillfully portray on-the-ground processes of knowledge production as collective, dynamic, and diffuse. Even when attributed to a particular individual, knowledge of the body was made and remade through a dense array of social, political, material, and environmental relationships and interactions. But by positioning knowledge as an object owned by a discrete individual or group, the knowledge-as-property framework tends to constrict possibilities for analyzing knowledge of the body as relational and in flux, even as it points toward meaningful new approaches to the legal and intellectual history of property.

Overall, Proving Pregnancy makes a valuable contribution to the literature on gender, law, medicine, and reproduction in U.S. history. It will be of interest to scholars and students across...

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
220
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信