采用“不学习”技术?1968年后的法国,关于分娩药物镇痛的知识之争

Q1 Social Sciences
Sezin Topçu
{"title":"采用“不学习”技术?1968年后的法国,关于分娩药物镇痛的知识之争","authors":"Sezin Topçu","doi":"10.1016/j.rbms.2021.03.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>With a national rate of 82.4%, France is currently one of the world’s leading users of epidural analgesia (EA), which is promoted not just as a pain reliever but also as a technology that makes childbirth safer. Drawing on analytical tools from science and technology studies, reproductive studies and ignorance studies, I will show how this obstetric drug came to be widely used after significant knowledge/ignorance battles had been fought during heated public and medical controversy in the 1970s. Different visions of the ‘knowns’, the ‘unknowns’ and ‘know-how’ came into conflict in this context, supported by a series of moral, political and feminist justifications that were often at odds with one another. While the defenders of natural birth clashed with feminists, created ambiguities around conceptions of the maternal body, and struggled to produce large-scale clinical knowledge on the risks of EA, the defenders of EA put forward technological promises and biomedical modernization as a means to outstrip the knowledge wars. In the aftermath of this epistemic battle, EA was to gradually become an ‘unlearner’ technology; that is, a modern tool that radically silenced the maternal body and led to denial, disregard or unawareness of a whole range of shared and alternative knowledges and ‘know-how’ relating to female physiology and the birth process that are free of pharmaceutical products and medical interventions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37973,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online","volume":"13 ","pages":"Pages 1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.rbms.2021.03.002","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Adopting an ‘unlearner’ technology? Knowledge battles over pharmaceutical pain relief in childbirth in post-1968 France\",\"authors\":\"Sezin Topçu\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.rbms.2021.03.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>With a national rate of 82.4%, France is currently one of the world’s leading users of epidural analgesia (EA), which is promoted not just as a pain reliever but also as a technology that makes childbirth safer. Drawing on analytical tools from science and technology studies, reproductive studies and ignorance studies, I will show how this obstetric drug came to be widely used after significant knowledge/ignorance battles had been fought during heated public and medical controversy in the 1970s. Different visions of the ‘knowns’, the ‘unknowns’ and ‘know-how’ came into conflict in this context, supported by a series of moral, political and feminist justifications that were often at odds with one another. While the defenders of natural birth clashed with feminists, created ambiguities around conceptions of the maternal body, and struggled to produce large-scale clinical knowledge on the risks of EA, the defenders of EA put forward technological promises and biomedical modernization as a means to outstrip the knowledge wars. In the aftermath of this epistemic battle, EA was to gradually become an ‘unlearner’ technology; that is, a modern tool that radically silenced the maternal body and led to denial, disregard or unawareness of a whole range of shared and alternative knowledges and ‘know-how’ relating to female physiology and the birth process that are free of pharmaceutical products and medical interventions.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37973,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online\",\"volume\":\"13 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 1-13\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.rbms.2021.03.002\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240566182100006X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240566182100006X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

法国目前是世界上硬膜外镇痛(EA)的主要使用者之一,全国使用率为82.4%。硬膜外镇痛不仅被推广为止痛药,而且被视为一种使分娩更安全的技术。利用科学和技术研究、生殖研究和无知研究的分析工具,我将展示这种产科药物是如何在20世纪70年代激烈的公众和医学争议中进行了重大的知识/无知之战之后得到广泛使用的。在这种背景下,对“已知”、“未知”和“专有技术”的不同看法产生了冲突,并得到了一系列道德、政治和女权主义理由的支持,而这些理由往往彼此不一致。自然分娩的捍卫者与女权主义者发生冲突,在母体概念上制造歧义,并努力产生关于EA风险的大规模临床知识,而EA的捍卫者则提出技术承诺和生物医学现代化作为超越知识战争的手段。在这场认知之战之后,艺电逐渐成为一种“不学习”的技术;这是一种现代工具,从根本上使产妇身体沉默,导致否认、无视或不了解与女性生理和分娩过程有关的一系列共享和替代知识和“诀窍”,这些知识和“诀窍”没有医药产品和医疗干预。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Adopting an ‘unlearner’ technology? Knowledge battles over pharmaceutical pain relief in childbirth in post-1968 France

Adopting an ‘unlearner’ technology? Knowledge battles over pharmaceutical pain relief in childbirth in post-1968 France

With a national rate of 82.4%, France is currently one of the world’s leading users of epidural analgesia (EA), which is promoted not just as a pain reliever but also as a technology that makes childbirth safer. Drawing on analytical tools from science and technology studies, reproductive studies and ignorance studies, I will show how this obstetric drug came to be widely used after significant knowledge/ignorance battles had been fought during heated public and medical controversy in the 1970s. Different visions of the ‘knowns’, the ‘unknowns’ and ‘know-how’ came into conflict in this context, supported by a series of moral, political and feminist justifications that were often at odds with one another. While the defenders of natural birth clashed with feminists, created ambiguities around conceptions of the maternal body, and struggled to produce large-scale clinical knowledge on the risks of EA, the defenders of EA put forward technological promises and biomedical modernization as a means to outstrip the knowledge wars. In the aftermath of this epistemic battle, EA was to gradually become an ‘unlearner’ technology; that is, a modern tool that radically silenced the maternal body and led to denial, disregard or unawareness of a whole range of shared and alternative knowledges and ‘know-how’ relating to female physiology and the birth process that are free of pharmaceutical products and medical interventions.

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
Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online
Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online Social Sciences-Cultural Studies
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
审稿时长
7 weeks
期刊介绍: RBMS is a new journal dedicated to interdisciplinary discussion and debate of the rapidly expanding field of reproductive biomedicine, particularly all of its many societal and cultural implications. It is intended to bring to attention new research in the social sciences, arts and humanities on human reproduction, new reproductive technologies, and related areas such as human embryonic stem cell derivation. Its audience comprises researchers, clinicians, practitioners, policy makers, academics and patients.
×
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