{"title":"Queer Kinship: Privacy Concerns in <i>Orphan Black</i>.","authors":"Marcie Casey, Jay Clayton","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":73806,"journal":{"name":"Journal of literature and science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9731317/pdf/nihms-1849784.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10361444","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Genetics in Film and TV, 1912-2020.","authors":"Ethan Gibbons, Isaac Stovall, Jay Clayton","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":73806,"journal":{"name":"Journal of literature and science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d6/20/nihms-1815282.PMC9236223.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40408144","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Liminal Spaces: Literature, Film and the Medical Museum","authors":"Laurence Talairach","doi":"10.12929/jls.10.2.13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12929/jls.10.2.13","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":73806,"journal":{"name":"Journal of literature and science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48815009","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Sciences / Humans / Humanities: Dexter Masters’ The Accident and Being in the Nuclear Age","authors":"D. Cordle","doi":"10.12929/JLS.10.2.09","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12929/JLS.10.2.09","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":73806,"journal":{"name":"Journal of literature and science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44432899","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The ScienceHumanities was founded at Cardiff University in 2016 to investigate the present and future challenges, functions and successes of collaborative research between the humanities and the sciences. It was led by the authors: Martin Willis and James Castell from the School of English, and Keir Waddington from the School of History, Archaeology and Religion. Over the course of 2016 the ScienceHumanities initiative focused on generating new discussions and ways of thinking within and beyond Cardiff. Leading international scholars across disparate humanities disciplines were invited to give seminars and public lectures, while we attended international events to discuss the nature and role of the ScienceHumanities. We held workshops and exhibitions investigating discrete forms of collaboration between the humanities and the sciences in order to build and develop new critical interactions between different fields of inquiry. In December 2016, we held a colloquium that brought together scholars from three continents and multiple disciplines to begin to offer initial definition to the ScienceHumanities and the role that it might play in our research future. This special issue of the Journal of Literature and Science arises from that colloquium and our thinking. The ScienceHumanities is an ambitious attempt to think and rethink the relationships and the boundaries between the humanities and the sciences. Rather than rehearsing the familiar two cultures debates, we believe that the global challenges facing us now and in the future demand an urgent and rigorous reassessment of how we conceptualize disciplinary boundaries and the production of knowledge. It is for this reason that our term – ScienceHumanities – exists as a blended version of an earlier disciplinary binary. At its core, ScienceHumanities highlights the theoretical, political, and practical necessity of plural humanities approaches in place of the more singular disciplinary methodologies that continue to remain, in our view, more common. The term also positions the disparate disciplines of the sciences and the humanities in close proximity. This is intended to produce new perspectives
{"title":"ScienceHumanities: Introduction","authors":"Martin Willis, James Castell, K. Waddington","doi":"10.12929/jls.10.2.01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12929/jls.10.2.01","url":null,"abstract":"The ScienceHumanities was founded at Cardiff University in 2016 to investigate the present and future challenges, functions and successes of collaborative research between the humanities and the sciences. It was led by the authors: Martin Willis and James Castell from the School of English, and Keir Waddington from the School of History, Archaeology and Religion. Over the course of 2016 the ScienceHumanities initiative focused on generating new discussions and ways of thinking within and beyond Cardiff. Leading international scholars across disparate humanities disciplines were invited to give seminars and public lectures, while we attended international events to discuss the nature and role of the ScienceHumanities. We held workshops and exhibitions investigating discrete forms of collaboration between the humanities and the sciences in order to build and develop new critical interactions between different fields of inquiry. In December 2016, we held a colloquium that brought together scholars from three continents and multiple disciplines to begin to offer initial definition to the ScienceHumanities and the role that it might play in our research future. This special issue of the Journal of Literature and Science arises from that colloquium and our thinking. The ScienceHumanities is an ambitious attempt to think and rethink the relationships and the boundaries between the humanities and the sciences. Rather than rehearsing the familiar two cultures debates, we believe that the global challenges facing us now and in the future demand an urgent and rigorous reassessment of how we conceptualize disciplinary boundaries and the production of knowledge. It is for this reason that our term – ScienceHumanities – exists as a blended version of an earlier disciplinary binary. At its core, ScienceHumanities highlights the theoretical, political, and practical necessity of plural humanities approaches in place of the more singular disciplinary methodologies that continue to remain, in our view, more common. The term also positions the disparate disciplines of the sciences and the humanities in close proximity. This is intended to produce new perspectives","PeriodicalId":73806,"journal":{"name":"Journal of literature and science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43676396","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As Castell, Willis and Waddington noted at the inaugural ScienceHumanities international colloquium, a number of specialist sub-fields have been negotiating the interaction with the sciences within the humanities for some time, and it is important to learn from, rather than replace, these practices. The now established field of the Environmental Humanities, “a transdisciplinary matrix” in the words of Ursula Heise (Comparative Literature n.p.), is one such practice: as Stephen Muecke puts it in an essay for Latour’s Reset Modernity!, “what about the ‘environmental humanities’ maybe this new subfield has some solutions for reconciling the sciences with the humanities, real-world experimentation with the ‘life of the mind’?” (Recomposing the Humanities 227). In this essay, I will consider what the Environmental Humanities, and particularly its newer relation the Energy Humanities, can teach us about the kinds of transdisciplinary matrices advocated by the ScienceHumanities.
{"title":"Speculate, speculation, speculative: What can the Energy Humanities do?","authors":"Bradon Smith","doi":"10.12929/JLS.10.2.08","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12929/JLS.10.2.08","url":null,"abstract":"As Castell, Willis and Waddington noted at the inaugural ScienceHumanities international colloquium, a number of specialist sub-fields have been negotiating the interaction with the sciences within the humanities for some time, and it is important to learn from, rather than replace, these practices. The now established field of the Environmental Humanities, “a transdisciplinary matrix” in the words of Ursula Heise (Comparative Literature n.p.), is one such practice: as Stephen Muecke puts it in an essay for Latour’s Reset Modernity!, “what about the ‘environmental humanities’ maybe this new subfield has some solutions for reconciling the sciences with the humanities, real-world experimentation with the ‘life of the mind’?” (Recomposing the Humanities 227). In this essay, I will consider what the Environmental Humanities, and particularly its newer relation the Energy Humanities, can teach us about the kinds of transdisciplinary matrices advocated by the ScienceHumanities.","PeriodicalId":73806,"journal":{"name":"Journal of literature and science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47777216","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Review of Clare Stainthorp’s “Activity and Passivity: Class and Gender in the Case of the Artificial Hand","authors":"","doi":"10.12929/jls.10.2.17","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12929/jls.10.2.17","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":73806,"journal":{"name":"Journal of literature and science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43075827","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
“The humanities” is a strange term: grammatically plural, it is nonetheless often spoken of as a singular, a cluster of different disciplines – such as literature, philosophy, and history, that rose from the liberal arts, and that now form units such as faculties and schools in modern universities. In the institutional, disciplinary context the inherent plurality of the humanities is often forgotten, thus, there have been attempts to categorize multiple forms of humanities expertise that resist the traditional disciplinary designations, refocusing humanities work on topics, themes, and outcomes such as “civic humanities” or “blue humanities.” When remembered, the plural nature of the humanities tends to be located in the diversity between disciplines: the links between literature and history, for example, or philosophy and classics. But the plurality of the humanities can, and should, also be understood as multiplicity within disciplines. All of the traditional established disciplines within Western university curricula are methodologically and hermeneutically diverse, and becoming increasingly so as they engage the intellectual and cultural benefits of interdisciplinarity. For example, I increasingly think of my field as “literary humanities” instead of English literature, for the conventional expectations of literary studies – that it works with certain forms of language, especially written texts, as a cultural or artistic production – extends to include a plethora of other disciplinary practices. Literary humanities engage material culture, film and media studies, drama, visual culture studies, philosophies, psychology, sociology, anthropology, archaeology, cognitive studies, and cultural history of virtually every ilk, including the history of science. All of these disciplines participate in addressing questions that lie at the heart of literary analysis: What is the nature of language-based knowledge, or poēsis in the largest sense of the term? And how does that knowledge interact with other forms of knowledge, including the material world, lived experience and other disciplinary practices? Thinking in terms of the literary humanities, and constructing other, more pluralized understandings of the humanities, resists a totalizing idea of the arts, humanities or science and rejects binaries which have often been used polemically. Pluralized humanities create more points of contact to knowledges that lie outside the traditional academic fields of the humanities altogether, such as the sciences and now, the ScienceHumanities: this develops affinities between not just academic disciplines, but cultural categories of knowledge that are deep, real and effective. My question here is: to what extent is this playing with the pluralizing possibilities in the humanities a kind of remembering of what we, culturally, have forgotten about knowledge? This question comes to me frequently, because my home discipline is medieval English literature, and I am of
{"title":"Pluralised Humanities and Learning from the Past","authors":"J. Rogers","doi":"10.12929/jls.10.2.12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12929/jls.10.2.12","url":null,"abstract":"“The humanities” is a strange term: grammatically plural, it is nonetheless often spoken of as a singular, a cluster of different disciplines – such as literature, philosophy, and history, that rose from the liberal arts, and that now form units such as faculties and schools in modern universities. In the institutional, disciplinary context the inherent plurality of the humanities is often forgotten, thus, there have been attempts to categorize multiple forms of humanities expertise that resist the traditional disciplinary designations, refocusing humanities work on topics, themes, and outcomes such as “civic humanities” or “blue humanities.” When remembered, the plural nature of the humanities tends to be located in the diversity between disciplines: the links between literature and history, for example, or philosophy and classics. But the plurality of the humanities can, and should, also be understood as multiplicity within disciplines. All of the traditional established disciplines within Western university curricula are methodologically and hermeneutically diverse, and becoming increasingly so as they engage the intellectual and cultural benefits of interdisciplinarity. For example, I increasingly think of my field as “literary humanities” instead of English literature, for the conventional expectations of literary studies – that it works with certain forms of language, especially written texts, as a cultural or artistic production – extends to include a plethora of other disciplinary practices. Literary humanities engage material culture, film and media studies, drama, visual culture studies, philosophies, psychology, sociology, anthropology, archaeology, cognitive studies, and cultural history of virtually every ilk, including the history of science. All of these disciplines participate in addressing questions that lie at the heart of literary analysis: What is the nature of language-based knowledge, or poēsis in the largest sense of the term? And how does that knowledge interact with other forms of knowledge, including the material world, lived experience and other disciplinary practices? Thinking in terms of the literary humanities, and constructing other, more pluralized understandings of the humanities, resists a totalizing idea of the arts, humanities or science and rejects binaries which have often been used polemically. Pluralized humanities create more points of contact to knowledges that lie outside the traditional academic fields of the humanities altogether, such as the sciences and now, the ScienceHumanities: this develops affinities between not just academic disciplines, but cultural categories of knowledge that are deep, real and effective. My question here is: to what extent is this playing with the pluralizing possibilities in the humanities a kind of remembering of what we, culturally, have forgotten about knowledge? This question comes to me frequently, because my home discipline is medieval English literature, and I am of","PeriodicalId":73806,"journal":{"name":"Journal of literature and science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46898300","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Review of Gregory Tate’s “Keats, Myth, and the Science of Sympathy","authors":"","doi":"10.12929/jls.10.2.16","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12929/jls.10.2.16","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":73806,"journal":{"name":"Journal of literature and science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43385403","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Sciences, the Humanities, and the “gulf of mutual incomprehension” For quite a long time now, we have lived with the two cultures divide. A “gulf of mutual incomprehension”, wrote C.P. Snow, is dividing “literary intellectuals” from scientists, and creating an inability to communicate, a mutual inability to understand and appreciate each other (3-4). Scholars are not quite in agreement about how long this has been going on but there is widespread consensus on the disadvantages of the situation, coupled with suggestions for how to overcome it or a resigned acceptance of its unwelcome persistence (Gould, Cordle, Waugh). In exploring the range of perspectives open to the ScienceHumanities, it is worth considering to what extent this focus on the mutual perceptions and reinterpretations of the humanities and the sciences, and the disciplinary anxieties which may inform them, has itself a limiting effect on our analysis. If, half a century after Snow, the two cultures debate is still “an obligatory but uninspiring inclusion” (Sleigh 3) in scholarship on literature and science, it may be because this concentration on a two-way relationship fosters the tendency of the debate to lock itself into familiar channels. Our purpose here is to guide the discussion about the relationship between the sciences and the humanities away from the question of their mutual perception in order to see how that relationship may look different once we shift the focus towards how the sciences and humanities are perceived from additional angles of observation. We aim for a reorientation that proceeds from a discussion of the attitudes of the public sphere to both the sciences and the humanities. We illustrate this by analysing novelistic representations of scientific concepts and practices, as well as the varied and sometimes controversial responses of general, literary and scientific readers to these. Our goal is not to undertake a redescription of the other discipline in terms of our own, but to make visible – and thereby available for public understanding and public discussion – the underlying structures of mediated communication about science.
{"title":"Triangulating the Two Cultures Entanglement: The Sciences and the Humanities in the Public Sphere","authors":"A. Kirchhofer, A. Auguscik","doi":"10.12929/JLS.10.2.04","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12929/JLS.10.2.04","url":null,"abstract":"The Sciences, the Humanities, and the “gulf of mutual incomprehension” For quite a long time now, we have lived with the two cultures divide. A “gulf of mutual incomprehension”, wrote C.P. Snow, is dividing “literary intellectuals” from scientists, and creating an inability to communicate, a mutual inability to understand and appreciate each other (3-4). Scholars are not quite in agreement about how long this has been going on but there is widespread consensus on the disadvantages of the situation, coupled with suggestions for how to overcome it or a resigned acceptance of its unwelcome persistence (Gould, Cordle, Waugh). In exploring the range of perspectives open to the ScienceHumanities, it is worth considering to what extent this focus on the mutual perceptions and reinterpretations of the humanities and the sciences, and the disciplinary anxieties which may inform them, has itself a limiting effect on our analysis. If, half a century after Snow, the two cultures debate is still “an obligatory but uninspiring inclusion” (Sleigh 3) in scholarship on literature and science, it may be because this concentration on a two-way relationship fosters the tendency of the debate to lock itself into familiar channels. Our purpose here is to guide the discussion about the relationship between the sciences and the humanities away from the question of their mutual perception in order to see how that relationship may look different once we shift the focus towards how the sciences and humanities are perceived from additional angles of observation. We aim for a reorientation that proceeds from a discussion of the attitudes of the public sphere to both the sciences and the humanities. We illustrate this by analysing novelistic representations of scientific concepts and practices, as well as the varied and sometimes controversial responses of general, literary and scientific readers to these. Our goal is not to undertake a redescription of the other discipline in terms of our own, but to make visible – and thereby available for public understanding and public discussion – the underlying structures of mediated communication about science.","PeriodicalId":73806,"journal":{"name":"Journal of literature and science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41277684","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：