Anti-French Discourse in the Nineteenth-century British Antivivisection Movement.

  1. Claudia Alonso Recarte
Zeitschrift:
Atlantis: Revista de la Asociación Española de Estudios Anglo-Norteamericanos

ISSN: 0210-6124

Datum der Publikation: 2014

Ausgabe: 36

Nummer: 1

Seiten: 31-49

Art: Artikel

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Andere Publikationen in: Atlantis: Revista de la Asociación Española de Estudios Anglo-Norteamericanos

Zusammenfassung

Antivivisection literature has for some time now been the corpus of research of scholars of cultural studies, particularly since Richard Ryder’s revealing publications in the mid-1970s and 1980s. Although it is well-known and accepted that it was the rise of experimental physiology as a discipline in continental Europe (particularly France and Germany) that launched the establishment of vivisection as the absolute means for medical research, further explorations as to the type of discursive constructs used by British antivivisectionists to construe French medical culture aids us in the comprehension of how animal protection groups explored and tested their strategies. In this paper, I focus exclusively on the image of France in the nineteenthcentury activist writing of British animal protectionists to analyse how their discourse emerged and evolved in response to legal regulations on vivisection.

Bibliographische Referenzen

  • Bernard, Claude. (1865) 1957. An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine, translated by Henry Copley Greene. New York: Dover.
  • Bertomeu-Sánchez, José Ramón. 2012. “Animal Experiments, Vital Forces and Courtrooms: Mateu Orfila, François Magendie and the Study of Poisons in Nineteenth-century France.” Annals of Science 69 (1): 1-26.
  • Bonner, Thomas Neville. (1995) 2000. Becoming a Physician: Medical Education in Britain, France, Germany and the United States, 1750-1945. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP.
  • Cobbe, Frances Power. 1889. The Modern Rack. London: Swan Sonnenschein.
  • Cobbe, Frances Power. (1863) 2004. “The Rights of Man and the Claims of Brutes.” N.p.: Kessinger.
  • Cobbe, Frances Power. (1904) 2012. Life of Frances Power Cobbe As Told By Herself. N.p.: Forgotten.
  • Elliott, Paul. 1987. “Vivisection and the Emergence of Experimental Physiology in Nineteenth-century France.” In Vivisection in Historical Perspective, edited by Nicolaas A. Rupke, 48-77. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Elston, Mary Ann. 1987. “Women and Anti-vivisection in Victorian England, 1870- 1900.” In Vivisection in Historical Perspective, edited by Nicolaas A. Rupke, 259-94. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Finn, Michael R. 2012. “Dogs and Females: Vivisection, Feminists and the Novelist Rachilde.” French Cultural Studies 23: 190-201.
  • Geison, Gerald L. 1972. “Social and Institutional Factors in the Stagnancy of English Physiology, 1840-1870.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 46: 30-58.
  • Guerrini, Anita. 2003. Experimenting with Humans and Animals: From Galen to Animal Rights. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP.
  • Huggan, Graham and Helen Tiffin. 2010. Postcolonial Ecocriticism. Literature, Animals, Environment. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Kean, Hilda. 1995. “The ‘Smooth Cool Men of Science’: The Feminist and Socialist Response to Vivisection.” History Workshop Journal 40: 16-38.
  • Keen, William Williams. (1914) 2009. Animal Experimentation and Medical Progress. Charleston, sc: BiblioLife.
  • Lansbury, Coral. 1985. “Gynaecology, Pornography, and the Antivivisection Movement.” Victorian Studies 28 (3): 413-37.
  • Lesch, John E. 1984. Science and Medicine in France. The Emergence of Experimental Physiology, 1790-1855. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
  • Lind-af-Hageby, Lizzy and Leisa Katherina Schartau. (1903) 2012. The Shambles of Science. Extracts from the Diary of Two Students of Physiology. N.p.: Nabu.
  • Miller, Ian. 2009. “Necessary Torture? Vivisection, Suffragette Force-Feeding, and Responses to Scientific Medicine in Britain.” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 64 (3): 333-72.
  • Orlans, F. Barbara. 1993. In the Name of Science. Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation. New York and Oxford: Oxford UP.
  • Pollock, Mary Sanders. 2005. “Ouida’s Rhetoric of Empathy: A Case Study in Victorian Anti-Vivisection Narrative.” In Figuring Animals, edited by Mary Sanders Pollock and Catherine Rainwater, 133-59. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Richards, Stewart. 1987. “Vicarious Suffering, Necessary Pain: Physiological Method in Late Nineteenth-century Britain.” In Vivisection in Historical Perspective, edited by Nicolaas A. Rupke, 125-48. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Ryder, Richard D. (1975) 1983. Victims of Science. The Use of Animals in Research. London: National Anti-Vivisection Society.
  • Ryder, Richard D. (1989) 2000. Animal Revolution. Changing Attitudes towards Speciesism. New York and Oxford: Berg.
  • Rupke, Nicolaas. 1987. “Pro-vivisection in England in the Early 1880s: Arguments and Motives.” In Vivisection in Historical Perspective, edited by Nicolaas A. Rupke, 188-208. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Salt, Henry and Albert Leffingwell. (1894) 2010. Animals’ Rights Considered in Relation to Social Progress. Also an Essay on Vivisection in America. N.p.: Kessinger
  • Taylor, Charles Bell. 1892. “Vivisection: Is It Justifiable?” London: Society for the Protection of Animals from Vivisection.
  • Turner, James. 1980. Reckoning with the Beast. Animals, Pain and Humanity in the Victorian Mind. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP.
  • Weiner, Dora B. and Michael J. Sauter. 2003. “The City of Paris and the Rise of Clinical Medicine.” Osiris 18: 23-42.
  • Wolfe, Cary. 2003. Animal Rites. American Culture, the Discourse of Species, and Posthumanist Theory. Chicago and London: u of Chicago p.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet