Self-study
P1
Donna Haraway's Primate Visions is the most ambitious book on the history of science yet written from a feminist perspective, embracing not only the scientific construction of gender but also the interplay of race, class, and colonial and postcolonial culture with the "Western" construction of the very concept of nature itself. ███████████ ██ █ ████████████ ███ ███████ ███ ████ ██████ ███████ ████████ ████ ██ ████ ████ █████████ ████ ████ ███████ █████ ████████ ███ ███████████ █████████ ███ ███████████ ███████████ ██ █████ ███████ █████ ██████ ███ ████████
Intro topic ·
Haraway's book, Primate Visions
Book on history of science written from a feminist perspective. Deals with gender, race, class, colonial stuff, and "Western" concept of nature. Book involves primatology, which the author thinks is a good subject for studying beliefs about nature and culture.
P2
█████████ ████ ███████ █████████ ██ ██ █████████ ███ ███████████ ███████████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██████ █████████████████████ ███ ███ ███████ ██████ █████████████████ ██ █████████ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ███████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ██ ██ ██ ████████ ██ ██ █ █████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████ ██ █ ███████████ ███████████ ███ ███████████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ██ ██████ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ██████ ████ ██ ██ █ ████ ████ ██ ██ ██████ ████████████ █████████████ ██ ████ ██████████████ ███████ ███ ████████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ ████ ██████████ ███████ █████ ██████ ████████████ ██████████ ██████████ █████████ ███████ ███████ ████████ ██ ████████████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███████ ███ ████ ████ ██████████ ███ █████████ ███████ ████████ █████ ██████ █████ ██ █████████ ██ ██████ ████████████ ██ ████████ ████ █████████ ██ █████ ███
Important feature of book ·
Challenges traditional separation between people and nature/history
Haraway's approach recognizes that nature participates in humans' creation of knowledge about nature. In other words, nature isn't just something subject to human control.
Additional important feature ·
There are only multiple, interlinked, partial realities
There isn't just one coherent reality or truth.
P3
████
Haraway's style ·
Fragmented approach to historiography that reflects the idea of multiple perspectives
This approach is different from traditional history books, which focus on narrative or on narrative with an emphasis on causation.
P4
███████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ██ ███ ███ ███ ████████████ █████ ████████ ██████ ████ ███ █████████ ███████ ███████ ██
Haraway's content ·
Mixes in broad cultural issues
She discusses science fiction, movies, TV, and comments on stuff like nuclear war. This approach ignores the distinction between things that are part of science and things that aren't.
Passage Style
Single position
Spotlight
20.
In the second sentence of ███ ████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ████
a
underscore the importance ██ █████ ███ █████████ ███████ ██ █████████████████ █████
The point of the sentence that uses “rhetoric” doesn’t relate to the importance of clear, effective writing. It’s about how historians have talked about the need to unify “internal” issues (those seen as part of science) and “external” issues (those seen as outside of science), but have failed to actually unify these issues.
b
highlight the need ███ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██ █████ █████ ██ ████████
The point of the sentence that uses “rhetoric” doesn’t relate to the need to study different modes of language. It’s about how historians have talked about the need to unify “internal” issues (those seen as part of science) and “external” issues (those seen as outside of science), but have failed to actually unify these issues.
c
emphasize the fact ████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ████ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████████ █████ ████ ████████
This is the best answer. The author tells us that historians of science have spoken for decades about the need to unite issues deemed “internal” to science and those deemed “external” to it. But despite this, these historians haven’t actually unified these issues. “Rhetoric” in this context seems designed to emphasize that historians have science have only talked about unifying issues, but haven’t put their talk into practice.
d
criticize the excessive ███████ ███ ████ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███████
The point of the sentence that uses “rhetoric” doesn’t relate to the concern for form over content. It’s about how historians have talked about the need to unify “internal” and “external” issues, but have failed to actually unify these issues. It’s not clear that the last paragraph even involves a distinction between form and content. The distinction discussed there is between different kinds of content — content seen as part of science and content seen as not part of science.
e
characterize the writing █████ ███ ██████████ ████████ ████████ ██ ███████
The word “rhetoric” describes something about the historians of science; it’s not used to describe Haraway’s style and approach.