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
14.
Which one of the following ████ █████████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████ ███████ ████████
a
The book is ██████ ████████ ███ █████████ ███ ████ ██ █████████ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ███████
This is the best answer. It’s fair to say the author believes the book is highly original and exciting, because he calls the book “ambitious” and “innovative.” It’s also fair to say he thinks it’ll be difficult for readers to accept, because he says that “many readers” might
b
The book is █████████ █████████ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ ████████ ██ █████████
Not supported, because the author doesn’t highlight the amount of research as the main praiseworthy aspect of the book.
c
Although far from ██████ █████████ ███ ████ ██ █████████ ███ ██████████ ████████
Not supported, because the author would call the book ground breaking. He says that it’s “ambitious,” and “innovative.”
d
While commendably imaginative, ███ ████ ███ ██ ███ ████ ████ ████ ███████████
Not supported, because the author never suggests that the book isn’t convincing. He acknowledges that one has to shed assumptions about science in order to accept Haraway’s approach, but that doesn’t imply that the book isn’t convincing.
e
The book's thesis ██ █████████ ███ ███████████ ███ ██████████████ ███████
Not supported, because the author never suggests that the book is “half-heartedly” argued. We don’t have any evidence Haraway fails to make strong or convincing arguments.