博物学者のfieldとcabinet。：fieldにおける身体を通しての知識の獲得と、自身のコレクションを収めたcabinetでの標本の比較という二つの方法が18世紀にもっていた緊張関係については以下の文献を読めばいいらしい。
- Dorinda Outram, “New Spaces in Natural History,” in Cultures of Natural History, ed.Nicholas Jardine, James A. Secord, and Emma C. Spary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 249–65. See also chap. 8, this volume.
引用元はBleichmar2011。授業準備で再訪したが、この論文は素晴らしいな。
The production of scientific facts is thus constructed as a process privileging the intellectual and physical tasks of observing and classifying over the manual labor of procuring the specimens themselves, and the indoor cabinet over the outdoor field. As Dorinda Outram has argued, eighteenth-century natural exploration was characterized by a tension between two tendencies: on the one hand, an impulse to move, to know by traversing and experiencing, thus to know in a personal and embodied way; and on the other an impulse to stay put and have knowledge come to one and join the corpus of what is known, to examine multiple specimens and compare. / Daniela Bleichmar, 2011, "The Geography of Observation: Distance and Visibility in Eighteenth-Century Botanical Travel" in Lorraine Daston and Elizabeth Lunbeck (eds.) *Histories of Scientific Observation
Histories of Scientific Observation
- 発売日: 2011/02/01
- メディア: ペーパーバック
