Biology & the Public: Actor's and Analyst's Categories (Part 2 of 3)
One thing I like about HANK's post is that it questions the utility of both categories -- biology & the public -- by suggesting that their application to 16th century exploration, say, is anachronistic. There was no such thing as a unified discipline of biology at the time. Moreover, the relationship between natural history and its various publics were nothing like that between biomedicine and modern citizens. So is it foolhardy to attempt a relatively longue durée history of biology and the public? I'm not sure that it is. It is indeed tricky -- risky even -- but I think the potential payoff of such a project outweighs its considerable pitfalls. I'll restrict myself to two points, one methodological and the other more substantive. First, a point on historical method: I grant it is very important not to confuse actor's and analyst's categories when doing history. It would be a grave error to import our modern notions about the relationship betwe...