Artificial insemination and other fertilization techniques are today considered central to the history of reproductive medicine. The medical treatment of infertile couples, however, constitutes just a small part of the whole story of artificial fertilization. Lazzaro Spallanzani in particular, said to have been the inventor of artificial insemination, did not develop this method for medical purposes. He belonged to a generation of naturalists to whom artificial insemination was part of a heterogeneous series of investigations that were undertaken to explore the (...) natural history of animal generation. Questions concerning conception, the role of the gametes, the definition of species, the production of hybrids or livestock breeding were all included in these investigations. Thus, no one strain of thought, nor single set of ideas or interests, entirely shaped the development of artificial fertilization. (shrink)

Today, many pregnancy guides mention a nesting instinct. According to this, pregnant women would be seized by an urge to create the right environment for their child, for example to buy baby equipment or clean the apartment. The concept of the nesting instinct forms a specific configuration of knowledge: While it is widespread in the popular field, it occupies a marginal position in the scientific field. In this paper, I will investigate the historical epistemology of this form of knowledge. In (...) so doing, the following questions are addressed: How did the knowledge about a nesting instinct during pregnancy form? How was the nest as a specific natural-anthropogenic environment constructed? And to what extent do notions of gender and environment interact here? To answer these questions, the study takes the perspective of a history of knowledge in transit, in the longue durée from the nineteenth century to the present. The investigation reveals a gradual feminization of the concept of environment in the knowledge of the nesting instinct. Whereas in the nineteenth century it was often considered a male behavioral pattern and the nest was an analogy to the house, in the first decades of the twentieth century, the instinct transformed into a primarily female characteristic, with the nest representing the interior of the home. A decisive condition for this circulation of knowledge was that the nest became a ‘metaphorical thing’. As such, the nest did not simply lead to naturalization, but denoted a natural-social in-between space that increasingly became the goal of female care work. (shrink)

ZusammenfassungIn heutigen Schwangerschaftsratgebern ist oft von einem Nestbauinstinkt zu lesen. Demnach würden Schwangere von einem Trieb ergriffen, die passende Umwelt für ihr Kind zu gestalten, also Babyausstattung zu kaufen oder die Wohnung zu putzen. Dabei bildet das Konzept des Nestbauinstinkts eine spezifische Wissenskonfiguration: Während es im populären Bereich verbreitet ist, nimmt es im wissenschaftlichen Bereich eine marginale Position ein. Im vorliegenden Beitrag soll der historischen Epistemologie dieser Wissensform nachgegangen werden. Im Vordergrund stehen folgende Fragen: Wie formierte sich das Wissen um (...) einen Nestbauinstinkt in der Schwangerschaft? Auf welche Weise wurde das Nest als spezifische natural-anthropogene Umwelt hergestellt? Und inwiefern interagieren hier Vorstellungen von Geschlecht und Umwelt? Dazu nimmt die wissensgeschichtliche Analyse die Perspektive einer longue durée vom 19. Jahrhundert bis heute ein. Die Untersuchung ergibt eine graduelle Feminisierung des Umweltkonzepts im Wissen des Nestbauinstinkts. Während er im 19. Jahrhundert oft als männliches Verhaltensmuster galt und das Nest ein Analogon zum Wohnhaus bildete, transformierte sich der Instinkt in den ersten Jahrzehnten des 20. Jahrhunderts zu einer primär weiblichen Eigenschaft, bei der das Nest für den Innenraum des Zuhauses stand. Dabei zirkulierte das Wissen zwischen verschiedenen Bereichen, wofür eine maßgebliche Bedingung war, dass sich das Nest zum ‚metaphorischen Ding‘ wandelte. Als solches führte das Nest nicht einfach zu einer Naturalisierung, sondern bezeichnete einen familiären natural-sozialen Zwischenraum, der zunehmend zum Ziel weiblich konnotierter Sorge-Arbeit wurde. (shrink)

The rise of the mechanistic worldview in the seventeenth century had a major impact on views of biological generation. Many seventeenth century naturalists rejected the old animist thesis. However, the alternative view of gradual mechanistic formation in embryology didn’t convince either. How to articulate the peculiarity of life? Researchers in the seventeenth century proposed both “animist” and mechanistic theories of life. In the eighteenth century again a controversy in biology arose regarding the explanation of generation. Some adhered to the view (...) that life is a physical property of matter (e.g. Buffon), others saw living entities as the result of the development of pre-existing germs (e.g. Bonnet). Naturalists, lacked a convincing account that could guide their research. In interaction with leading naturalists of his time Immanuel Kant articulated an approach to explaining generation. Kant’s account, delineated in his Kritik der Urteilskraft (Critique of the power of judgment) (1790), is a combination of Newtonian non-reductionist mechanism in explanation, and a concept of natural end comparable to Stahl’s formal conception of organic bodies. It consists of two claims: a) in biology only mechanical explanation is explanatory, and b) living entities contain some original organisation, which is mechanically unexplainable. In the nineteenth century this approach influenced naturalists as Müller, Virchow, and Von Baer, in their physiological research. Dissatisfied with a sheer mechanistic or, on the other hand, a sheer teleological approach, they appreciated the Kantian account of mechanical explanation of natural ends. In Germany, in the second halve of the nineteenth century, Ernst Haeckel reopened the debate about abiogenesis, which still continuous. (shrink)