Aaron Kitch
Related Authors
Gillian Knoll
Western Kentucky University
Laura Georgescu
Ghent University
Christoph Sander
German Historical Institute Rome
Timothy M. Harrison
University of Chicago
ElizabethD Harvey
University of Toronto
cassies klee
University of Indonesia
Gad Freudenthal
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique / French National Centre for Scientific Research
John Henry
University of Edinburgh
Uploads
Papers by Aaron Kitch
De magnete (On the Magnet, 1600), represents a paradigm shift in understanding
natural philosophy, yet historians of science have overlooked
its significance to the history of sexuality, which they also tend
to isolate from the history of science. Gilbert defined magnetism as a
form of desire within nature, a mode of “incorporeal materialism” and
dispersed sexual agency that asserts a masculine “vigor” and form of
nature upon the feminine “womb” of the Earth. This essay argues that
such a theory of a disembodied yet masculine magnetic virtue marginalizes
knowledge practices associated with the secrets of women
and reproduces a set of binary oppositions between male science and
female nature that becomes codified even more forcefully during the
Scientific Revolution. At the same time, like the “field of desire” that
Karen Barad identifies in lightning and quantum physics, magnetism
in Gilbert provokes questions about the “agential capacities” that link
animate and inanimate material in affective and embodied networks.
De magnete (On the Magnet, 1600), represents a paradigm shift in understanding
natural philosophy, yet historians of science have overlooked
its significance to the history of sexuality, which they also tend
to isolate from the history of science. Gilbert defined magnetism as a
form of desire within nature, a mode of “incorporeal materialism” and
dispersed sexual agency that asserts a masculine “vigor” and form of
nature upon the feminine “womb” of the Earth. This essay argues that
such a theory of a disembodied yet masculine magnetic virtue marginalizes
knowledge practices associated with the secrets of women
and reproduces a set of binary oppositions between male science and
female nature that becomes codified even more forcefully during the
Scientific Revolution. At the same time, like the “field of desire” that
Karen Barad identifies in lightning and quantum physics, magnetism
in Gilbert provokes questions about the “agential capacities” that link
animate and inanimate material in affective and embodied networks.
De magnete (On the Magnet, 1600), represents a paradigm shift in understanding
natural philosophy, yet historians of science have overlooked
its significance to the history of sexuality, which they also tend
to isolate from the history of science. Gilbert defined magnetism as a
form of desire within nature, a mode of “incorporeal materialism” and
dispersed sexual agency that asserts a masculine “vigor” and form of
nature upon the feminine “womb” of the Earth. This essay argues that
such a theory of a disembodied yet masculine magnetic virtue marginalizes
knowledge practices associated with the secrets of women
and reproduces a set of binary oppositions between male science and
female nature that becomes codified even more forcefully during the
Scientific Revolution. At the same time, like the “field of desire” that
Karen Barad identifies in lightning and quantum physics, magnetism
in Gilbert provokes questions about the “agential capacities” that link
animate and inanimate material in affective and embodied networks.
De magnete (On the Magnet, 1600), represents a paradigm shift in understanding
natural philosophy, yet historians of science have overlooked
its significance to the history of sexuality, which they also tend
to isolate from the history of science. Gilbert defined magnetism as a
form of desire within nature, a mode of “incorporeal materialism” and
dispersed sexual agency that asserts a masculine “vigor” and form of
nature upon the feminine “womb” of the Earth. This essay argues that
such a theory of a disembodied yet masculine magnetic virtue marginalizes
knowledge practices associated with the secrets of women
and reproduces a set of binary oppositions between male science and
female nature that becomes codified even more forcefully during the
Scientific Revolution. At the same time, like the “field of desire” that
Karen Barad identifies in lightning and quantum physics, magnetism
in Gilbert provokes questions about the “agential capacities” that link
animate and inanimate material in affective and embodied networks.