Advertisement

Anatomical Assemblages: Medical Technologies, Bodies and their Entangled Practices

  • Ericka Johnson
Chapter

Sometimes in medicine it is hard to see what you want to examine. Sometimes it is even hard to feel what you want to touch. The female reproductive tract is an example of anatomical structures that can be hard to examine with the bare eyes and even the bare hands. It can be hard to see them, feel them, examine them to determine their shape, their size, if they have growths in or on them, if they are healthy or diseased. A doctor’s fingers and hands can approach them, and other technologies—like ultrasound wands and various scans—can be used to create images of the parts to complement the tactile impressions the doctor collects during a manual examination. But knowing what they are, knowing them, is a complex practice.

What this chapter considers is how the patient body is a knowledge phenomenon emerging within the medical practices used to examine it and through the technologies used to model it. Discussing specifically the bimanual pelvic examination for women, I explain how the...

References

  1. Barad, Karen. 1996. Meeting the universe halfway: Realism and social constructivism without contradiction. In Feminism, science, and the philosophy of science, eds. Lynn Hankinson Nelson, and Jack Nelson, 161–194. London: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barad, Karen. 1998. Getting real: Technoscientific practices and the materialization of reality. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 10(2): 87–128.Google Scholar
  3. Barad, Karen. 2003. Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28(3): 801–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barad, Karen. 2007. Meeting the universe half-way: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barad, Karen. 2012. On touching – the inhuman that therefore I am. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 25(3): 206–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braidotti, Rosi. 2013. The posthuman. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  7. Callus, Ivan, and Stefan Herbrechter. 2012. Introduction: Posthumanist subjectivities, or, coming after the subject. Subjectivity 5: 241–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cartwright, Lisa. 1998. A cultural anatomy of the visible human project. In The visible woman: Imaging technologies, gender, and science, eds. Paula Treichler, Lisa Cartwright, and Constance Penley, 21–43. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Diana, Coole, Samantha Frost eds. 2010. New materialisms: Ontology, agency, and politics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Ferrando, Francesca. 2013. Posthumanism, transhumanism, antihumanism, metahumanism, and new materialism: Differences and relations. Existenz 8(2): 26–32.Google Scholar
  11. Hayles, N. Katherine. 1999. How we became posthuman. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnson, Ericka. 2005. The ghost of anatomies past: Simulating the one-sex body in modern medical training. Feminist Theory 6(2): 141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnson, Ericka. 2008. Simulating medical patients and practices: Bodies and the construction of valid medical simulators. Body and Society 14(3): 105–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jordanova, Ludmilla. 1998. Medicine and genres of display. In Visual display: Culture beyond appearances, eds. Lynne Cooke, and Peter Wollen, 202–217. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  15. Jordanova, Ludmilla. 1999. Nature displayed: Gender, science and medicine 1760–1820. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  16. Kirby, Vicki. 2012. Initial conditions. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 25(3): 197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Laqueur, Thomas. 1990. Making sex: Body and gender from the greeks to freud. London, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Laqueur, Thomas. 2003. Sex in the flesh. Isis 94(2): 300–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Latour, Bruno, and T. Hugh Crawford. 1993. An interview with Bruno Latour. Configurations: Journal of Literature, Science, and Technology 1(2): 247–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Martin, Emily. 1991. The egg and the sperm: How science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male-female roles. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 16(3): 485–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Martin, Emily. 1992. The woman in the body: A cultural analysis of reproduction. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  22. Mol, Annemarie. 2002. The body multiple. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nayar, Pramod K. 2014. Posthumanism. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  24. Prentice, Rachel. 2013. Bodies in formation. An ethnography of anatomy and surgery education. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Schiebinger, Londa. 1993. Nature’s body: Gender in the making of modern science. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  26. Schiebinger, Londa. 2003. Skelettestreit. Isis 94(2): 307–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sundén, Jenny. 2010. Blonde birth machines: Medical simulation, techno-corporeality and posthuman feminism. In Technology and medical practice: Blood, guts and machines, eds. Ericka Johnson, and Boel Berner, 97–117. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  28. Wailoo, Keith. 1999. Drawing blood. Technology and disease identity in twentieth-century america. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Waldby, Cathy. 2000. The Visible human project: Informatic bodies and posthuman medicine. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tema Technology and Social Change, Linköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations