Science and medicine

This is the first ‘Science and Medicine’ chapter in The Year’s Work in Critical and Cultural Theory. It is synchronised with the journal’s other chapters in its reviewing of works published in 2010, while it also reads these works in the broader context of rapidly expanding interdisciplinary areas of research. Scientific and medical vocabularies are (to use a scientific metaphor) cross-pollinating within many areas of scholarship in the humanities, and this current period is bringing many exciting developments. This chapter concentrates on literary studies, while forthcoming chapters will also look more squarely at cultural studies.

Motherhood, evolutionary psychology and mirror neurons or: ‘Grammar is politics by other means’

Through a close analysis of socio-biologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy’s work on motherhood and ‘mirror neurons’ it is argued that Hrdy’s claims exemplify how research that ostensibly bases itself on neuroscience, including in literary studies ‘literary Darwinism’, relies after all not on scientific, but on political assumptions, namely on underlying, unquestioned claims about the autonomous, transparent, liberal agent of consumer capitalism. These underpinning assumptions, it is further argued, involve the suppression or overlooking of an alternative, prior tradition of feminist theory, including feminist science criticism.

Better dead: J. M. Barrie’s first book and the shilling fiction market

This article provides a critical and bibliographical discussion of J. M. Barrie’s neglected first book, Better Dead, published by Swan Sonnenschein, Lowrey & Co. in 1887. Drawing on previously unexamined evidence in the Sonnenschein archive, it shows how this shilling novel was marketed and sold to its readers at railway bookstalls, and argues that the content and style of the story was conditioned by its form. Examining the many references and allusions in the story, it proposes that the work is best understood as a satire on contemporary political, social and literary themes. The article also shows how, contrary to all published accounts, the author actually earned a small amount of money from a work which, in spite of his efforts, refused to stay dead.