‘A most interesting chapter in the history of science’: intellectual responses to Alfred Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male

History of the Human Sciences 25 (1):75-98 (2012)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

There were three broad categories of academic responses to Alfred Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male : method; findings; and broader reflections on the book’s place in American social life and democracy. This article focuses primarily on archival academic responses to Kinsey’s work that appeared in the year following the book’s publication. Many academics agreed that some aspects of Kinsey’s method were flawed and that his interpretations sometimes overreached his raw data. Nonetheless, they also agreed that no one else had gathered such a diverse sampling of interviewees whose behaviors Kinsey could use to create new interpretive models of human sexuality. As Kinsey’s research was deliberately interdisciplinary, his research and statistical methodologies began to catch on in the human sciences and to encourage academics and intellectuals to rethink their human science practices. As academics reflected on the volume’s larger meaning in American life, several of them thought it exemplified the worst American values while others saw the very existence of the Male volume as an excellent example of the ability of free citizens to pursue and to publish research on any topic. While members of the American intelligentsia championed the Male volume and its findings as democratic, the reception of Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, published at an intense moment of the cold war, was viewed as a communist threat to American security for revealing the sexual secrets of the public.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,616

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Adam Smith: History and poetics.Michael C. Amrozowicz - 2013 - In Christopher J. Berry, Maria Pia Paganelli & Craig Smith (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Adam Smith. Oxford University Press. pp. 143.
Philosophy of History and History of Philosophy of Science.Thomas Uebel - 2017 - Hopos: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 7 (1):1-30.
``Why study history for science?''.Jane Maienschein - 2000 - Biology and Philosophy 15 (3):339-348.
Ignorance: How It Drives Science.Stuart Firestein - 2012 - Oxford University Press.
How Thought Experiments Increase Understanding.Michael T. Stuart - 2018 - In Michael T. Stuart, Yiftach Fehige & James Robert Brown (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Thought Experiments. London: Routledge. pp. 526-544.
Can the Language of Science Be Formalized?Veronica Janis Vieland - 1987 - Dissertation, Columbia University
The life of reason.George Santayana - 1905 - New York,: Collier Books.
Philosophy, Logic, Science, History.Tim Crane - 2012 - Metaphilosophy 43 (1-2):20-37.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-01

Downloads
50 (#282,559)

6 months
1 (#1,040,386)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?