This article analyzes the statements on plain style made by Royal Society writers and seventeenth-century women writers. Using scholarship in feminist rhetorical theory, the article concludes that Royal Society plain stylists constructed scientific discourse as a masculine form of discourse by purging elements that were associated with femininity, such as emotional appeals. The article also discusses how women writers, particularly Margaret Cavendish, embraced a plain style more out of concern for their audience than out of a desire to eliminate undesirable feminine attributes. The implications of this historical study for understanding of current practice are noted.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SpratT., History of the Royal Society, CopeJ. I. and JonesH. W. (eds.), Washington University Press, St. Louis, 1958.
2.
JonesR. F., Science and English Prose Style in the Third Quarter of the Seventeenth Century, PMLA, 45: 3, pp. 977–1009, 1930.
3.
TebeauxE., The Voices of English Women Technical Writers, 1641–1700: Imprints in the Evolution of Modern English Prose Style, Technical Communication Quarterly, 7: 2, pp. 125–152, 1998.
4.
StillmanR. E., The New Philosophy and Universal Language Schemes in Seventeenth-Century England: Bacon, Hobbes, and Wilkins, Associated University Presses, London, 1995.
5.
MerchantC., The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution, Harper and Row, San Francisco, 1980.
6.
KellerE. F., The Paradox of Scientific Subjectivity, Annals of Scholarship, 9: 1, pp. 135–153, 1992.
7.
KellerE. F., Reflections on Gender and Science, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1985.
ShapinS. and SchafferS., Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1985.
10.
ShapinS., A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1994.
11.
SauerB., Sexual Dynamics of the Profession: Articulating the Ecriture Masculine of Science and Technology, Technical Communication Quarterly, 3: 3, pp. 309–323, 1994.
12.
FlynnJ. F., Toward a Feminist Historiography of Technical Communication, Technical Communication Quarterly, 6: 3, pp. 321–329, 1997.
13.
LayM. M., The Value of Gender Studies to Professional Communication Research, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 8: 1, pp. 58–90, 1994.
14.
KynellT. C. and MoranM. G. (eds.), Three Keys to the Past: The History of Technical Communication, Ablex, Stamford, Connecticut, 1999.
15.
LongoB., Spurious Coin: A History of Science, Management, and Technical Writing, State University of New York Press, Albany, New York, 2000.
16.
ThompsonI., Women and Feminism in Technical Communication: A Qualitative Content Analysis of Journal Articles Published in 1989 through 1997, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 13: 2, pp. 154–178. 1999.
17.
LippincottG., Rhetorical Chemistry: Negotiating Gendered Audiences in Nineteenth-Century Nutrition Studies, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 17: 1, pp. 10–49, 2003.
18.
DurackK. T., Authority and Audience-Centered Writing Strategies: Sexism in 19th-Century Sewing Machine Manuals, Technical Communication, 45: 2, pp. 180–196, 1998.
19.
BrasseurL. E. and ThompsonT. L., Gendered Ideologies: Cultural and Social Contexts for Illustrated Medical Manuals in Renaissance England, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 38: 4, pp. 204–215, 1995.
20.
BizzellP., Feminist Methods of Research in the History of Rhetoric: What Difference Do They Make?Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 30: 4, pp. 5–17, 2000.
21.
FossK. A.FossS. K., and GriffinC. L. (eds.), Feminist Rhetorical Theories, Sage, Thousand Oaks, 1999.
22.
GlennC., Rhetoric Retold: Regendering the Tradition from Antiquity Through the Renaissance, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, 1997.
23.
VickersB., Restoration Prose Style: A Reassessment, in Rhetoric and the Pursuit of Truth: Language Change in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries: Papers Read at Clark Library Seminar, March 8,1980, VickersB. and StrueverN. S. (eds.), University of California Press, Los Angeles, pp. 3–76, 1985.
24.
BrodyM., Manly Writing: Gender, Rhetoric, and the Rise of Composition, University of Southern Illinois Press, Carbondale, 1993.
25.
BaconF., Preparative Toward Natural and Experimental History, in The New Organon and Related Writings, AndersonF. (ed.), Liberal Arts Press, New York, 1960.
26.
SutliffK. G., The Influence of the Royal Society on the Prose Style of Joseph Glanvill, unpublished dissertation, Oklahoma State University, 1985.
27.
GlanvillJ., Scepsis Scientifica, or Confest Ignorance the Way of Science; in an Essay of the Vanity of Dogmatizing and Confident Opinion. With a Reply to the Exceptions of the Learned Thomas Albius, The Harvester Press, Sussex, England, 1665, reprint 1970.
28.
ShapinS., ‘A Scholar and a Gentleman’: The Problematic Identity of the Scientific Practitioner in Early Modern England, History of Science, 29, pp. 279–337, 1991.
29.
EdeL.GlennC., and LunsfordA., Border Crossings: Intersections of Rhetoric and Feminism, Rhetorica, 13: 4, pp. 401–441, 1995.
30.
HunterL. and HuttonS. (eds.), Women, Science, and Medicine 1500–1700, Sutton Press, Gloucestershire, 1997.
31.
DastonL., Baconian Facts, Academic Civility, and the Prehistory of Objectivity, Annals of Scholarship, 8: 3, pp. 337–363, 1991.
32.
DearP., From Truth to Disinterestedness in the Seventeenth Century, Social Studies of Science, 22: 4, pp. 619–631, 1992.
33.
GrossA., The Rhetoric of Science, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1996.
34.
BonoJ. J., The Word of God and the Languages of Man: Interpreting Nature in Early Modern Science and Medicine, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1995.
35.
WilkinsJ., Essay Towards a Real Character and Philosophical Language, London, 1668.
36.
ReedJ., Restoration and Repression: The Language Projects of the Royal Society, Studies in Eighteenth Century Culture, 19, pp. 399–412, 1989.
37.
MarkleyR., Fallen Languages: Crises of Representation in Newtonian England, 1660–1740, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1993.
38.
StarkJ. R., Margaret Cavendish and Composition Style, Rhetoric Review, 17: 2, pp. 264–281, 1999.
39.
NateR., ‘Plain and Vulgarly Express'd’: Margaret Cavendish and the Discourse of the New Science, Rhetorica, 19: 4, pp. 403–417, 2001.
40.
CavendishM., Observations on Experimental Philosophy, A. Maxwell, London, 1666.
41.
HookeR., Micrographia, Wheldon & Wesley, Ltd. and Hafner Publishing Company, New York, 1665, reprinted 1961.
42.
SarasohnL., A Science Turned Upside Down: Feminism and the Natural Philosophy of Margaret Cavendish, Huntington Library Quarterly, 17, pp. 289–307, 1984.
43.
BowerbankS., The Spider's Delight: Margaret Cavendish and the ‘Female’ Imagination, English Literary Renaissance, 14, pp. 392–408, 1984.
44.
KellerE., Producing Petty Gods: Margaret Cavendish's Critique of Experimental Science, English Literary History, 64: 2, pp. 447–471, 1997.
45.
SharpJ., The Midwives Book, or the Whole Art of Midwifry Discovered, HobbyE. (ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999.
46.
SauerB., Sense and Sensibility in Technical Documentation: How Feminist Interpretation Strategies Can Save Lives in the Nation's Mines, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 7: 1, pp. 63–83, 1993.
47.
DombrowskiP., Ethics in Technical Communication, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 2000.
48.
WaddellC., Saving the Great Lakes: Public Participation in Environmental Policy, in Green Culture: Environmental Rhetoric in Contemporary America, HerndlC. G. and BrownS. C. (eds.), University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 141–165, 1996.
49.
TilleryDenise, Radioactive Waste and Technical Doubts: Genre and Environmental Opposition to Nuclear Waste Sites, TCQ, 12: 4, 2003.
50.
TilleryDenise (with Brenda Camp Orbell), Reinventing Technical Communicators: Graduate Education and the Need for Academic Specialists in Technical Communication, in Culture Shock and the Practice of Profession, RomanoSusan and AndersonVirginia (eds.), Hampton Press, Cresskill, New Jersey, 2004.
51.
TilleryDenise, Margaret Cavendish as Natural Philosopher: Gender and Early Modern Science, Interdisciplinary Science Review, 28: 3, 2003.
52.
Tillery, Denise, Engendering the Language of the New Science: The Subject of John Wilkins's Language Project, The Eighteenth Century: Theory and Interpretation, 44: 2, 2003.
53.
TilleryDenise, Language, Power, and Professional Choices: A Hermeneutic Approach to Teaching Technical Communication, TCQ, 10, p. 1, 2001.
54.
TilleryDenise (with Richard Johnson-Sheehan), Margaret Cavendish, Natural Philosopher: Negotiating between Metaphors of the Old and New Sciences, in Eighteenth-Century Women Writers: Studies in Their Lives, Work, and Culture, 1, TroostLinda (ed.), AMC Press, New York, 2001.
