Danielle Dulken, PhD Student, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Proposal Type

Structured Conversation

Seeking
  • Seeking Additional Presenters
  • Seeking Specific Expertise
  • General Feedback and Interest
Related Topics
  • Material Culture
  • Museums/Exhibits
  • Teaching
Abstract

Public historians have established the profession is tasked with interpreting celebratory histories as well as complicated, sometimes painful narratives that have contributed equally to our past. Last fall at a symposium on slavery, novelist Dolen Perkins-Valdez and scholar Jennifer James asked, “How do the sexual labors of enslaved women get interpreted? How do we share that important history?” As a public historian, this question struck me as powerful and extremely necessary. The body and reproduction are each deeply enmeshed in our past and yet few if any exhibits have unpacked these complex histories. So I ask, how can we share the narratives of midwifery, sterilization, or forced sexual labor? Where do we begin? And what do we tell?

Seeking

In this proposed session, I invite public historians to consider – within the spectrum of all phenotypes and ethnicities – the histories of the body and reproduction. I am curious to discuss a range of issues, from methodological approaches and research topics to administrative concerns.

Topics, for example, might include: How do public historians tell the history of folk medicine and midwifery in the rural South? Or, the history of doula practices? Or, with regard to Perkins-Valdez and James’ question, how do we interpret the sexual labors of the enslaved? What about the sterilization of Latinas in California? And perhaps one of the most complex issues of all: How do we tell histories of abortion?

Concerns might include: Do you include trigger warnings for younger viewers? Do you choose to tell only parts of these histories to mitigate controversy? If so, how? And what about controversy — how do you as a museum professional prepare for public uproar? Is there a way to tell these histories without arousing a public commotion? If not, do we avoid interpreting this past?

If one thing has been made clear by the conversations born from NCPH these past years, it is that all histories – no matter how complicated or difficult to share with the public – deserve our attention.

To complete this panel, I need support from approximately four more panelists, preferably with expertise in one of the aforementioned topics or a similar area (ie., sterilization, midwifery, doula work, eugenics, birth control, abortion, rape, enslaved sexual labors, etc.).

I also encourage feedback on possibilities for broadening or narrowing the conversation. And I welcome any additional ideas that readers feel inspired to contribute.


If you have a direct offer of assistance, sensitive criticism, or wish to share contact information for other people the proposer should reach out to, please get in contact directly: Danielle Dulken

If you have general ideas or feedback to share please feel free to use the comments feature below.

All feedback, and offers of assistance, should be submitted by July 3, 2016.

COMMENTS HAVE CLOSED. PLEASE EMAIL THE PROPOSER DIRECTLY WITH ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR OFFERS TO COLLABORATE.

Discussion

3 comments
  1. I hope this ends up on the conference program; it’s a session I would definitely attend.

    About 10 years ago (Summer 2007), The Public Historian ran a special issue on “The Public and Private History of Eugenics” (http://tph.ucpress.edu/content/29/3). You might find some potential speakers among the issue’s authors.

    1. Danielle says:

      Thank you, Susan! This is extremely helpful. And I greatly appreciate your support. Hopefully I can pull something together.

  2. Laurie Arnold says:

    This sounds like a great discussion and such an important one. Native American women also experienced force sterilizations, particularly at BIA facilities. It could be a great comparative session!

    This notes an admission from the government regarding these sterilizations:
    https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nativevoices/timeline/543.html
    “A study by the U.S. General Accounting Office finds that 4 of the 12 Indian Health Service regions sterilized 3,406 American Indian women without their permission between 1973 and 1976. The GAO finds that 36 women under age 21 had been forcibly sterilized during this period despite a court-ordered moratorium on sterilizations of women younger than 21.”

    And scholars began to explore this topic in more detail in the 2000s. You might take a look at American Indian Quarterly and American Indian Culture and Research Journal, both for sources and for possible discussants. Myla Vicenti Carpio at ASU might be a good place to start. This is her article: Lost Generation: Sterilization and American Indian Women.”
    Social Justice: A Journal of Crime, Conflict & World Order. 31:4 (2004).

    Good luck!
    Laurie

Comments are closed.