The end of the nineteenth century was a pivotal time in the collective views of the western society. During this time society fought to orient its moral compass and define a set of societal beliefs that would propel it into the perils twentieth century. In Sara Murphy’s project Heart, Science and Regulation: Victorian Antivivisection Discourse and the Human she argues that the large political and social debate over scientific branch of vivisection was the largely the platform on which the English society stood to argue right from wrong and what was to be accepted in the impending futuristic world. Murphy cites the work of the novelist, Willkie Collins, saying his book Heart and Science largely reflected the struggles of the day. Towards the end of her project Murphy states, “antivivisectionists sought to define emotional and dispositional norms that would articulate the category within of humanity with national identity” (383). She is saying that though the scientists of the day were locked in a heated debate of whether it was right to conduct scientific experimentation on live animals, they were in fact on the larger scale fighting to change the views of an entire civilized society.
Murphy touches upon three crucial elements that were involved in such a revolution of public view, the governing law, humanistic nature, and the influence of literature. Upon further examination of all social revolutions it would appear that these three elements are the building blocks of a societal change. As Ovit pointed out within her work, a trial, which is to say an in depth examination of the law, is merely a reflection of the accepted belief of present day. Farther more, this is to say that the law is an articulation of the collective population’s moral views. Though not all governing laws are a true representation of the public opinion, it is undeniable that all laws do have an impact on public views. Whether they are in favor of such laws or against, laws help unify the people’s views of difficult subjects.
In perhaps a subtler way than the governing law, literature also has an enormous impact in shaping the views of the masses. Murphy sites the work of others by saying “‘English literature may be pressed into our services […] help[ing] to awaken public opinion’” (375), in other word we are able to use literature to our advantage using the power of the written word to help change the views of the larger population. Often times such literature pulls at the third most important aspect of a shift in public view, human nature. We as humans are extremely predictable, and generally fall back on what we find “natural”. Writers use their works to pull at the most fundamental elements of what it means to be human, in order to persuade their readers of their convictions. The collective view of an entire population is not something that can change overnight. It takes time and the help of, the law, the written word, and basic human needs to create a societal revolution.
I think the notion that there is an intersection between law, science and literature, and that it is this intersection which allows not only for debates such as this to persist, but it also extends the debate, combining different aspects of the varying disciplines is important. You stated that “Murphy touches upon three elements that were involved in such a revolution of public view,” i.e.: “the governing law, humanistic nature, and the influence of literature” and that it is these which effect the public view. In her project, Murphy cites Otis argument that Collins is “retrying Ferrier though his novel.” However, she then notes that “to read the novel in this way might seem to evoke that thread of recent critical discourse on law and literature that has argued that novel sustain and cultivate a certain humanist sentiment in the face of modern law.” What do you think she means by this? More importantly, what are the implications of this intersection between law, science and literature and what is Murphy’s stance?