Poovey’s analyses the representation of Florence Nightingale as “joining what could be seen either as two apparently antithetical narratives of as the manifest and latent contents of the same narrative by reworking or repressing their discordant features” (172). This description of a powerful and notable woman in a male/technology dominated industry reminded me very strongly of other women we have discussed in the course. The creators of the narrative around these women (generally men) must find a way to reconcile the talent of these women with the expectations surrounding their profession. Just as Ada Lovelace presented herself as mystical to justify her great mind, so too do the narratives around Nightingale “simultaneously acknowledge her power and effectively place it beyond the scope of mortal women” (171). Only very special women could break into these fields, so men should not worry about the competition. The myths surrounding Nightingale are interesting, but not entirely unique in their presentation.
Another thing that struck out to me in this reading was from the “obituary” which claimed that Nightingale was a pioneer and made her pathway much smoother for the women who followed. All of this was done even though Nightingale was still the picture of femininity and female subservience. This reminded me of our discussion about the Harvard astronomers, among which there were many notable women. But simply “breaking” the glass ceiling is not enough. Existing in a field as a women does not necessarily mean progress, nor does it help other women enter that field. It is possible Nightingale had a stronger effect that the Harvard astronomers, but this was likely due to her strong presence in the press, even though that was understated and misinterpreted as well.
