ions from case studies allowed Havelock Ellis to rework prior discourses on the topic. His work (re)articulated knowledge claims on the basis of new case histories and novel theories. To appreciate this important issue, Ellis's work must be considered in terms ofthe field of sexology?how it related to other discourses in the field, and how it extended the parameters This content downloaded from 157.55.39.163 on Sat, 19 Nov 2016 04:30:46 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Philosophy in the English Boudoir 299 ofthe field. In this way we can understand Ellis's strategies when he wrote Love and Pain and begin to consider how sexological discourses were negotiated. The whole point of writing a sexological discourse was to carve out an area of expertise by adding to the stock of sexological knowledge. This in? volved enlisting the right forms of symbolic capital, which would strengthen the claims being made. Ellis also tailored his text to meet the expectations of the sexological field; he wrote a study that incorporated the right kinds of evidence and made suitable claims. Ellis fit Love and Pain into the field of sexology by referring to and expanding upon the work of Krafft-Ebing, Kiernan, Moyer, and Fere, all of whom he cited consistently and favorably in the last edition ofthe work. He drew upon the idea first suggested by Kiernan and then adopted by KrafftEbing that sadism and masochism were basic elements of sexual attraction in nature and that it was not surprising to find them as fundamental in human sexual desire. By adopting this model of sexual attraction, which runs through all ofhis work, Ellis elaborated upon earlier connections between gender and sexuality.83 In Love and Pain specifically he proposed that sadism and masochism were linked in individuals and were part ofa gendered con? tinuum. Ellis's emphasis upon the symbolic rather than the physical in? stances of algophilic practice (which was referred to by Bloch) show that he was more generally interested in the phenomenon of pain than in the ex? treme sexual types embodied in sadism and masochism. His preference for cases that were mixed also demonstrates his sense ofa continuum between these practices. And the fact that the cases he included were of people who could function in society fit his political ideas about personal liberty and the freedom of individual expression. While all of these ideas are traceable to others in the field for which Ellis wrote Love and Pain, his unique way of mobilizing them, which owed everything to his idiosyncratic scientific secularism, made the claims Ellis's own.84 Havelock Ellis's Impact on Studies of Algolagnia Knowledge is collective rather than individual property. For Havelock Ellis's claims about algolagnia to become facts, they had to be accepted by other researchers as accurate and true. To what extent did this happen? How did other sexologists respond to Ellis's work, both in their reviews of it and in their own discourses? 83See, for example, The Evolution ofModesty, Analysis ofthe Sexual Impulse (1903; 2nd ed., revised and enlarged, 1913), Sexual Selection in Man (1905), and Sex in Relation to Society (1910), where these ideas are prevalent but adapted to Ellis's own standpoint. 84The preceding paragraph owes much to Jerome Ravetz, Scientific Knowledge and Its Social Problems (Oxford, 1970), and Barnes, On the Conventional Character, as well as other works by Barnes. To a lesser extent it also exhibits some ofthe concerns of Michel Foucault as expressed in The Archaeology of Knowledge (London, 1972). This content downloaded from 157.55.39.163 on Sat, 19 Nov 2016 04:30:46 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms