Henri Matisse Robe violette et Anemones 1937 Cone Collection, Baltimore Museum of Art
Taking Jan Golinski’s work as the primary example, explain what this group of historians means when it refers to “science as public culture”. Pay particular attention to how this group of historians defines the public.
This paper explores the relationship between the development of science in the Eighteenth Century and its audience. Sociological approaches to the history of science emphasize the fact that local contexts and history define the outcome of the cognitive content of certain scientific disciplines. Golinski’s analysis of the social shaping of chemistry is an excellent starting point to study how social values, behaviors, education, and social status of the audience shaped other disciplines in the eighteenth century. The following paragraphs explore who was the audience or the public culture of the divining rod, and women’s popular science writing in England.
Jan Golinski argues that particular communities that supported British chemists shaped the ways research was conducted and findings were presented. Moreover, Golinski demonstrates the differences between the Scottish and the British communities that supported chemistry. In Scotland, chemists were accepted because of the importance of chemistry to technology and regional identity. In Britain, chemists won their acceptance by supporting a political, social, and economic order of the Eighteenth Century. Eventually, Golinski asserts that social values, political and social concerns of the audiences shaped chemistry’s cognitive content. Moreover, Golinski illustrates how science adjusted to the shifting composition and value-system of its audience. As the audiences changed its social components, the discourse and the cognitive content of chemistry shifted to conform the new audiences.
Golinski uses the sophisticated term of public culture to refer to his audience. His definition of public culture is rooted on Jürgen Habermas’s definition of the “public culture” as an arena for political discourse that is not under immediate control of the state. The existence of public culture allows redefinitions of political, economic, and social values and behaviors within a historical and regional context so as to gradually reform or abruptly change its status quo. Joseph Priestly embodies the active civic role for chemistry, a moral dimension to the science and the democratic diffusion of socially useful research by egalitarian cadres of practitioners. However, the public culture that supported the chemistry community shifted from having an active role related to political reform in the 1790s to a passive one motivated by economic interests in the 1810s. In the 1810s, the public chemistry deployed the discoveries of great men to a more passive audience in ways that underscored social, political, and theological conservatism. The main institution was the Royal Academy and its main practitioner was Humphry Davy. The new passive audience founded Davy’s chemical scientific pursuits by becoming his patrons because his chemistry did not threaten the social, political, and economic order of the 1810s.
Michael Lynn studies the changing public culture that supported the legitimacy and social recognition of the divining rod during the Enlightenment in France. In the 1690s, the diving rod’s practical use was to find minerals or water, as well as, criminals, especially murderers. In the Seventeenth Century the divining rod’s practice attracted a large audience. Theologians, doctors, physicians, natural philosophers and even astrologers had their own opinion about the cultural meaning and the utility of the divining rod. Later in the 1770s and the 1780s, the divining rod captured the imagination of the French again but from a more conservative perspective. The battle over the divining rod focused on where authority lay. The education and social status of the witness determined the validity of the divining rod.
Ann B. Shteir argues that the audience for women’s popular science writing in England was children. Shteir focuses on Maria Jackson’s writings on popular science. Shteir demonstrates that women cultivated a market for popular botanic books from the 1790 to the 1840. Maria Jackson had scientific interests but she had to leave them aside to conform to the social rules of British society in the Nineteenth Century. Jackson discovered that popular botanic book-writing was one of the few ways women could participate in scientific discourse. However, it was bounded by the literary conventions of social and political restraints. That is to say, the role of women in science writing was restricted. So was her audience. Jackson was expected to write mainly for children, and she thus fulfilled the expectations of her society.
The chemistry community in Britain and Scotland, the divining rod in France, and women’s popular science writing in England, were shaped by the value-system of their audiences. Golinski, Lynn, and Shteir’s purpose is to illustrate the historicity of the audiences. The audiences of the Enlightenment period were critical and were engaged in social, political, and economic reform. Therefore, such active audiences led to a creative and audacious science. As the counterrevolutionary political movements settled in the 1810s, the audiences did not want neither political nor social change. The main goal of the passive audiences was to support the economic and technological purposes of science. The relationship between an audience’s political, social and economic concerns and the shaping of scientific knowledge is excellently articulated by Golinski, Shteir and Lynn. Their stress on the local construction of scientific knowledge is superb. However, their approach ignores the cognitive content of the various disciplines because of the over determination of history upon scientific knowledge. The three scholars forget to show the different ways of how such a local construction of scientific knowledge turns into “universal” scientific knowledge. The relationship between the local construction of science and its introduction into mainstream scientific knowledge remains unexplored.
Georgetown University
Department of History
This paper explores the relationship between the development of science in the Eighteenth Century and its audience. Sociological approaches to the history of science emphasize the fact that local contexts and history define the outcome of the cognitive content of certain scientific disciplines. Golinski’s analysis of the social shaping of chemistry is an excellent starting point to study how social values, behaviors, education, and social status of the audience shaped other disciplines in the eighteenth century. The following paragraphs explore who was the audience or the public culture of the divining rod, and women’s popular science writing in England.
Jan Golinski argues that particular communities that supported British chemists shaped the ways research was conducted and findings were presented. Moreover, Golinski demonstrates the differences between the Scottish and the British communities that supported chemistry. In Scotland, chemists were accepted because of the importance of chemistry to technology and regional identity. In Britain, chemists won their acceptance by supporting a political, social, and economic order of the Eighteenth Century. Eventually, Golinski asserts that social values, political and social concerns of the audiences shaped chemistry’s cognitive content. Moreover, Golinski illustrates how science adjusted to the shifting composition and value-system of its audience. As the audiences changed its social components, the discourse and the cognitive content of chemistry shifted to conform the new audiences.
Golinski uses the sophisticated term of public culture to refer to his audience. His definition of public culture is rooted on Jürgen Habermas’s definition of the “public culture” as an arena for political discourse that is not under immediate control of the state. The existence of public culture allows redefinitions of political, economic, and social values and behaviors within a historical and regional context so as to gradually reform or abruptly change its status quo. Joseph Priestly embodies the active civic role for chemistry, a moral dimension to the science and the democratic diffusion of socially useful research by egalitarian cadres of practitioners. However, the public culture that supported the chemistry community shifted from having an active role related to political reform in the 1790s to a passive one motivated by economic interests in the 1810s. In the 1810s, the public chemistry deployed the discoveries of great men to a more passive audience in ways that underscored social, political, and theological conservatism. The main institution was the Royal Academy and its main practitioner was Humphry Davy. The new passive audience founded Davy’s chemical scientific pursuits by becoming his patrons because his chemistry did not threaten the social, political, and economic order of the 1810s.
Michael Lynn studies the changing public culture that supported the legitimacy and social recognition of the divining rod during the Enlightenment in France. In the 1690s, the diving rod’s practical use was to find minerals or water, as well as, criminals, especially murderers. In the Seventeenth Century the divining rod’s practice attracted a large audience. Theologians, doctors, physicians, natural philosophers and even astrologers had their own opinion about the cultural meaning and the utility of the divining rod. Later in the 1770s and the 1780s, the divining rod captured the imagination of the French again but from a more conservative perspective. The battle over the divining rod focused on where authority lay. The education and social status of the witness determined the validity of the divining rod.
Ann B. Shteir argues that the audience for women’s popular science writing in England was children. Shteir focuses on Maria Jackson’s writings on popular science. Shteir demonstrates that women cultivated a market for popular botanic books from the 1790 to the 1840. Maria Jackson had scientific interests but she had to leave them aside to conform to the social rules of British society in the Nineteenth Century. Jackson discovered that popular botanic book-writing was one of the few ways women could participate in scientific discourse. However, it was bounded by the literary conventions of social and political restraints. That is to say, the role of women in science writing was restricted. So was her audience. Jackson was expected to write mainly for children, and she thus fulfilled the expectations of her society.
The chemistry community in Britain and Scotland, the divining rod in France, and women’s popular science writing in England, were shaped by the value-system of their audiences. Golinski, Lynn, and Shteir’s purpose is to illustrate the historicity of the audiences. The audiences of the Enlightenment period were critical and were engaged in social, political, and economic reform. Therefore, such active audiences led to a creative and audacious science. As the counterrevolutionary political movements settled in the 1810s, the audiences did not want neither political nor social change. The main goal of the passive audiences was to support the economic and technological purposes of science. The relationship between an audience’s political, social and economic concerns and the shaping of scientific knowledge is excellently articulated by Golinski, Shteir and Lynn. Their stress on the local construction of scientific knowledge is superb. However, their approach ignores the cognitive content of the various disciplines because of the over determination of history upon scientific knowledge. The three scholars forget to show the different ways of how such a local construction of scientific knowledge turns into “universal” scientific knowledge. The relationship between the local construction of science and its introduction into mainstream scientific knowledge remains unexplored.
Georgetown University
Department of History
No comments:
Post a Comment