Setting up a discipline, II: British history of science and "the end of ideology", 1931-1948
Abstract
For the history of science the 1940s were a transformative decade, when salient scholars like Herbert Butterfield or Alexandre Koyré set out to shape postwar culture by promoting new standards for understanding science. Some years ago I placed these developments in a tradition of enduring arts-science tensions and the contemporary notion that previous, "scientistic", historical practices needed to be confronted with disinterested codes of historical craft (Mayer, 2000). Here, I want to further explore the ideological dimensions of the processes through which the academic study of science became institutionalized. Butterfield's generation of science historians moulded perception of science in highly specific ways. Whereas the scientist-historians of the 1930s put scientific innovation into its socio-economic contexts, postwar accounts portrayed the birth of modern science as an intellectual revolution. Anti-Marxism formed a defining feature of the process by which the image of scientific work as a disinterested journey of the mind came to be institutionalized. Rather than spelling the end of ideology, appointments processes in the early Cold War years reveal disagreement about what science was to be invariably coextensive with dissent about social and political order. Rather than testifying to irreconcilable conflicts between interestedness and historical craft, the work of both the 1930s and 40s speaks of surprisingly productive relations between the two.
- Publication:
-
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science
- Pub Date:
- 2004
- DOI:
- 10.1016/j.shpsa.2003.12.010
- Bibcode:
- 2004SHPSA..35...41M
- Keywords:
-
- Hessen;
- Bernal;
- Pagel;
- Needham;
- Butterfield;
- Cold War;
- Cambridge