Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T05:15:14.871Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Peculiarities of the Americans or Are There National Styles in the Sciences?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Nathan Reingold
Nathan Reingold
Affiliation:
Smithsonian InstitutionWashington D.C
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Over the years national styles have been invoked or denigrated in the writing of the history of science. This paper is an attempt to give the concept of national style a degree of precision and clarity enabling scholars to understand when and how it may be invoked and when and how its use would be dubious or even forbidden. The example of the United States of America is used because the history of the sciences in the United States was often written loosely in terms supposedly conducive to national style analyses. We first discuss the problem of commonalities, factors widely present within all countries in the Western tradition, which, by definition, cannot be exclusive national attributes. Here the problem is to somehow determine whether the supposed national style attribute is a case of a significantly different degree of intensity than some presumed norm in the Western tradition.

The principal thesis advanced is that pre-existing historiographic assumptions largely determine whether or not a scholar finds or does not find a national style. This is discussed in terms of some examples for the U.S. case. More particularly, a number of examples are discussed from the three principal genres or schools in current writing in the history of science: the knowledge-centered; the doing-science; and the context-oriented. Based on the analysis of the examples, an attempt is made to sketch an approach to a more rigorous use of the concept of national style.

Type
Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , Autumn 1991 , pp. 347 - 366
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Appel, T. 1987. The Cuvier-Geoffroy Debate. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barnes, B. 1977. Scientific Knowledge and Sociological Theory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Bloor, D. 1976. Knowledge and Social Imagery. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Bruce, R. 1987. The Launching of American Science, 1846–1976. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Constant, E. W. 1980. The Origins of the Turbojet Revolution. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.Google Scholar
Crosland, M. K. 1977. “History of Science in a National Context.” British Journal of the History of Science 10:95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drake, S. 1978. Galileo at Work. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dupree, A. H. 1957. Science in the Federal Government. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dupree, A. H. 1959. Asa Gray: 1810–1888, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Frank, R. G. 1977. “Science in the Context of Puritan Society.” Science 195:395–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frank, R. G. 1980. Harvey and the Oxford Physiologists. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Gillespie, C. C. 1980. Science and Polity in France at the End of the Old Regime. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Green, J. C. 1984. American Science in the Age of Jefferson. Ames: Iowa State.Google Scholar
Hahn, R. 1971. The Anatomy of a Scientific Institution. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heilbron, J. L. 1977. “Review of Webster.” Isis 68:385–487.Google Scholar
Heilbron, J. L. 1979. Electricity in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Heilbron, J. L. 1986. The Dilemmas of an Upright Man. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Heilbron, J. L., and Kevles., D. J. 1988. “Science and Technology in U. S. History Textbooks.” Reviews in American History 16:173–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermann, A., Krige, J., Mersita, U., Pestre., D. 1987. A History of CERN, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Hindle, B. 1956. The Pursuit of Science in Revolutionary America, 1735–1789. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Hufbauer, K. 1982. The Formation of the German Chemical Community, 1720–1795. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jungnickel, C., and McCormmach., R. 1986. Intellectual Mastery of Nature, 2 vols. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kevles, D. J. 1977. The Physicists. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Kevles, D. J. 1985. In the Name of Eugenics. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Kohler, R. E. 1982. From Medical Chemistry to Biochemistry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, R. 1987. From Mineralogy to Geology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molella, A. P., and Reingold., N. 1973. “Theorists and Ingenious Mechanics, Joseph Henry Defines Science.” Science Studies 3:229–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrell, J. B., and Thackray., A. 1981. Gentlemen of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Newcomb, S. 1903. The Reminiscences of an Astronomer. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Nye, M. J. 1986. Science in the Provinces. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, H. W. 1985. From Knowledge to Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, G. W. 1938. Tocqueville and Beaumont in America. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reingold, N. 1972. “American Indifference to Basic Research: A Reappraisal.” In Nineteenth-Century American Science, A Reappraisal, edited by Daniels, G., 38–67. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Reingold, N. 1978. “National Style in the Sciences: The United States Case.” In Human Implications of Scientific Advance, edited by Forbes, E. G., 163–73. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Reingold, N., and Bodansky., J. 1985. “The Sciences, 1800–1900: A North Atlantic Perspective. ”Biological Bulletin 168:44–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reingold, N., and Reingold, I. H., eds. 1981. Science in America: A Documentary History, 1900–1939. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Reingold, N., and Rothenberg, M., eds. 1987. Scientific Colonialism. Washington: Smithsonian Press.Google Scholar
Russell, B. 1927. Outline of Philosophy. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Russell, C. A. 1986. Lancastrian Chemist: The Early Years of Sir Edward Frankland. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Shapin, S. 1982. “History of Science and its Sociological Reconstructions.” History of Science 20:157–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weart, S. 1979. Scientists in Power. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Webster, C. 1976. The Great Instauration: Science, Medicine and Reform 1626–1661. New York: Holmes and Maier.Google Scholar