The Double Legacy of Bernalism in Science Diplomacy

Recent debates in the history of science aimed at reconstructing the history of scientific diplomacy have privileged the analysis of forms of diplomacy coming from above. Instead, the objective of this paper is to raise awareness of these debates by looking at attempts at scientific diplomacy from below. Such a shift in perspective might allow us to observe the impact of marginalized social agents on the construction of international diplomatic choices. This article particularly focuses attention on how the legacy of Bernalism has fostered the emergence of two different types of science diplomacy. On the one hand, Bernalism has influenced the goals of organizations such as UNESCO and the World Peace Council, which are forms of science diplomacy I would term from above. On the other hand, Bernalism has also been at the origin of radical scientific movements that I propose to interpret as forms of scientific diplomacy from below. These have, in fact, played a cardinal role not only in raising public awareness of the social and political roles of science, but also in the more direct participation of scientists in defining the political objectives of their research activity. From this point of view, I analyze how an association like the World Federation of Scientific Workers proposed (at least in the beginning) greater democratic participation than the top-down structures of other forms of scientific internationalism

A Radical Trajectory in Science Studies: Interview with Gary Werskey

Gary Werskey has been one of the main animators of the debates around science and Marxism in the United Kingdom. He especially played the role of mediator between two generation of Marxist scientists: the old generation active during the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s and the new one close to the new left who animated the debates between the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s (see Werskey 1978; 2007)

Radical Science Movements: Past, Present and Future

The awareness of the problematic relationship between politics and science in general, as well as the discussions about social orientation and public participation, truth and trust in the sciences in face of continued capitalist extraction and commodification recently led to increasing interest in the history of what came to be known as Radical Science Movements

Boris Hessen at the Crossroads of Science and Ideology: from International Circulation to the Soviet Context

This article is based on a joint endeavor. The first part introduces Hessen‘s theses and reconstructs their reception from the 1930s to the most contemporary research in Science and Technology Studies in an attempt to understand how and why Hessen‘s work has been recognized as a ―classic‖ in various disciplinary fields and contexts.2 The second part frames Hessen‘s ideas within the context of the early establishment of dialectical materialism, arguing for the proximity of his thought to the positions of the Russian Machists, in particular, Alexander A. Bogdanov. The reception of Hessen‘s theses clearly shows how his work has been at the center of symbolic negotiations and historiographical re-interpretations. His consecration as a ―precursor‖ of both externalism and the contemporary field of STS shows how it is necessary to reinterpret Hessen‘s theses within the context of the Soviet debates of his day. The paper draws the conclusion that the connection between Hessen and Russian Machism is consistent with the international reception of his work as it emerges in the historiography of science studies. Furthermore, it allows for a way to approach Hessen‘s contribution under a new light in the present

The 1931 London Congress: The Rise of British Marxism and the Interdependencies of Society, Nature and Technology

The Second International Conference of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine, held in London in 1931, exerted a profound influence on the historiography of science, giving rise to a new research field in the anglophone world at the intersection of social and political studies and the history of science and technology. In particular, Boris Hessen’s presentation on the Social and Economic Roots of Newton’s Principia successfully ushered in a new tradition in the historiography of science. This article introduces and discusses the London conference as a benchmark in the history of the social study of science within a Marxist and materialist tradition. In contemporary science and technology studies, political epistemology, and the study of society-nature interaction, it is no less relevant today than it was at the beginning of the fabulous 1930s. In reconstructing some important theses presented by the Soviet delegation in London, we aim to revive the conference’s legacy and the approach promoted on that occasion as a pretext to address current debates about society’s major transition toward a new agency and ways of existence in the Earth system. In particular, the London conference invited us to think of the growing metabolic rift between society, technology, and nature, and further reflects a historical moment of profound environmental and political crisis

Corrationalisme: La dimension sociale de l’épistémologie bachelardienne*

Au cours des dernières années, une nouvelle branche de la recherche appelée Social Epistemology a vu le jour en trouvant sa genèse dans la tentative de rectifier les théories épistémologiques standard à la lumière d'une considération sérieuse du nœud théorique de la relation entre la connaissance et la société. Cette question avait déjà été abordée - bien qu'avec des tonalités différentes - par de nombreux auteurs actifs dans les premières décennies du XXe siècle, tels que Boris Hessen, Edgar Zilsel, Ludwik Fleck, Robert K. Merton, etc. Dans ce contexte, la dimension sociale de l'épistémologie historique bachelardienne est un thème qui a été largement négligé, tant dans la vaste littérature critique sur cet auteur que dans les études sur la relation entre la connaissance et la société. Ce manque est particulièrement paradoxal si l'on considère que la pensée bachelardienne a inspiré des théories épistémologiques-sociales telles que celles d'Althusser, Foucault et Bourdieu. L'objectif de cet article est de mettre en évidence - à travers une reconnaissance dans le corpus des œuvres de cet auteur - la relation organique entre les dimensions sociale et historique dans la construction du paradigme épistémologique de Bachelard. Dans les pages suivantes, il sera mis en évidence comment cet auteur élabore un parcours dialectiquement circulaire qui, partant de la construction d'une théorie non-cartésienne de la connaissance fondé sur l'idée du cogitamus, en passant par la mise en évidence des modalités selon lesquelles l'union des travailleurs de la preuve constitue les faits scientifiques (l'acte fondateur du corrationalisme), arrive à concevoir une description - qui anticipe la sociologie des sciences bien postérieure - des structures et des modèles de fonctionnement des communautés scientifiques qu'il propose d'appeler "cité scientifique"

Razionalismo storicistico: per un’epistemologia politica del terzo escluso

In current public debate as well as in political and epistemological discussion there are polarizations between worldviews that appear to be rigidly opposed, such as: distrust in science vs naive scientism; populism vs technocracy; relativism vs. veritism. The aim of this essay is to show how these oppositions, despite appearing as radically opposed positions, are actually in a dialectical relationship functional to the exclusion of a third pole both epistemological and political. The effects produced by these oppositional pairs is the reproduction of the current distribution of both symbolic and material resources

Science and Technology Studies. Socio-Historical Epistemology of disciplinary boundaries

L’obiettivo di questo lavoro è (ri)costruire il processo di emergenza del campo di ricerca dei “Science and Technology Studies” (STS) come risultato di una complessa opera di negoziazioni disciplinari. In funzione di questo obiettivo, abbiamo elaborato una metodologia che abbiamo battezzato come “Socio-epistemologia storica”. Dal punto di vista storico, questa tesi di dottorato propone una dettagliata ricostruzione del processo di emergenza del campo interdisciplinare degli STS fra gli anni ’60 e la metà degli anni ’80 (grazie anche a ricerche d’archivio e storia orale). In primo luogo, ci siamo occupati di tracciare alcune traiettorie intellettuali, accademiche e socio-politiche in funzione di una disamina delle condizioni di possibilità dell’emergere di tale campo (fra gli anni ’30 e gli anni ’60). Nel capitolo seguente abbiamo invece proposto una cartografia dei principali centri di ricerca e programmi pedagogici nei principali casi nazionali come: U.K., U.S., Francia, Repubblica democratica tedesca, Repubblica federale tedesca, Austria, e Paesi Bassi. Infine, un ulteriore capitolo è invece dedicato alla ricostruzione della nascita delle prime reti di ricerca internazionali (società e associazioni professionali) in ambito STS. I risultati di questa ricerca storica sono stati interpretati e organizzati tramite il framework della “sociologia dei campi accademici” e della “sociologia della conoscenza”. A completare la nostra disamina, l’approccio filosofico ha reso possibile un’analisi epistemologica basata sui concreti processi storici e sociali di negoziazione disciplinare che hanno reso possibile il programma di ricerca interdisciplinare degli STS. In questo senso, abbiamo sostenuto che le frontiere disciplinari nelle scienze sociali siano al contempo elaborate socialmente, tramite un lungo processo di negoziazione storica, e sulla base di rivendicazioni epistemiche.The aim of this work is to (re)construct the emergence process of the “Science and Technology Studies” (STS) field, as a result of broad disciplinary negotiations (especially between history of science, sociology of science and philosophy of science). In order to achieve this, I proposed an integrated methodology that I labelled “Socio-Historical Epistemology”. From the historical point of view, my Ph.D thesis provides a detailed survey of the academic emergence of the “STS” interdisciplinary field, from the 60s to the mid 80s (made also through archive research and oral history). First of all, I traced some intellectual, academical and socio-political trajectories, in order to explain the conditions of the emergence of this field (from the 30s to the 60s). In the following chapter I proposed a cartography of the major research units and pedagogical programs in U.K., U.S., France, German Democratic Republic, Federal Republic of Germany, Austria and Netherlands. Finally, another chapter is dedicated to the professional and international societies in STS. The results of this historical inquiry have been interpreted and organised through the framework of the “sociology of scientific fields” and the “sociology of knowledge”. Furthermore, the philosophical approach has made possible an epistemological analysis of both the historical and the sociological genesis and development of the interdisciplinary context of research of the “STS”. In this sense I argued that disciplinary boundaries in social sciences are, at the same time, diachronically constructed and reconstructed, through a collective process of controversies and negotiations and due to epistemological claims

Le origini politico-istituzionali del Gruppo Nazionale di Storia della Fisica

This preliminary investigation aims at outlining the main politicalinstitutional reasons that led to the establishment of a unitary National Group for the History of Physics in Italy. I will show how the process of institutionalization of the history of physics in Italy has been animated by a double tension: on the one hand, the political-epistemological debate on the neutrality and non-neutrality of science and, on the other hand, the epistemological- institutional dispute between historians of science with a humanistic background and historians of physics with a scientific educatio

Introduzione

Mai più di oggi si rende necessaria un’analisi critica del sapere scientifico dominante, oggi perché i progressi del sapere scientifico non solo ci permettono di vivere in salute, e di comunicare velocemente, ma perché il sapere scientifico e tecnologico può esser prerogativa di classi dominanti e dunque esser posto alla base di progetti politici su larga scala non necessariamente forieri di progresso sociale e democratico