2.3.1 Geography of science and scholarship
The concepts of centre and periphery, which have been widely employed in social sciences and economics, have also found their way into science studies. Often this approach is based on I. Wallerstein’s world-systems theory, which describes the cen-tres as the suppliers of the capital and innovations, absorbers of migration etc. while the peripheries are regarded as the producers of primary resources and consumers of new products, technologies and ideas of the centres.157 In the field of science, the role of centres is described in creating new knowledge, methodologies, instruments and theories. Parallel to consumer goods and technological innovations, scientific ideas are transferred from centres to peripheries which passively adopt and reproduce science or at best pursue applied science while the basic research is done in the me-tropolises.158
From the point of view of science studies, the model of G. Basalla has proven to be more productive than the traditional model of Wallerstein. It has encouraged wide discussion and research on the subject.159 This three-stage diffusion model describes how modern science spread from the small circle of West European nations to the rest of the world. During the phase 1, the so-called nonscientific areas provided source material for European science. These virgin areas were occupied by West European scientists who gathered specimens of local flora, fauna and minerals with instruments and theories imported from their home countries. Phase 2 is called colonial science.
It was marked by the emergence of colonial institutions and scientists whose train-ing, institutional setting and research interests were mostly shaped by the culture
156 Schnegg 2006, pp. 1-8.
157 Canagarajah 2002, pp. 37-39; Gavroglu et al. 2008, p. 155.
158 Gavroglu et al. 2008, pp. 155-159; Connell and Wood 2002, pp. 175, 186.
159 Sörlin 1994, pp. 44-48; Gavroglu et al. 2008, pp. 158-159 ; Chambers and Gillespie 2000, pp.
224-226.
of scientific centres. Although they had numerous contacts with these centres, they could not share their informal culture and become a part of invisible colleges. In their home countries they did not have enough colleagues to support reciprocal intellectual stimulation. Phase 3 meant a struggle to achieve an independent scientific tradition where a scientist could receive most of his training in his home country, earn his living as a scientist, find intellectual stimulation within his own scientific community, be able to communicate his ideas easily to his fellows, have an opportunity to open new fields for study and probably even look forward to the reward of national honours.
By the term colonies Basalla did not mean the actual colonies of European states but rather the areas which were not involved in the West European scientific revolution, hence including eastern Europe, North and South America, India, Australia, China, Japan and Africa.160
Basalla paid special attention to the transition from phase 2 to phase 3 – from colo-nial to independent science. The transition happens when colocolo-nial scientists deliber-ately begin to strengthen their domestic institutions and end their reliance upon the external scientific culture. Partly, this development is spurred by nationalism, partly from the internal features of science. The success of transition is dependent of the surrounding society which have to fulfil certain conditions: 1) resistance to science on the basis of philosophical and religious beliefs must be overcome and replaced by the positive encouragement of scientific research; 2) the social role and place of the scientist need to be determined in order to ensure society’s approval for his labours;
3) the relationship between science and government should be clarified so that science receives state financial aid and encouragement or, at minimum, government main-tains the neutral position of science; 4) the teaching of science should be introduced into all levels of the education system; 5) native scientific organisations should be founded; 6) channels must be opened to facilitate formal national and international scientific communication; 7) a proper technological base should be made available.161
Basalla’s model has found both implicit and explicit support in papers concerning centre-periphery structures – usually written by authors from peripheral countries.
Many of them describe how forbidding conditions 1 and 6 keeps countries on the scientific periphery. Undemocratic or dictatorial governments may subdue prosperous institutions and exile talented scientists. In the socialist countries, the inability to read or write foreign languages and the unavailability of relevant international literature in research libraries exacerbated the isolation of scientists and scholars.162 The peripheral position of a country is also explained by the economic situation and the attitude of government to science, i. e. Basalla’s condition 3. The Venezuelan linguist F. Salager-Meyer states that in developing countries the role of technology is quite well under-stood by government, whereas the importance of basic research is not and therefore investments in proper research infrastructure like libraries, laboratories, specialised
160 Basalla 1967, pp. 611-614, 617. By the term nonscientific Basalla means the absence of modern Western science, not lack of indigenous scientific thought. Basalla’s conception of the cradle of West-ern science is dated to the sixteenth and seventeenth century and includes Italy, France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria and the Scandinavian countries.
161 Basalla 1967, pp. 617-620.
162 Splichal 1989, pp. 348-349; Gavroglu et al. 2008, p. 169; Canagarajah 2002, pp. 34-35; Salager-Meyer 2008, p. 124.
equipment and communication channels are inadequate.163 The governmental input seems to correlate with the output, for at the beginning of the 21st century, the United States, the European Union and Japan collectively accounted for 78.3% of published scientific research. Furthermore, 31 out of 191 nations contributed 98% of the volume of citations to scientific research. Of these 31 nations only China, India and Iran belonged to the developing world. The appearance of China and India mirrors their increasing importance in the world economy, for in Bonitz’s study, which presented the situation in the early 1990s, these countries still belonged to the left edge of the Left World, i. e. the losers of citations.164
In some features, Basalla’s conditions differ from the modern conception of cen-tres and peripheries in science. For instance, Basalla emphasised the importance of national journals and institutions more than the international contacts while today, the national focus is rather a burden than a boon for a scientist. Many east European countries have well established national institutions but their problem is more the lack of internationality.165 Canagarajah for his part has highlighted the differences in the traditions of academic culture and academic writing which form a barrier to periph-eral authors. On the periphery (in this case, Sri Lanka), academic work is often based more on reading and on oral traditions than in the centre, where a scientist makes his mark mostly by writing research articles for which purpose reading is subordinated.
The writing style also differs. In the centre, researchers are advised to follow a certain formula in their papers, whereas on the periphery the articles are allowed to be more narrative, even emotional. Emphasising the merits of the author’s own research is inevitable in the centre journals, whereas on the periphery such an attitude would probably be disapproved of by colleagues. These and other differences in academic writing styles widen the gap between the centre and the periphery.166
The notion of the periphery as a passive recipient in science and scholarship has not been taken for granted. In an article by K. Gavroglu et al., the authors stated that new ideas, theories and practices are not just imported from the centres but also adopted and appropriated within local cultural, ideological and political frameworks and often expressed through discourses containing a number of novelties.167 The Aus-tralian sociologists R. W. Connell and J. Wood argued that the relation of centre and periphery is more interactive than might at first appear. Not only do people from the periphery need international sponsors and education but the eminent scientists in the metropolises are also likely to want students, supporters and colleagues. Besides, even on the periphery some researchers may develop new techniques, find
inter-163 Salager-Meyer 2008, pp. 123-124. Salager-Meyer confuses the concepts of peripheral and devel- Salager-Meyer 2008, pp. 123-124. Salager-Meyer confuses the concepts of peripheral and devel-oping countries, not defining them accurately.
164 Salager-Meyer 2008, p. 122; Bonitz, Bruckner and Scharnhorst 1997, p. 410.
165 Splichal 1989, pp. 338, 348. Splichal considered that the strong domestic emphasis in publica- Splichal 1989, pp. 338, 348. Splichal considered that the strong domestic emphasis in publica-tion forums and references together with writing in minor languages are central causes for the pe-ripheral position and mediocrity of research. On quoting domestic literature, see also Arunachalam and Manamora 1988, p. 93.
166 Canagarajah 2002, pp. 94-101, 120-125, 137-141. Canagarajah lists other barriers, too: the domi- Canagarajah 2002, pp. 94-101, 120-125, 137-141. Canagarajah lists other barriers, too: the domi-nation of the English language, technical difficulties and the lack of recent literature. On the prob-lems caused by poor language skills, see also Salager-Meyer 2008, pp. 124-125.
167 Gavroglu et al. 2008, p. 167; Splichal 1989, pp. 339-340.
esting topics or build new paradigms.168 Canagarajah argued energetically that the suppression of the peripheral knowledge is harmful not only to peripheral countries but also to the centre.169 The historian of science D.W. Chambers criticised Basalla’s model of Eurocentrism which, although inevitable to some extent, has the effect of minimalising local contributions, trivialising distinctive aspects of local development and focusing the discussion on science and technology, which leads to the neglect of social values and cultural products. Furthermore, these models are naïve in their assumption on the linear and progressive development of science.170 Some critics of the centre-periphery dichotomy argued that the structure of the scholarly community should rather be described as a network. Networks are less rigid and not so hierar-chical as the traditional centre-periphery pattern. The mediation of ideas, practices and instruments happens between nodes, consisting of individuals and institutions without a predetermined course. A scientific community is a multicentral network without permanent core areas.171
Whether speaking on networks or more solid centre-periphery structures it should be noted that these structures are not stable. Centres are centres only for a certain time and for certain disciplines.172 The well-known statement that nothing has pro-moted the progress of American science as efficiently as Adolf Hitler, aptly illustrates how political measures can relocate the scientific expertise from one continent to another with profound consequences.173 The landscape may also be reformulated due to economic changes, the development of traffic, vehicles and communication, the foundation of new institutions etc. The history of scientific geography is a multidi-mensional phenomenon which has aroused interest among the historical geographers, historians of science and social scientists.174 The changes in the scientific geography form an interesting background for examining the exchange relations.
In the fifteenth century, the first centres of science were taking shape in Italy, where the predecessors of modern scientific societies and academies were founded. These so-called Renaissance academies usually had a patron in a local court or a wealthy fami-ly who gave them protection and authority, provided funding and made his library available. When the patron died the academy was prone to collapse. The Renaissance academies were also called humanistic academies, for in addition to the wonders of nature, they pursued arts and letters, hunting etc. In the sixteenth century, some of them began to focus exclusively on sciences and develop an idea of scientific experi-ments, the most famous of them being the Accademia Secretorum Naturae in Naples, Accademia del Cimento in Florence and Accademia dei Lincei in Rome. Renaissance academies provided their attendants with something that contemporary universities with their scholastic character could not offer – an opportunity for free and informal conversation, the exchange of information and specimens and a freedom from the
168 Connell and Wood 2002, pp. 176-177, 188.
169 Canagarajah 2002, pp. 257-264. See also Gavroglu et al. 2008, p. 158.
170 Chambers 1987, pp. 315-316.
171 Gavroglu et al. 2008, pp. 161-162; Sörlin 1994, pp. 50, 164-172. See also Latour’s Principles.
Latour 1987, p. 259.
172 Sörlin 1994, p. 46; Pihlaja 2009, pp. 91-92; Chambers and Gillespie 2000, pp. 223-224.
173 Medawar and Pyke 2001, p. 156.
174 See a report of the Conference Geographies of nineteenth-century science. Gold 2008.
social hierarchies of the surrounding society. As such they were motors of the develop-ment of modern science which supported the work of such figures as Galileo Galilei.175 The central position of the Italian peninsula did not endure. Their private character and usually short lifespan distinguished the Renaissance academies from their more constant followers which had their origins in the foundation of the Royal Society (1660) and Académie royale des sciences in Paris (1666). They focused exclusively on science, created international networks of corresponding members and published scientific journals to distribute the results of their research. The model created by the Royal Society and the Paris Academy was an impulse for the founding of several national societies and academies, committed to the Baconian programme of scientific activity – the academies of Berlin, St. Petersburg, Stockholm, Bologna and French provincial cities and an abundance of lesser societies.176 McClellan indicated that on the eve of the French Revolution, the centres of science were located in western Europe and the British Islands. France had the densest population of institutions, followed by the United Kingdom, Prussia, Austria (the Holy Roman Empire), the Dutch Republic and the principalities in the Italian peninsula. There were scientific institutions in Sweden, Denmark, Russia, Portugal, Spain and on the east coast of the United States albeit not so densely as in the western Europe. The Balkan Peninsula, Greece and eastern Europe as well as almost all the colonies were empty areas on the map of scientific institutions.177 Naturally, the mere existence of scientific societies or academies does not make a country or a region a scientific centre. However, Mc-Clellan’s figures were fairly compatible with the number of scientists (with birthdates from 1660 to 1760) since 72% of them were born in three countries: France 30%, the United Kingdom 26% and the Austro-German provinces 16%.178
Academies and societies were the major promoters of the Scientific Revolution, for experimental philosophy did not have a firm foothold in the official curriculum of the institutions of higher education. Most professors were satisfied with teaching Aristo-telian or Cartesian philosophy as a basis of physics, the only experimental features in the curriculum being dissections in anatomy or demonstrations in botany, zool-ogy and chemistry.179 The development into research universities began in Protestant northern Germany, in 1733 when the University of Göttingen was established. This was the first university where the faculty of philosophy was free of theological pres-sure. Professors were allowed to choose their own textbooks and they also enjoyed better salaries than elsewhere. Consequently, the university attracted dynamic and talented teachers. Modern curricula were adopted in Helmstedt, Leipzig and Königs-berg and the development culminated in the University of Berlin, established by the Prussian minister of education, Wilhelm von Humboldt, in 1810. This was the first university where professors were statutorily expected to pursue research, being also free to teach what they liked. Humboldtian reforms also introduced seminar teaching – the system which rooted all over northern Germany with the result that scientific
175 McClellan 1985, pp. 2-3, 42-45; Hahn 1990, pp. 3-5; Leikola 2000, pp. 66-69. Th e term “Renais- McClellan 1985, pp. 2-3, 42-45; Hahn 1990, pp. 3-5; Leikola 2000, pp. 66-69. The term “Renais-sance academy” is defined by McClellan.
176 McClellan 1985, pp. 47-58, 67-68, 109-114.
177 McClellan 1985, pp. 6-7.
178 Clark 2003, pp. 220-222.
179 Brockliss 2003, pp. 46-51; Leikola 1991, p. 161.
research became firmly institutionalised within the university system.180 The success story of the German universities turned the emphasis of the scientific world more to Germany. Active and generous government support promoted German science, es-pecially in the Bismarckian period. The main interest of the state was in technology, but basic research also benefited from the situation.181
Although pioneering scientific discoveries were made all over Europe, Germany held its leading position until the First World War, its universities being the main producers of scientific textbooks, journals and education for foreign researchers. How-ever, the boycott of the Allies after the war, hampered the scientific work which was seriously harmed during the Nazi period. Jewish refugees are usually considered crucial promoters of American science. Yet, their impact was made possible only by the long-time work of developing the scientific institutions, which had its origins in the national fervour generated by the American Revolution. In the nineteenth century, the number of scientific societies and institutions increased. The German model inspired the United States to develop its universities but the American system was formed to be more flexible, enabling the specialisation of universities in certain fields of study and developing new disciplines. Subsidies from the government and the private sector and the vigorous efforts to internationalise science and scholarship came to fruition in the interwar period, paving the way to the leading position achieved after the Second World War, when European scientific infrastructure was ruined and not competitive for a long time.182
The development in Germany, the USA and some other countries as Japan indicates that governmental goodwill can remarkably promote science in a country.183 Never-theless, when writing the history of science, one concludes the actors are usually individual geniuses – not science-friendly governments. In this respect, it is crucial to ask: how do local scientific stars affect the centre-periphery structure of science and vice versa? Can an outstanding scientist turn a periphery to a centre? To examine this question, two cases are discussed.
A botanist from Uppsala
At the end of the 1720s, a young medical student, Carl Linnaeus, arrived in the University of Uppsala in Sweden. At the time, Uppsala was a small town with an old university (founded in 1477) with its library, botanical garden, an anatomical theatre and a local scientific society. The young student, who had inherited from his father a great enthusiasm for botany, had supporters who allowed him access to their private libraries, took him on excursions and aided him in earning his living as a tutor. He became acquainted with various contemporary botanical systems and the concep-tions of the reproductive systems of plants. Describing the local horticultural plants
180 McClelland 1980, pp. 39-46, 56-57, 123-127; Brockliss 2003, pp. 56-59.
181 McClelland 1980, pp. 233-238; Ben-David (1962) 1991, pp. 139-146, 151-152; Nachmansson 1988, pp. 13-15.
182 Shaw 1980, pp. 151-152; Edelman 1994, pp. 171-172; Medawar and Pyke 2001, p. 156; Gwinn 1996, pp. 26-27; McClellan 1985, pp. 140-145; Harwood 1987, pp. 397-399; McClelland 1980, pp. 328-329; Basalla 1967, p. 620; Ben-David (1962) 1991, pp. 148-150.
183 Bartholomew 1989, pp. 64-82; Price 1986, pp. 87-90.
in a manuscript entitled Hortus Uplandicus, he began to outline a botanical system based on the sexual organs of plants.184
In 1735, Linnaeus visited Holland, mostly to meet the outstanding scientists, Her-man Boerhaave and Jan Fredrik Gronovius. They recognised the value of his work and helped him to publish his manuscripts – Systema Naturae, Fundamenta Botanica, Genera Plantarum and some other works. They, moreover, introduced him to all the significant Dutch botanists and also to counterparts on the other side of the Channel, such as Sir Hans Sloane. In spite of offers to stay in Holland, Linnaeus returned to Sweden, visiting Paris on his way home in 1738. Thereafter, he stayed in Sweden for the rest of his life, developing his theories.185 The Linnean Sexual System based the method of classification on the fructification. Taking all seven parts of the fructifica-tion according to their number, form proporfructifica-tion and situafructifica-tion, provided many
In 1735, Linnaeus visited Holland, mostly to meet the outstanding scientists, Her-man Boerhaave and Jan Fredrik Gronovius. They recognised the value of his work and helped him to publish his manuscripts – Systema Naturae, Fundamenta Botanica, Genera Plantarum and some other works. They, moreover, introduced him to all the significant Dutch botanists and also to counterparts on the other side of the Channel, such as Sir Hans Sloane. In spite of offers to stay in Holland, Linnaeus returned to Sweden, visiting Paris on his way home in 1738. Thereafter, he stayed in Sweden for the rest of his life, developing his theories.185 The Linnean Sexual System based the method of classification on the fructification. Taking all seven parts of the fructifica-tion according to their number, form proporfructifica-tion and situafructifica-tion, provided many