Human Geography and Environmental Determinism: The Arguments of Ellsworth Huntington and Ellen Semple September 17, 2010
Posted by Christopher Donohue in History of the Human Sciences.Tags: Aleš Hrdlička, Carleton S. Coon, Ellen Semple, Ellsworth Huntington, Franz Boas, Friedrich Ratzel, Herbert Spencer, Josiah Nott, Samuel Morton
5 comments
In the literature detailing the foundation of the discipline of human geography, it is widely argued that the opening decades of the 20th century saw this developing enterprise in the throes of “environmental determinism.”
Ellsworth Huntington
Such determinism, furthermore, developed a series of propositions which defended racial superiority through a utilization of the guise of the objective, scientific geographer. Thus, David Livingston, in his The Geographical Tradition (1993,) concludes that Huntington, in his Character of the Races (1924) conjoined “ethnic constitution” to “climactic circumstance,” which argued that “racial character was spatially referenced and could thus be presented in cartographic form.” This “cartographic enterprise” in which the distributions of genius, health, and civilization were conveniently tied to the percepts of “cultural imperialism,” exactly those eschewed by Franz Boas. In Huntington’s scheme, climate influenced health and energy, which in turn influenced civilization (225-6.) Mark Blacksell in his Political Geography (2005,) notes that, “For a time in North America, in the first half of the twentieth century, environmental determinism held greater sway, largely through the writings of Ellen Semple and Ellsworth Huntington, but its intellectual dominance there was short-lived, not least because of the racist conclusions the philosophy frequently spawned (140.)
(more…)
Boundaries, Interests, and Traditions in the Management Thereof September 12, 2010
Posted by Will Thomas in Uncategorized.Tags: David Edgerton, John Wilkins, Max Weber, Robert Merton, Steven Shapin
9 comments
When I posted on boundary studies in the history of science earlier this summer, I had in mind narratives focusing on epochal conflicts between groups, and the likelihood that we will learn little from the conflict that will help us understand the groups themselves. In reaction to that, Amy Fisher (a PhD student from the University of Minnesota who has been doing some work for us at the AIP History Center) told me that for her the most interesting boundary problems were “on a smaller scale, as it connects to issues of identity.” This was a good point, and I have had to go through a number of other posts before I felt I had my thoughts in order enough to address it adequately.
What boundary? This bridge has been here for years!
These smaller-scale boundary problems usually deal with individuals attempting to build lives, careers, or ideas, and having to situate their actions and beliefs within the strains of competing interests. Natural philosophers might have had to reconcile their arguments about nature with their beliefs about religion. Museum exhibitors might have to reconcile their desire to educate the public about certain kinds of scientific knowledge with the interests and expectations of that same public. In the twentieth century, physicists might have had to reconcile their desire to pursue their research interests with their ability to acquire funding by appealing to military, government, or industrial patrons. Etc.
My response here is that in these cases the most relevant boundaries are not necessarily well-portrayed by the historiography. Historians will typically portray actors as having to “negotiate” a compromise position on their own through a sort of an ad hoc process. I would argue that it is here where historians’ aversion to reconstructing various long-term traditions is damaging, because it does not take into account established patterns of identity development and institution-building, which become models for a successful and legitimate resolution to the many many situations in which conflicts of interest arise.
Book Review: Randall Wakelam’s The Science of Bombing September 10, 2010
Posted by Will Thomas in EWP Book Club.Tags: Arthur Harris, Basil Dickins, C. H. Waddington, Freeman Dyson, Maurice Kirby, Patrick Blackett, Randall Wakelam, Solly Zuckerman
add a comment
The following book review appears in Isis 101 (September 2010): 671-672.
© 2010 by The History of Science Society, and reprinted here according to the guidelines of the University of Chicago Press.
Randall T. Wakelam.The Science of Bombing: Operational Research in RAF Bomber Command. ix + 347 pp., illus., apps., index. Toronto/London: University of Toronto Press, 2009. $55 (paper).
During World War II, scientists worked for the British, Canadian, and American military services to study plans, tactics, training, and procedures to see whether military practices made sense in light of up‐to‐date information from the field. The manner of this work varied from conducting special investigations, to parsing statistics, to building sophisticated mathematical models of such military operations as hunting for U‐boats. This work was known in Britain as “operational research” (OR) and was later established as its own profession. (more…)
The Toronto Blog Collective September 9, 2010
Posted by Will Thomas in Uncategorized.16 comments
History of Science departments have a record of abject failure when it comes to maintaining a thriving presence in online discussion. University of Pennsylvania’s Logan Lounge was a pioneering departmental effort, but soon sank into posting semesterly updates of upcoming colloquia, and, after 2008, stopped doing even that. The University of Minnesota program has also given it a go, but never got things going very well (I expect more from my hometown Golden Gophers!). University College London apparently could not secure state funding and the support of local workers for the construction and maintenance of its STS Observatory. The University of Oklahoma’s Hydra journal died quietly soon after creating a site with professional-looking graphics. Ostensibly having an entire department dedicated to the task of maintaining a blog should make it easier for everyone — I know I wish I had more backup! — but this is apparently not so. Tragedy of the commons, or something, I guess.
Libraries, archives, and museums have a much more impressive record. Oregon State’s Pauling Blog continues to amaze me in its ability to churn out quality material on a single person week after week. The Copenhagen Medical Museion keeps a steady hand on the wheel of its discussions of material culture and public presentation in the biomedical domain. The Wellcome Library blog is excellent, and the Royal Society is off to a good start as well. My employers, for lack of planning, did not fare so well.
Now there is blogging fever at the University of Toronto. Three students have started blogs: Jai Virdi, Aaron Sidney Wright, and Jonathan Turner. In addition, there is a new group blog, The Bubble Chamber, which aims to address a broader audience about matters of public interest. EWP wishes this new cauldron of effort well, but will observe that keeping a consistent blog requires either a deep well of subject matter to make public, or a willingness to grow in one’s ideas with time. History of Science scholarship encourages us to think that, by our capacity as people dedicated to the study of science and technology, we have the additional capacity to see-and-commentate at will, and that this ensures both good historiography and our value to the public sphere. A line of dead blogs (and declining blogs that will remain nameless) suggests we think we have more ideas than we really have. (Also: no whining about work loads — blogging should always augment your work, not distract you from it. Blogs should maintain an individualized pace and format appropriate to that task.) Toronto: the spotlight is on you.
Great Whewell’s Ghost! September 7, 2010
Posted by Will Thomas in Uncategorized.add a comment
Just a quick note to say that I will now be doing some new entries, as well as some cross-posting and re-posting from EWP at the new Whewell’s Ghost blog, which has been set up by John Lynch, evolvingthoughts.net’s John Wilkins, and Rebekah Higgit of the National Maritime Museum in London. It is meant as a clearing-house for high-quality posts on history and philosophy of science, and already seems to be dwarfing readership here after about one day on the internet.
Invisibility, Underdocumentation, and Positive Portraiture September 6, 2010
Posted by Will Thomas in Uncategorized.Tags: Bruno Latour, David Edgerton, E. P. Thompson, Melissa Smith, Steven Shapin
1 comment so far
In historiographical discussions, a key concern is whether certain problematics prejudice historical portraiture. By “problematics” I mean the dialectical process that determines what topics are researched, how they are investigated, and how the results of investigations are presented. By “portraiture” I mean the sum total availability of information about the various aspects of history, apart from any analytical statements made about it and from our ability to navigate within the resulting historiography. In other words, how do the questions we want to ask about the historical record both expand and limit our summary and publication of the record’s contents?
For at least a half a century, one way that professional history of science (and history more generally) has consistently attempted to distinguish itself is by pointing to its ability to recognize and correct for earlier historians’ and non-professionals’ prejudicial limitations in their portraiture. Hagiographic biographies discount major historical actors’ flaws. Positivistic accumulations of scientific contributions discount scientific “wrong turns” and the importance of theoretical frameworks. Intellectual histories of science discount the culture of science. Philosophical accounts of the historical establishment of claims discount the sociological work necessary to secure assent around them.
Invisibility
Initially, criticisms of prejudicial portraiture emphasized that important constituencies have been rendered invisible through various forms of bias. Social history in the vein of E. P. Thompson emphasized bias against histories of common people in favor of interest in political figures, cultural leaders, and other heroic or otherwise individually influential figures identified through what we might think of as a problematic that emphasizes concerted action. Along these lines, portraiture of disempowered and marginal constituencies has flourished (although sometimes these retain a concerted-action problematic, choosing to emphasize actors who are on the fringe but who, within the confines of their particular sphere, are influential nonetheless). Historians who discover new classes of invisible things stand to gain significant cachet.
Will Thomas
Christopher Donohue
