Abstract
What has emerged after the Cold War paradigms of science studies have disappeared together with the geopolitical order they were inscribed into? Which past narratives and approaches have been lost and need to be rescued? What are the present challenges and opportunities? Has the historical epistemology of the future already arisen from the chiaroscuro of the old world that has just set? Cultural constructivism and postmodern narrativity seem to have gained the hegemonic position in the academic discourse on science. In this section I would like to reconsider the Marxist socio-economic approach in the light of cultural and subjective stances that are not relativist. Specifically, I will tackle the controversial legacy of the economic analyses of the past in order to open them up to a political integration according to the perspective of cultural hegemony.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The reference work that is mostly mentioned as a watershed in the history of science is Schaffer and Shapin, Leviathan and the Air-Pump (1985). See their “Introduction to the 2011 Edition: Up for Air: Leviathan and the Air-Pump a Generation On,” in Schaffer and Shapin (2011).
- 2.
I discuss this issue with Roger Cooter in Omodeo (2015).
- 3.
Here all misgiving must thy mind reject./ Here cowardice must die and be no more.
- 4.
See Chap. 6, section “New Left, Cultural Studies, and the Aporias of Popular Culture”. See Hall (1980) on the oscillating assessment of the relationship between structure and superstructure and its relevance in cultural studies. The problem of consciousness is typically Lukácsian, whereas that of ideology and science is generally connected to the Frankfurter Schule. See, for instance, Habermas (1969). More recently, the ‘Foucauldian school’ has pointed out the biopolitical dimension of science, which goes beyond the ‘mental’ emphasized by the concept of ideology. See, among others, Esposito (2004). For an insightful discussion and case study, see Bruskell-Evans (2015).
- 5.
- 6.
A similar idea, that ideology only accounts for the shortcomings of science, has been defended by the influential exponent of the French épistémologie historique George Canguilhem (2009).
- 7.
For the intellectual context of Hessen’s work, see Winkler (2013).
- 8.
Merton openly acknowledged his intellectual debt toward Hessen but limited this to the issue of technology. See Merton (1970: 501–502, n. 24).
- 9.
I am very thankful to Rose Luise Winkler and Peter McLaughlin for making it available at: http://www.philosophie.uni-hd.de/md/philsem/personal/hessen_textbook.pdf (accessed September 2, 2016). Cf. Winkler (2007).
- 10.
Winkler (2007: 143–146) offers a German translation of the table of contents of the anthology.
- 11.
- 12.
“Die Wirkung seines Beitrages ist vergleichbar der des von Thomas S. Kuhn eingeführten Paradigma-Begriff in der Wissensforschung in den 1960–70er Jahren. Der Begriff der sozialökonomischen Determination ist in der Folgezeit einer der wichtigsten Grundbegriffe für soziologische Analysen geworden, da er Aussagen zum Verhältnis von Gesellschaftsformationen und Wissenschaft empirisch erfaßbare und interpretierbare Sachverhalte übersetzt. Boris Hessen hat damit eines der Kardinalprobleme der wissenschaftssoziologischen Forschung formuliert und an einem prägnanten Objekt Fragen dazu aufgeworfen.”
- 13.
See Chap. 4, section “Reception of and Reaction to Marxist Historical Epistemology”.
- 14.
Cf. Koyré (1943). This essay can be seen as the author’s manifesto of a disembodied history of science, as developed in his major works. The most important for the history of mechanics are Études galiléennes (Paris, 1939) and Newtonian Studies (Cambridge, Mass., 1965). In “Galileo Engineer” Lefèvre criticized Koyré’s speculative attitude and his neglect of the social context of early mechanics (Lefèvre 2001). Also see Omodeo (2018).
- 15.
See Chap. 3, section “Contextualizing Ideology: Further Perspectives on the Scientific-Technological Nexus”
- 16.
Take for instance the multiple planetary theories that emerged in the wake of Copernicus’s work. It can be argued that the acceptance of his epicyclical models and parameters combined with the rejection of terrestrial motion and eccentricity necessarily led to the independent “discovery” of the geo-heliocentric hybrid system by several astronomers agreeing on common premises and addresses given problems. Consideration of such theoretical constraints sheds a very different light on the past polemics over priority of discovery. In this case, the heated polemics over the paternity of geo-heliocentrism that burst out between the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe and the Imperial mathematician in Prague, Nicolaus Reimers Ursus, should not obscure the fact that it is possible, even likely, that scholars working on the same research program which rests on the same premises can come to similar solutions to given problems (Omodeo 2014: 48–50; Omodeo and Regier 2016, cf. Swerdlow 1973 on Copernican planetary modelling). This instance also shows that the inquiry into the conceptual dimension and the inner developments of science is not unrelated to its social context. Rather, consideration of shared knowledge offers an additional tool for the comprehension of the dynamics of knowledge at both a social level and a cognitive level.
- 17.
- 18.
For a recent treatment of this trajectory, see Renn and Damerow (2010).
- 19.
- 20.
- 21.
As discussed in Chap. 4.
- 22.
Gramsci (1975: 1492): “La questione della ‘obiettività’ della conoscenza secondo la filosofia della prassi può essere elaborata partendo dalla proposizione (contenuta nella prefazione alla Critica dell’economia politica) che ‘gli uomini diventano consapevoli (del conflitto tra le forze materiali di produzione) nel terreno ideologico’ delle forme giuridiche, politiche, religiose, artistiche, filosofiche.”
- 23.
For an insightful treatment of diverging perspectives on structure and superstructure and their interconnection in Marxist thought, see Williams (1973).
- 24.
Gramsci (2007: 1457): “Si può dire, tuttavia, che nello studio delle superstrutture la scienza occupi un posto privilegiato, per il fatto che la sua relazione sulla struttura ha un carattere particolare, di maggiore estensione e continuità di sviluppo […].”
- 25.
Marx (1987: 100) “[…] daß aber die Anatomie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft in der politischen Ökonomie zu suchen sei.”
- 26.
Gramsci (2007: 1321): “Tra struttura e superstruttura esiste un nesso necessario e vitale. […] Nel corpo umano non si può certo dire che la pelle (e anche il tipo di bellezza fisica storicamente prevalente) siano mere illusioni e che lo scheletro e l’anatomia siano la sola realtà, tuttavia per molto tempo si è detto qualcosa di simile. Mettendo in valore l’anatomia e la funzione dello scheletro nessuno ha voluto affermare che l’uomo (e tanto meno la donna) possano vivere senza di essa.”
- 27.
- 28.
Both expressions stem from Zilsel. See Zilsel [1942] (2000).
- 29.
- 30.
Ursula Klein has made this point most forcefully in Klein (2015).
- 31.
- 32.
For an assessment of the relevance of university history for the study of knowledge transfer, see my introductory chapter to Omodeo with Friedrich (2016: 3–21).
- 33.
- 34.
See, among many publications on the subject, Westman (1975).
- 35.
The classic reference is Rose (1975), although the emphasis on humanism shows clear bias toward idealistic history and Eurocentrism.
- 36.
See, among others, d’Alessandro and Napolitani (2013).
- 37.
- 38.
- 39.
Ernst Cassirer’s understanding of the interconnection of astronomy and general worldviews in the Renaissance was led by a very different cultural agenda; his treatment was informed by the idea that the modern outlook coincided with a secularization of philosophy and of nature. See Cassirer (2002).
- 40.
As an instance of culturalist revision (and revisionism) of earlier views about early modern science that emphasizes constituents such as religion, see Osler (2000).
- 41.
See for instance Steven Harris’s treatment of ‘Jesuit spirituality’ as a science-driving ideology in the context of early modern Jesuit engagement with scientific research and teaching, along a line of inquiry that has been opened up by Rivka Feldhay: Harris (1989).
- 42.
Concerning the philosophical definitions of culture from the viewpoint of historical epistemology, I would like to stress the relevance of the philosophical discussions at the beginning of the twentieth century, ranging from neo-Kantianism and empiriocriticism to historical materialism, phenomenology and the philosophy of symbolic forms, as an extremely rich repository of perspectives and unfulfilled potentialities. On the divorce between science and philosophy in the turn of the Thirties, see Engler and Renn (2010). Moreover, for a critical assessment of the epistemological limitations of Cold War philosophy of science, see Reisch, (2005). A praxeological approach to culture that bears elements of the hegemony theory is Bauman (1999).
- 43.
Among the assessments on the vitality of Gramsci’s thought today see, in particular, Anderson (2016). The presence and absence of Gramsci in science studies, in particular the concept of hegemony, is discussed in Nieto-Galan (2011) and Omodeo (2016a, c). Nieto-Galan has particularly shown the usefulness of this appropriation of Gramscian views on issues such as popularization and the circulation of knowledge in the public sphere: Nieto-Galan (2016). The theoretical reassessment of the Gramscian perspective—aimed at by this essay—is at the basis of the volume edited by Badino and Omodeo (in press).
- 44.
Althusser (2014: 242, n. 7)
- 45.
In this respect, I deem post-structuralist readings of Gramsci, such as those by Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, as sterilizing rather than reinforcing a crucial category such as hegemony by reducing it to identity-constitutive discursive struggles (Laclau and Mouffe 1985). By contrast, I would emphasize the fruitfulness of an approach to socio-cultural phenomena looking at the interrelation and tension between position and identity, as has been wonderfully done in the framework of Subaltern Studies. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, for one, has defined subalternity along a Gramscian line as “a position without identity” thus appropriating for subaltern studies a crucial issue of Marxist thought, traditionally addressed as the problem of the relation between class and consciousness. Cf. Spivak (2005: 476).
- 46.
The contributors to The Routledge Handbook to the Political Economy of Science have argued for the necessity of consolidating the foundations of the expanding field of Science and Technology Studies (known by the acronym STS) on the grounds of political economy. Tyfield et al. (2017: 3): “In recent decades, Science & Technology Studies (STS) has thoroughly transformed the empirical study of knowledge production by taking science not as an obvious and unproblematic production of empirical truth, but as a complex social and cultural practice requiring sociological/anthropological study. STS thus brings together a broad range of approaches from the social sciences and humanities. But political economy is conspicuous by its relative absence.” Edgerton (2017: 29): “Political economy approaches have the capacity to break away from the agenda created by a narrow range of technical experts (academic scientists in certain fields) to open up the field as the study of many technical experts, and to decentre many central standard stories.” The constructivist legacy of mainstream studies in studies on science, technology and society, away from an engagement with social structures and economy, is evidenced by Lee Kleinman and More (2014: 2–7). The lineage connects Merton to the British sociology of scientific knowledge, Latour and symbolic interactionism.
- 47.
These topics will be fully developed by Renn (in press). An instructive expression of scientific alienation reflecting, at a mythological level, the relation of dominion which science develops under capitalism is the new literature on artificial intelligence (e.g. Bostrom 2014).
- 48.
I will limit myself to mentioning two essays pointing out the philosophical problems of the on-going debates on the Anthropocene—Chakrabarty (2009) and Latour (2014)—and two political-economic critiques—Haraway (2015) and Moore (2017, where the problem of humanity-in-nature is discussed). On the knowledge society and Anthropocene, see Scherer and Renn (2015). Also, see my essay on the “immanent transcendence of Anthropocene” (Omodeo 2017).
- 49.
The problem of genesis is outlined in Chap. 2.
- 50.
Peter Damerow published fundamental works on this subject (Damerow 1996).
References
Althusser, Louis. 2014 [1970]. Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. In On the reproduction of capitalism: Ideology and ideological state apparatuses, 232–272. London/New York: Verso.
Anderson, Perry. 2016. The heirs of Gramsci. New Left Review 100: 71–97.
Azzolini, Monica. 2013. The duke and the stars: Astrology and politics in Renaissance Milan, 2013. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Badino, Massimiliano, and Pietro D. Omodeo, eds. in press. Cultural hegemony in a scientific world: Gramscian concepts for the history of science. Leiden: Brill.
Bauman, Zygmunt. 1999. Culture as praxis. London: Sage.
Bertoloni Meli, Domenico. 2006. Thinking with objects: The transformation of mechanics in the seventeenth century. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
———. 2011. Mechanism, experiment, disease: Marcello Malpighi and seventeenth-century anatomy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Biagioli, Mario. 1993. Galileo, courtier: The practice of science in the culture of absolutism. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
Bostrom, Nick. 2014. Superintelligence: paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bredekamp, Horst. 2002. Gazing hands and blind spots: Galileo as a draftman. In Galileo in context, ed. Jürgen Renn, 153–192. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bruskell-Evans, Heather. 2015. The hegemony of psychology. In Gramsci and Foucault: A reassessment, ed. David Kreps. Farnham/Burlington: Ashgate.
Bukharin, Nikolai. 1934 [1921]. Historical materialism: A system of sociology. New York: International Publishers.
Büttner, Jochen. 2008. Big wheel keep on turning. Galilaeana 5: 33–62.
Canguilhem, George. 2009. Qu’est-ce qu’une idéologie scientifique? In Canguilhem. Idéologie et rationalité dans l’histoire des sciences de la vie, 39–55. Paris: Vrin.
Cassirer, Ernst. 2002 [1927]. Individuum und Kosmos in der Philosophie der Renaissance. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.
Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2009. The climate of history. Critical Inquiry 35/2: 197–222.
D’Alessandro, Paolo, and Pier Daniele Napolitani. 2013. Archimedes in the 12th and 16th centuries. In Archimedes: The art and science of invention, ed. Giovanni Di Pasquale, 138–143. Firenze: Giunti.
Damerow, Peter. 1996. Abstraction and representation: Essays on the cultural evolution of thinking. Dordrecht: Springer.
Damerow, Peter, Gideon Freudenthal, Peter McLaughlin, and Jürgen Renn. 2004. Exploring the limits of preclassical mechanics: A study of conceptual development in early modern science: Free fall and compounded motion in the work of Descartes, Galileo, and Beeckman, 2nd ed. New York: Springer.
Davies, Jeremy. 2016. The birth of anthropocene. Oakland: University of California Press.
Edgerton, David. 2017. The political economy of science: Prospects and retrospects. In The Routledge handbook of the political economy of science, ed. David Tyfield et al., 21–31. London/New York: Routledge.
Engler, Fynn Ole, and Jürgen Renn. 2010. Wissenschaftliche Philosophie, moderne Wissenschaft und historische Epistemologie: Albert Einstein, Ludwik Fleck und Moritz Schlick im Ringen um die wissenschaftliche Rationalität. Preprint 400. Berlin: Max Planck Institute for the History of Science.
Esposito, Roberto. 2004. Bíos: Biopolitica e filosofia. Turin: Einaudi. Engl. transl. Bíos: Biopolitics and philosophy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008.
Feingold, Mordechai. 1984. The mathematicians’ apprenticeship: Science, universities and society in England 1560–1640. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Freudenthal, Gideon, and Peter McLaughlin. 2009. The social and economic roots of the scientific revolution. Texts by Boris Hessen and Henryk Grossmann. Dordrecht: Springer.
Galison, Peter, and David J. Stump. 1996. The disunity of science: Boundaries, contexts, and power. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Garin, Eugenio. 1958. Antonio Gramsci nella cultura italiana. In Studi gramsciani: Atti del convegno tenuto a Roma nei giorni 11–12 gennaio 1958, 3–14. Rome: Editori Riuniti.
Geymonat, Ludovico. 1958. Per un intervento al convegno di studi gramsciani. In Studi gramsciani: atti del convegno tenuto a Roma nei giorni 11–12 gennaio 1958, 147–148. Rome: Editori Riuniti.
Gramsci, Antonio. 1975. Quaderni del carcere, ed. Valentino Gerratana. Turin: Einaudi.
———. 2007. Quaderni di traduzioni (1929–1932), ed. Giuseppe Cospito. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana.
Grene, Marjorie. 2005. Descartes and the heart beat: A conservative innovation. In Wrong for the right reason, ed. Jed Z. Buchwald and Allan Franklin. Dordrecht: Springer.
Grossman, Henryk. 2009. The social foundation of mechanistic philosophy and manufacture. In The social and economic roots of the scientific revolution. Texts by Boris Hessen and Henryk Grossmann, ed. Gideon Freudenthal and Peter McLaughlin, 103–156. Dordrecht: Springer.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1969. Technik und Wissenschaft als ‘Ideologie’. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.
Hall, Stuart. 1980. Cultural studies: Two paradigms. Media, Culture and Society 2 (1): 57–72.
Hallyn, Fernand. 2000. Copernic et Erasme. Humanistica lovaniensia: Journal of Neo-Latin Studies 49: 89–100.
Haraway, Donna. 2015. Anthropocene, capitalocene, plantiationocene, chthululucene: Making kin. Environmental Humanities 6: 159–165.
Harris, Steven J. 1989. Transposing the Merton thesis: Apostolic spirituality and the establishment of the Jesuit scientific tradition. Science in Context 3 (1): 29–65.
Henry, John. 2001. Animism and empiricism: Copernican physics and the origins of William Gilbert’s experimental method. Journal of the History of Ideas 62 (1): 99–119.
Hessen, Boris. 2009. The social and economic roots of Newton’s principia. In The social and economic roots of the scientific revolution. Texts by Boris Hessen and Henryk Grossmann, ed. Gideon Freudenthal and Peter McLaughlin, 41–102. Dordrecht: Springer.
Høyrup, Jens. 1993. Institutions, professions, and ideas: An approach to the theory of the humanities through their history and institutional settings and their implicit anthropologies. Roskilde: Roskilde Universitetscenter, Institut for Sprog og Kultur.
———. 2003. Practitioners – School teachers – “Mathematicians”: The divisions of pre-modern mathematics and its actors. Contribution to the conference writing and rewriting the history of science 1900–2000. http://webhotel4.ruc.dk/~jensh/Publications/2003%7BK%7D04_LesTreilles.PDF. Accessed 7 Dec 2017.
Klein, Ursula. 2015. Humboldts Preußen: Wissenschaft und Technik im Aufbruch. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Koyré, Alexandre. 1943. Galileo and Plato. Journal of the History of Ideas 4: 400–428.
———. 1961. La révolution astronomique: Copernic, Kepler, Borelli. Paris: Hermann.
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1959. The Copernican revolution: Planetary astronomy in the development of Western thought. New York: Random House.
Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe. 1985. Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. London: Verso.
Latour, Bruno. 2014. Agency at the time of the anthropocene. New Literary History 45 (1): 1–18.
Lee Kleinman, Daniel, and Kelly More. 2014. Introduction: Science, technology and society to the Routledge handbook of science, technology, and society, 1–18. London/New York: Routledge.
Lefèvre, Wolfgang. 2001. Galileo engineer: Art and modern science. In Galileo in context, ed. Jürgen Renn, 11–27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Long, Pamela O. 2011. Artisan/practitioners and the rise of the new sciences, 1400–1600. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.
Marx, Karl. 1987. A contribution to the critique of political economy. In Collected works, ed. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, vol. 29. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Merton, Robert K. 1970 [1938]. Science, technology and society in seventeenth century England. New York/Evanston/London: Harper Torchbooks.
Moore, Jason W. 2017. The Capitalocene, Part I: On the nature and origins of our ecological crisis. Journal of Peasant Studies.
Nieto-Galan, Agustí. 2011. Antonio Gramsci revisited: Historians of science, intellectuals, and the struggle for hegemony. History of Science 49: 453–478.
———. 2016. Science in the public sphere: A history of lay knowledge and expertise. London/New York: Routledge.
Omodeo, Pietro Daniel. 2011. Roberto Bellarmino: il grande inquisitore. In Il nostro Gramsci: Antonio Gramsci a colloquio con i protagonisti della storia d’Italia, ed. Angelo d’Orsi, 41–48. Roma: Viella.
———. 2014. Copernicus in the cultural debates of the Renaissance: Reception, legacy, transformation. Leiden: Brill.
———. 2015. The critical intellectual in the age of neoliberal hegemony: A discussion of Roger Cooter with Claudia Stein, Writing History in the Age of Biomedicine. Journal for the Interdisciplinary History of Ideas 4/7 (5): 1–5:20.
———. 2016a. After Nikolai Bukharin: History of science and cultural hegemony at the threshold of the Cold War era. History of Human Sciences 29 (4–5): 13–34.
———. 2016b. Copernicus as Kuhn’s paradigm of paradigms: The epistemological dimension of The Copernican Revolution. In Shifting paradigms: Thomas S. Kuhn and the history of science, ed. Alexander Blum, Kostas Gavroglu, Christian Joas, and Jürgen Renn. Berlin: Edition Open Access.
———. 2016c. Egemonia e scienza: Temi gramsciani in epistemologia e storia della scienza. Gramsciana: Rivista internazionale di studi su Antonio Gramsci 2: 57–84.
———. 2017. The politics of apocalypse: the immanent transcendence of anthropocene. In Stvar: Časopis za teorijske prakse 9: 433–449.
———. 2018. The social position and intellectual identity of the Renaissance mathematician-physicist Giovanni Battista Benedetti: A case study in the socio-political history of mechanics. In Emergence and expansion of preclassical mechanics, ed. Rivka Feldhay, Jürgen Renn, Mattias Schemmel, and Matteo Valleriani. Cham: Springer.
Omodeo, Pietro Daniel with Karin Friedrich. 2016. Duncan Liddel (1561–1613): Networks of polymathy and the northern European Renaissance. Leiden: Brill.
Omodeo, Pietro Daniel, and Enrico Pasini. 2014. Erasmian science: the influence of Erasmus of Rotterdam on early modern science, special issue of Journal of Interdisciplinary History of Ideas 6/2.
Omodeo, Pietro Daniel and Jonathan Regier. 2016. Liddel on the geo-heliocentric controversy: His letter to Brahe from 1600. In Duncan Liddel (1561–1613): Networks of polymathy and the northern European Renaissance, ed. Pietro Daniel Omodeo with Karin Friedrich, 203–217. Leiden: Brill.
Omodeo, Pietro Daniel, and Jürgen Renn. 2019. Science in court society: Giovanni Battista Benedetti’s diversarum speculationum mathematicarum et physicarum liber (Turin, 1585). Berlin: Edition Open Access.
Osler, Margaret J., ed. 2000. Rethinking the scientific revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pickering, Andrew. 1992. From science as knowledge to science as practice. In Science as practice and culture, 1–28. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Reisch, George A. 2005. How the cold war transformed philosophy of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Renn, Jürgen, ed. 2001. Galileo in context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. in press. The evolution of knowledge: toward a historical theory of human thinking.
Renn, Jürgen, and Peter Damerow. 2007. Mentale Modelle als cognitive Instrumente der Transformation von technischem Wissen. In Übersetzung und Transformation, ed. Hartmut Böhme, Christoph Rapp, and Wolfgang Rösler. Berlin: de Gruyter.
———. 2010. The transformation of ancient mechanics into a mechanistic world view. In Transformationen antiker wissenschaften, ed. Georg Toepfer and Hartmut Böhme. Berlin: de Gruyter.
———. 2012. The equilibrium controversy: Guidobaldo del Monte’s critical notes on the mechanics of Jordanus and Benedetti and their historical and conceptual background. Berlin: Edition Open Access.
Renn, Jürgen, Peter Damerow, and Simone Rieger. 2001. Hunting the white elephant: When and how did Galileo discover the law of fall? In Galileo in context, ed. Jürgen Renn, 29–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Romano, Antonella. 1999. La contre-réforme mathématique: Constitution et diffusion d’une culure mathématique jésuite à la Renaissance. Rome: École Française de Rome.
Rose, Paul L. 1975. The Italian Renaissance of mathematics: Studies on humanists and mathematicians from Petrarch to Galileo. Geneva: Librairie Droz.
Rose, Hilary, and Steven Rose, eds. 1976a. Ideology of/in the natural sciences. vol. 1, the political economy of science; vol. 2, The radicalization of science. London/Basingstoke: The Macmillan Press.
———. 1976b. The problematic inheritance; Marx and Engels on the natural sciences. In Ideology of/in the natural sciences. vol. 1, The political economy of science, 1–13. London/Basingstoke: The Macmillan Press.
Rutkin, H. Darrel. 2005. Galileo astrologer: Astrology and mathematical practice in the late-sixteenth and early-seventeenth centuries. Galilaeana II: 107–143.
Schäfer, Lothar. 2012. Einleitung. In Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache: Einführung in the Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv, ed. Ludwik Fleck. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
Schaffer, Simon. 2010. Exact science and colonialism: southern India in 1900. In Science as cultural practice. vol. 1. Cultures and politics of research from the early modern period to the age of extremes, ed. Moritz Epple and Claus Zittel, 121–140. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Schaffer, Simon, and Steven Shapin. 2011. Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle and experimental life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Schemmel, Matthias. 2008. The English Galileo: Thomas Harriot’s work on motion as an example of preclassical mechanics. Dordrecht: Springer.
Scherer, Bernd, and Jürgen Renn, eds. 2015. Das Anthropozän Ein Zwischenbericht. Berlin: Matthes & Seitz.
Schmitt, Charles. 1981. Towards a reassessment of renaissance Aristotelianism. In Studies in Renaissance philosophy and science, ed. Schmitt. London: Variorum Reprints.
Smith, Pamela. 2004. The body of the artisan: Art and experience in the scientific revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Spivak, Gayari C. 2005. Scattered speculations of the subaltern and the popular. Subaltern Studies 8/4: 475–486.
Stachel, John. 1994. Marx’s critical concept of science. Preprint 10. Berlin: Max Planck Institute for the History of Science.
Swerdlow, Noel. 1973. The deriviation and first draft of Copernicus’s planetary theory: A translation of the commentariolus with commentary. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 117: 423–512.
Thomas, Peter. 2009. The Gramscian moment: Philosophy, hegemony and Marxism. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
Tyfield, David, et al. eds. 2017. The Routledge handbook of the political economy of science, 21–31. London/New York: Routledge.
Valleriani, Matteo. 2010. Galileo engineer. Dordrecht: Springer.
———. 2013. Metallurgy, ballistics and epistemic instruments: The Nova scientia of Nicolò Tartaglia. Berlin: Edition Open Access.
———, ed. 2017. The structures of practical knowledge. Cham: Springer.
Vogel, Klaus. 2006. Cosmography. In The Cambridge history of science, ed. Katharine Park and Lorraine Daston, vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Westman, Robert S. 1975. The Melanchthon circle, Rheticus and the Wittenberg interpretation of the Copernican theory. Isis 66: 163–193.
Williams, Raymond. 1973. Base and superstructure in Marxist cultural theory. New Left Review 82: 3–16.
Winkler, Rose-Luise. 2007. Ein unveröffentlichtes Manuskript von Boris M. Hessen: ‘Materialien und Dokumente zur Geschichte der Physik. Sitzungsberichte der Leibniz-Sozietät 92: 133–152.
———. 2013. An den Urspüngen wissenschaftssoziologischen Denkens. Erstes Drittel des XX. Jahrhunderts (Russland/Sowjetunion). Berlin: trafo Wissenschaftsverlag.
Zilsel, Edgar. 1941. The origins of William Gilbert’s scientific method. Journal for the History of Ideas 2(1): 1–32.
———. 2000 [1942]. The sociological roots of science. Social Studies of Science 30(6): 935–939.
Zinner, Ernst. 1968. Leben und Wirken des Joh. Müller von Königsberg genannt Regiomontanus, Engl. transl., Regiomontanus: his life and work. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1990.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Omodeo, P.D. (2019). Socio-political History of Science: From Structures to Hegemonies. In: Political Epistemology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23120-0_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23120-0_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-23119-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-23120-0
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)