In what ways can the study of science and popular culture in the American context contribute to ongoing debates on popularization and popular science? This essay suggests that, for several reasons, attention to the antebellum era offers the most significant opportunity to realize more sophisticated understandings of science in American popular culture. First, it enables us to take advantage of comparative opportunities, both by benefiting from the advanced state of historiography for Victorian popular science and by engaging with a generation of historiographic innovations by scholars in U.S. history, American studies, literature, and art history. Second, the emergence of popular science in the context of the republican ethos of the antebellum period provides an important vantage point from which to assess the extent to which the general issue of "popular science" and its cognates is historically variable and multiple in terms of the politics of knowledge. Third, the ramifications of the development of popular science for relations between science and the public well into the twentieth century cannot be understood until we gain a more clearly developed sense of the emergent period.S INCE THE 1970S, historians of American science have taken hold of wide swaths of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, painstakingly recreating the intellectual, social, and material sources of the scientific enterprise. In particular, sociologically oriented forms of intellectual history came to occupy the center of gravity, with professionalization, disciplinary development, institutional ecologies, genealogies, work practices, patronage, and gender receiving particular attention. These thematic emphases resulted in ever-finer understandings of how particular scientists produced scientific knowledge, constructed their identities as members of various professional endeavors, and inhabited

During the 1930s, psychologists Gordon Allport, Gardner Murphy, and Lois Barclay Murphy emerged from the fields of social and personality psychology to challenge the neo-behavioralist status quo in American social science. Willing to experiment with the idea of 'science' itself, these 'rebels within the ranks' contested ascendent conventions that cast the study of human life in the image of classical physics. Drawing on the intellectual, social, and political legacies of William James' radically empiricist philosophy and radical Social Gospel theology, these three psychologists developed critiques of scientific authority and democratic reality as they worked at the crossroads of the social and the personal in New Deal America. Appropriating models from natural history, they argued for the significance of individuality, contextuality and diversity as scientific concepts as they explored what they envisioned as the nature of democracy, and the democracy of nature.

During the first half of the twentieth century, the horticulturist Luther Burbank was largely considered an irrelevant figure by the scientific community, despite winning acclaim from the public as an eminent scientist. In examining the intellectual, social, and political claims embedded in texts by and about Burbank, this essay argues that consideration of the Burbank stories as they circulated in the vernacular realm can aid historians in understanding the dynamics of science in American life. Among the themes it addresses are how the Burbank stories directly engaged the question of who should legitimately count as a student of nature; the varied philosophical perspectives that derived from siting science within the deomestic sphere; and how these stories played with the possibility of a philosophy of nature based on the concept of "living matter," as opposed to one grounded on mechanistic principles. The essay also discusses how Burbank's views on evolution were mediated by the image of the child and the way in which his convictions regarding the power of the environment to release latent characteristics in physiological material presented a view of the future of the American "race" that was at odds with conventional eugenic thinking and assigned a central role to women in the drama of American evolution.

The antebellum years in the United States were marked by vigorous debates about national identity in which issues of hierarchy, authority, and democratic values came under intense scrutiny. During this period, a prime objective of indigenous authors writing for American children was educating the young so they would be ready to assume their republican responsibilities. The question of how depictions and discussions about nature and science were deployed toward this end is explored by examining key texts about nature and science from the era's two most prolific and popular children's authors--Samuel Griswold Goodrich (1793-1860) and Jacob Abbott (1803-79)--and highlighting assumptions within these works about what the proper relationship should be between the search for scientific knowledge and the larger polity.

During the 1930s a number of interesting critiques of science and society emerged in the social sciences in general, and in psychology in particular. One example of this trend is The Psychology of Radio (1935), authored by Harvard psychologist Gordon Allport and his former student Hadley Cantril. The book, which was intended for both professional and lay audiences, sought to open discussion on the effects of the pervasive presence of radio, and to throw into relief the political, cultural, and economic contexts in which this new form of mass communication was embedded.