Between the Local and the Global: History of Science in the European Periphery Meets Post-Colonial Studies

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to discuss two historiographical issues pertaining to the history of science in the European periphery. The first issue concerns the wide use of the centre-periphery dichotomy in historical accounts discussing the diffusion and institutionalization of science across the world. The second issue concerns the use of appropriation (instead of transfer, or adaptation) as a means to overcome the diffusionist model in history of science. Recent work at the intersection of history of science with post-colonial studies will provide the framework for reassessing these matters. As it will be shown, theoretical discussions about the history of science in post-colonial context can help historians overcome the centre-periphery dichotomy and turn European periphery into a privileged standpoint for showing the actual diversity of 'European science.' At the same time, the experience of post-colonial studies can also help sharpen the historiographical tool of appropriation. The assumption that will be made is that by focusing on appropriation rather than on discovery and innovation (the favourite categories of much of mainstream historiography), or on transfer and adaptation (the favourite categories of the diffusionist model), historians of science can not only set aside the artificial distinctions of the diffusionist model, but also bring forward the re-inventions, the conceptual shifts and the cultural adjustments, which are responsible for the emergence of science as a global phenomenon in the periphery. Especially concerning European periphery, the use of appropriation may bring forward the particular historical circumstances under which certain knowledge patterns gained universal epistemic authority as constitutive elements of an imagined European intellectual identity.

Relocating the History of Science

“…The systematic discussion of historiographic issues exploring the knowledge amassed in various case studies has heralded the attainment of another stage in the theoretical discussions by group members and in the life of STEP Simon and Herran 2008;Patiniotis 2013;Raposo et al 2014).…”

Moving Localities and Creative Circulation: Travels as Knowledge Production in 18th-Century Europe

“…While acknowledging the relevance of encounters with traditions from abroad for the definition of Western science (Elshakry, 2010), it is also important to reflect on how this widely adopted knowledge system came to develop within Europe itself. It is our argument that such a system can only have come into being through a dynamic and multi-layered process that cannot be explained by simple models of production, dissemination and reception (Clark, Golinski and Schaffer, 1999, part 4;Gavroglu, 2012;Patiniotis, 2013).…”

“…As opposed to the notions of dissemination and diffusion of scientific ideas and practices, it implies mutually transformative encounters between different localities. Cultural conflicts and power games doubtless arise, but for science the transformations, which both scientific achievements and their respective intellectual apparatuses undergo in order to circulate from one locality to another, can only contribute to the discipline's universality (Patiniotis, , pp. 18–19).…”

Earth Sciences and History in the Work of Correia da Serra (1751-1823)

“…This idea is closely tied with notions about circulation as a knowledge-making process developed by scholars such as James Secord, Kapil Raj, Lissa Roberts, Sujit Sivasundaram and Arjun Appadurai to name a few, to give visibility to non-European contexts (Raj, 2007;2010;Appadurai, 2001;Secord, 2004;Roberts, 2009;Sivasundaram, 2010), but opposes staunchly, as Xavier Polanco's idea of world-science already suggested in the 1990s (Polanco, 1990), the flattening of asymmetries that they often advocate, and re-centers historical accounts on Europe while dismissing Eurocentrism. In fact, in the meantime the vantage point of the European Periphery, as voiced by the international group Science and Technology in the European Periphery (STEP) (Gavroglu et al, 2008;Gavroglu, 2012) has drawn attention to the need of seriously taking into consideration the exchanges, mediations and negotiations taking place mostly within Europe, as integral components of global accounts (Patiniotis, 2013;Raposo et al, 2014;Gavroglu;Simões, 2016), and has argued for the co-construction of centers and peripheries, insisting on a serious assessment of how asymmetries, including power asymmetries, are built and evolve. It has re-asserted the creative role of European "invisible" actors, intermediaries and go-betweens, "backward" institutional settings, regions and countries, calling for a revision of standard historiographical accounts, and showing that "invisibility" and "backwardness" have to be understood historically.…”