Senses of Localism

Abstract

A generation ago scientific ideas floated free in air, as historians gazed up at them in wonder and admirationAdi Ophir and Steven Shapin1INTRODUCTIONThat knowledge is ineluctably local and variable is hammered home again and again, exclaimed James A. Secord in 2004 at fifth joint meeting of history of science societies.2 In a recent issue of Isis, Peter Galison writes that the turn toward local explanation . . . may well be single most important change in last thirty years and names 'locality' as one of most important problems in history and philosophy of science.3 These two remarks testify to significance of spatial - ist and localist perspectives on science in historiography of science. It would not be difficult to compile a long list of authors dealing with issue of spatiality and locality of science, remembering that discussion on circulation and movement of knowledge and other products of science stems from observation that science is a local phenomenon in first instance.4The local or more generally spatial turn undoubtedly is a significant change in theory and practice of historiography of science. But what exactly is this change? What kind of reform in thinking and writing about science and its history has it introduced? The spatial turn has brought forward new, previously largely neglected, geographical questions. It has also introduced entirely new concepts or re-problematized a number of old ones. But what is historiographical significance of geographical queries? And what do concepts, such as 'location', 'space', 'universal' and 'global' mean? These are questions that I intend to examine in this paper. The tone of this paper is expository rather than critical. My aim is to bring some clarity on issues that arise in localist discourse. That is, purpose is to draft basic conceptual and historiographical positions in this relatively young research field, historical geography of science, also trying to pinpoint challenges of each of them, without however arguing for one or other position in debate. There is one book that needs to be highlighted. David Livingstone's Putting science in its place: Geographies of scientific knowledge has served as an excellent and lucid exposition of localism in historiography of science and geography of science more generally.5This paper is inspired by an observation that spatial turn may alter theoretical landscape significantly when compared to earlier historiography of science, in which central questions often stemmed from philosophy of science or philosophical history of science. Ophir and Shapin have remarked that localization of science may be epistemically and ontologically implicating.6 However, turn toward localities and local questions leaves a wide variety of historiographical questions and inquiries open and possible. Some of them may signal a professional awakening to new kinds of problems and topics, while others are manifestations of certain methodological approaches, and still others imply significant ontological and other philosophical consequences. My goal is to shed light on all these issues. And yet primary concern is to spell out what kind of philosophical or metaphysical view is implied by localism and how it compares to a contrasting, universalist, explanatory alternative in historiography of science.The first main part of paper is devoted to outlining what I call complementary (localist) options in historiography of science. They tend to enrich our view and understanding of science, detailing previously ignored information on locations of science, but are not necessarily in contradiction with older philosophical histories of science. After that I draft methodological options in localism. Common to them is an instrumental attitude to locations of science. They study bounded localities in order to acquire knowledge that would otherwise be difficult to formulate or be without proper warrant. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 8 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.