This article aims at a critical reevaluation of the trading zone concept (Galison). It starts from a case study of the Faraday–Whewell collaboration in coming to terms with electrolysis experiments. The case is supposed to be an example of a trade zone of science/philosophy interaction though it demonstrates the unequal nature of the “trade.” This requires the analysis to log in some details concerning Galison’s metaphor of trading zones, which reveals its market-oriented connotations. The following criticism of the market metaphor for science applies a revised version of Boris Hessen’s argument (“commodity fetishism”) against misinterpretation of technology by some British scientists. A closer look at the ancient trade rituals in Marcel Mauss’ seminal work enables discovering another cultural pattern for describing scientific communication as opposed to trade—gift. This helps picture science as a distribution of social roles and statuses and uncovers the normative and value dimension of gift zones language.
BairdDavisCohenMark. 1999. “Why Trade?” The MIT Press Journals7 (2): 231-54.
2.
BloorDavid. 1976. Knowledge and Social Imagery. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
3.
BoghossianPaul. 2006. Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
4.
BorichevskyIvan. 2013. “Science of Science as a Strict Science.” Sociology of Science and Technologies4 (3): 11-17. (In Russian)
5.
CallonMichel. 1994. “Is Science a Public Good? Fifth Mullins Lecture, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 23 March 1993.” Science, Technology, & Human Values19 (4): 395-424.
6.
CollinsHarryEvansRobertGormanMichael. 2010. “Trading Zones and Interactional Expertise.” In Trading Zones and Interactional Expertise: Creating New Kinds of Collaboration, edited by GormanM. E., 7-24. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Douglas, Mary, ed. 1982. Essays in the Sociology of Perception. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
9.
FaradayMichael. 1833. “Experimental Researches in Chemistry, 5th Series.” Philosophical Transactions123:675-710.
10.
FaradayMichael. 1834. “Experimental Researches in chemistry, 7th series.” Philosophical Transactions124:77-122.
11.
FeyerabendPaul. (1975) 1993. Against Method. London: Verso.
12.
FreudenthalGideon. 2005. “The Hessen-Grossman Thesis: An Attempt at Rehabilitation.” Perspectives on Science13 (2): 166-93.
13.
FullerSteve. 1993. Philosophy of Science and Its Discontents. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press.
14.
GalisonPeter. 1997. Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
15.
GrahamLoran. 1985. “The Socio-Political Roots of Boris Hessen: Soviet Marxism and the History of Science.” Social Studies of Science15 (4): 705-22.
16.
HackingIan. 1983. Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
HessenBoris. (1931) 1971. “The Social and Economic Roots of Newton’s Principia.” In Science at the Crossroads, edited by BukharinNicolai I., 151-212. London. Reprint, New York: Howard Fertig.
18.
HessenBoris. 2009. “The Social and Economic Roots of Newton’s Principia.” In The Social and Economic Roots of the Scientific Revolution. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, edited by FreudenthalG.McLaughlinP., 41-101, vol. 278. Cham: Springer Science + Business Media.
19.
JamesFrank A. J. L.1989. “Michael Faraday’s First Law of Electrochemistry. How Context Develops New Knowledge.” In Electrochemistry, Past and Present. ACS Symposium Series, edited by StockJohn T.OrnaMary Virginia, vol. 390, 32-49. Washington: American Chemical Society.
20.
KasavinIlya. 2015. “Philosophical Realism: The Challenges for Social Epistemologists.” Social Epistemology29 (4): 431-44.
21.
KasavinIlya. 2019. “The Great Second. William Whewell’s Role in the Making of the ‘Philosophy-Physics’ Trading Zone.” Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science47: 63-69.
22.
LakatosImre. 1968. “Criticism and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” Proceeding of the Aristotelian Society69 (1): 151-69.
23.
LakatosImre. 1978. “The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” In Imre Lakatos Philosophical Papers, edited by WorrallJohnCurrieGregory, vol. I p. 250. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24.
LatourBruno. 2000. “When Things Strike Back: A Possible Contribution of ‘Science Studies’ to the Social Sciences.” British Journal of Sociology51 (1): 107-23.
25.
MarxKarl. (1867) 1990. Capital. Vol. I. London: Penguin Classics.
26.
MaussMarcel. (1925) 1966. The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies. London: Cohen & West.
27.
MirowskiPhilip. 2011. Science-Mart: Privatizing American Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
28.
MortonAdam. 2010. “Epistemic Emotions.” In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Emotion, edited by GoldiePeter, 385-99. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29.
NeedhamJoseph. 1969. The Grand Titration: Science and Society in East and West. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
30.
OesperRalphSpeterMax. 1937. “The Faraday-Whewell Correspondence Concerning Electro-Chemical Terms.” The Scientific Monthly45 (6): 535-46.
31.
RossSydney. 1991. Nineteenth-Century Attitudes: Men of Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
32.
RouseJoseph. 1996. “Fuller’s Philosophy of Science and Its Discontents.” Informal Logic18 (1): 92-94.
33.
WhewellWilliam. 1831. “On the Employment of Notation in Chemistry.” Journal of the Royal Institution of Great Britain1:437-53.
