Framed in the Public Sphere: Tools for the Conceptual History of “Applied Science” — A Review Paper

The term “key word” was introduced by Williams Raymond , Key words (London, 1976, 2nd edn, 1988), there he talks of them collectively as a vocabulary which makes up the “shared body of words and meanings” that constitutes a culture. This paper will deal more with “key concept” or “Grundbegriff” which was introduced by the German historians, Otto Brunner, Conze and Koselleck in their attempt to clarify German thought in the aftermath of the Nazi era. The term “Ideograph” was introduced by the American communication scholar Michael Calvin McGee, ” The ‘ideograph’: A link between rhetoric and ideology”, Quarterly journal of speech, lxvi (1980), 1980–16. McGee was also interested in highlighting “concrete history as usages” of terms so loaded that they “hinder or perhaps make impossible pure thought”. Williams treats the term “progress” in his book and the German “Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe” treats “Fortschritt” (vol. ii). In his article McGee refers in passing to “progress” as an example of “ideographs”. More substantially in his article “‘Reconstructed, but unregenerate’: I'll take my stand's rhetorical vision of progress”, Southern communication journal, lix (1994), 1994–24, Brant Short analyses “progress” using McGee's “ideograph” concept.

Roberts G. K. , “Comparative politics today”, Government and opposition, vii (1972), 38–55, see p. 49.

Staudenmaier John in exploring the discipline of the history of technology highlighted the importance of the issue of technology being “not” applied science. See Staudenmaier John M. , Technology's storytellers: Reweaving the human fabric (Cambridge, Mass, 1985).

Mayr O. , “The science-technology relationship as a historiographic problem”, Technology and culture, xvii (1976), 663–73.

For initial studies see Kline R. , “Construing ‘technology’ as ‘applied science’: Public rhetoric of scientists and engineers in the United States, 1880–1945”, Isis, lxxxvi (1995), 194–221. See also the Focus section in Isis, ciii (2012), 2012–63.

See the work of Christine MacLeod including, Heroes of invention: Technology, liberalism and British identity, 1750–1914 (Cambridge, 2007), and MacLeod Christine Tann Jennifer , “From engineer to scientist: Reinventing invention in the Watt and Faraday Centenaries, 1919–31”, The British journal for the history of science, xl (2007), 2007–411, and more generally, Cantor Geoffey , “The scientist as hero: Public images of Michael Faraday”, Telling lives in science: Essays on scientific biography, ed. by Shortland Michael Yeo Richard (Cambridge, 1996), 171–93. James Frank A. J. L. , “The Janus face of modernity: Michael Faraday in the twentieth century”, The British journal for the history of science, xli (2008), 2008–516; Bensaude-Vincent Bernadett , “Between history and memory: Centennial and bicentennial Images of Lavoisier”, Isis, lxxxvii (1996), 1996–99.

See for instance, Irwin Alan Wynne Brian , Misunderstanding science?: The public reconstruction of science and technology (Cambridge, 2004); Radkau Joachim , Aufstieg und Krise der deutschen Atomwirtschaft 1945–1975 (Rowohlt, 1983); Gaskell George Bauer Martin W. , Biotechnology, 1996–2000: The years of controversy (London, 2001); Bauer Martin W. Gaskell George , Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy (Cambridge, 2002).

Bauer Martin W. Shukla Rajesh Allum Nick . The culture of science: How the public relates to science across the globe (London, 2012).

Heelan Patrick A. “The scope of hermeneutics in natural science”, Studies in history and philosophy of science part A, xxix (1998), 273–98.

Beer Gillian , Darwin's plots: Evolutionary narrative in Darwin, George Eliot, and ninteenth-century Fiction (London, 1983); Secord James A. , Victorian sensation: The extraordinary publication, reception, and secret authorship of vestiges of the natural history of creation (Chicago, 2000).

See Fuller Steve , Thomas Kuhn: A philosophical history for our times (Chicago and London, 2000), especially chap. 5: “How Kuhn saved unwittingly saved social science from a radical future”, 227–59.

“Web of knowledge” identifies nineteen papers which cite the work of Koselleck from the entire corpus of the history of science. Quentin Skinner does better with thirty one but most of these take off from his treatment of the seventeenth century rather than his broader methodological interests. OCLC “History of science, technology and medicine” grants Koselleck and Skinner four references each. A recent work discusses the cross-over between history of science and the work of Skinner, see Dear Peter , “Science is dead: Long live science”, Osiris, xxvii (2012), 37–55.

Skinner Quentin , “Meaning and understanding in the history of ideas”, History and theory, viii (1969), 3–53. On Skinner see Tully James , Meaning and context: Quentin Skinner and his critics (Cambridge, 1989); Palonen Kari , Quentin Skinner: History, politics, rhetoric (Cambridge, 2003). On the Cambridge School as a whole and the differences in emphasis between Pocock and Skinner see, Bevir Mark , “The role of contexts in understanding and explanation”, in Begriffsgeschichte, Diskursgeschichte, Metapherngeschichte, ed. by Bödeker Hans Erich Bevir Mark (Göttingen, 2002), 160–208.

Pocock J. G. A. , Political thought and history: Essays on theory and method (New York, 2009), viii. The difference between the thought of Pocock and of Skinner is outlined by Richter Melvin , A history of political and social concepts: A critical introduction (Oxford, 1995), 116–34.

The description “pointillist” was suggested by Palonen K. , “Rhetorical and temporal perspectives on conceptual change”, Finnish yearbook of political thought, iii (1999), 41–49.

Tully James , “The pen is a mighty sword: Quentin Skinner's analysis of politics”, Meaning and context: Quentin Skinner and his critics, ed. by Tully James (Cambridge, 1989), 1–24.

Richter , A history of political and social concepts (ref. 14), 12.

Olsen Niklas , History in the plural: An introduction to the work of Reinhart Koselleck (New York, 2012), 195. Olsen shows how Koselleck was responding to such scholars as Gadamer, not generally familiar to historians of science. Nor, however, are historians of science widely influenced by Skinner. Even German historians of science, often working within the American hegemony, have not shown signs of being particularly influenced by Koselleck, and citations of his work are rare. See, Wahrig Betina , “Weitwinkel — Nahaufnahme: Zeitperspektiven in der Wissenschaftsgeschichte”, Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte, xxxii (2009), 2009–43.

Brunner Otto Conze Werner Koselleck Reinhart , (eds), Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland [Basic concepts in history: A dictionary on historical principles of political and social language in Germany], 8 vols (Stuttgart, 1972–97). For an introduction to this as a whole, see Richter Melvin , “Appreciating a contemporary classic: The Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe and future scholarship”, Finnish yearbook of political thought, i (1997), 1997–38. For modern works which attempt to take Begriffsgeschichte forward see Bödeker Bevir , Begriffsgeschichte, Diskursgeschichte, Metapherngeschichte (ref. 13); Dutt Carsten , Herausforderungen der Begriffsgeschichte (Heidelberg, 2003); Ernst Müller, Begriffsgeschichte im Umbruch? (Hamburg, 2005). See Jordheim Helge , “Begriffsgeschichte according to Gumbrecht — Or: What meaning can convey and cannot convey”, Redescriptions: Yearbook of political thought and conceptual history, xiii (2010), 2010–18.

Koselleck Reinhart , The practice of conceptual history: Timing history, spacing concepts, transl. by Presner Todd Samuel (Stanford, 2002); Koselleck Reinhart , Futures past: On the semantics of historical time, transl. and ed. by Tribe Keith (Cambridge, Mass, 1985).

See Koselleck Reinhart , “Introduction and prefaces to the Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe”, Contributions to the history of concepts, vi (2011), 1–37. Ifversen Jan , “Key concepts and how to study them”, Contributions to the history of concepts, vi (2011) 65–88.

Richter , A history of political and social concepts (ref. 14); Palonen K. , “Rhetorical and temporal perspectives on conceptual change” (ref. 15); Lehmann Hartmut Richter Melvin (eds), The meaning of historical terms and concepts: New studies on Begriffsgeschichte (Washington D.C., 1996). Nordheim Helge , “Conceptual history between chronos and kairos: The case of ‘empire’”, Redescriptions: Yearbook of political thought and conceptual history, xi (2007), 2007–45; idem, “Does conceptual history really need a theory of historical times?”, Contributions to the history of concepts, vi (2011), 2011–41; idem, “Against periodization: Koselleck's theory of multiple temporalities”, History and theory, li (2012), 2012–71; Ifversen J. , “About key concepts and how to study them”, Contributions to the history of concepts, vi (2011), 2011–88, 124–35; Hampsher-Monk Iain Tilmans Karin van Vree Frank , History of concepts: Comparative perspectives (Amsterdam, 1998).

Lovejoy A. O. , “Reflections on the history of ideas”, Journal of the history of ideas, i (1940), 3–23.

Richter , A history of political and social concepts (ref. 14), 37–38.

Richter Melvin , “Reconstructing the history of political languages: Pocock, Skinner, and the geschichtliche Grundbegriffe”, History and theory, xxix (1990), 38–70; Palonen , “Rhetorical and temporal perspectives” (ref. 15).

Richter , A history of political and social concepts (ref. 14), 129–32.

See Koselleck's essay “Time and history”, in Koselleck, The practice of conceptual history (ref. 20), 100–14. See also, Pickering Michael , “Experience as horizon: Koselleck, expectation and historical time”, Cultural studies, xviii (2004), 271–89; Zammito John , “Koselleck's philosophy of historical time(s) and the practice of history”, History and theory, xliii (2004).

Koselleck , Futures past (ref. 20).

Handbook to the special loan collection of scientific apparatus at the South Kensington Museum, 1876 (London, 1876); Catalogue of the special loan collection of scientific apparatus at the South Kensington Museum, 1876 (London, 1876).

Pocock J. G. A. , “Concepts and discourses: A difference in culture? Comment on a paper by Melvin Richter”, in The meaning of historical terms and concepts: New studies on Begriffsgeschichte, ed. by Lehmann Hartmut Richter Melvin (Washington, D.C., 1996), 47–58.

Maasen Sabine Weingart Peter , Metaphors and the dynamics of knowledge (London, 2000), see particularly pp. 16–40. In the treatment below of “metaphor”, the eagle-eyed might notice that in some cases the term is used in cases where the term “metonym” might more technically be used. However the distinction is not generally made.

For the emphasis on the case study rather than the longue durée in the history of science, see Kohler Robert E. Olesko Kathryn M. , “Introduction: Clio meets science”, Osiris, xxvii (2012), 1–16. Indicative of this rejection may be the neglect of the massive annales-influenced study of the history of American chemistry published thirty years ago ( Thackray A. Sturchio Jeffrey Carroll P. Thomas Bud Robert , Chemistry in America, 1876–1976: Historical indicators (Dordrecht, 1985)). “Web of knowledge” indicates forty-five citing articles in the period 1985–2013 and “scholar.google.com“only thirty-six (accessed March 2013). A reaction sceptical of such approaches was also accorded to an introductory paper presented at the History of Science Society in 1976, “Indicators of academic chemistry”, History of Science Society/Society for History of Technology (SHOT), Joint Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, 30 December 1976.

Eggers Michael Rothe Matthias , Wissenschaftsgeschichte als Begriffsgeschichte: Terminologische Umbrüche im Entstehungsprozess der modernen Wissenschaften (Bielefeld, 2009).

Eggers Michael Rothe Matthias , “Die Begriffsgeschichte ist tod, lebe die Begriffsgeschichte!”, in Eggers Rothe , Wissenschaftsgeschichte als Begriffsgeschichte (ref. 33), 7–22. For an important critique of Begriffsgeschichte see Gumbrecht Hans Ulrich , Dimensionen Und Grenzen der Begriffsgeschichte (Munich, 2006). On the place of Blumenberg and his links to Begriffsgeschichte see Haverkamp Anselm , “The scandal of metaphorology”, Telos, issue clviii (2012), 37–58. The entire issue was dedicated to studies of Blumenberg.

See Helsten Lina , ” The politics of metaphor: Biotechnology and biodiversity in the media” (Ph.D. thesis, University of Tampere, 2002); Nerlich Brigitte James Richard , “The post-antibiotic apocalypse and the ‘war on superbugs’: Catastrophe discourse in microbiology, its rhetorical form and political function”, Public understanding of science, xviii (2009), 2009–90. For an exploration of the use of metaphor within the Anglophone history of science literature, see, Bono James J. , The word of God and the languages of man: Interpreting nature in early modern science and medicine, vol. i, Ficino to Descartes (Madison, 1995).

Morus I. R. , (ed.), Bodies/machines (Oxford, 2002). See also the range of metaphors for penicillin such as the wonder drug explored in Robert Bud, Penicillin: Triumph and tragedy (Oxford, 2007). Sabine Maasen and Peter Weingart, Metaphors and the dynamics of knowledge (London, 2000); Maasen Sabine Mendelsohn Everett Weingart Peter , Biology as society, society as biology: Metaphors (Dordrecht, 1995).

Mottier Veronique , “Metaphors, mini-narratives and Foucauldian discourse theory”, in Carver Terrell (ed.), Political language and metaphor: Interpreting and changing the world, ed. by Carver Terrell (London, 2008), 182–94.

Bono James J. , “Locating narratives: Science, metaphor, communities, and epistemic styles”, in Grenzüberschreitigung in der Wissenschaft: Crossing boundaries in science, ed. by Weingart Peter (Baden-Baden, 1995), 119–51. In general the approach of Bono is supported by Weingart Maasen , Metaphors (ref. 36).

Steen G. J. , “The contemporary theory of metaphor now new and improved!”, Review of cognitive linguistics, ix (2011), 26–64. See also Zinken Joerg Hellsten I. Nerlich B. , “Discourse metaphors”, in Body, language, and mind, vol. ii, Sociocultural situatedness: Cognitive linguistics research, ed. by Ziemke T. Zlatev Jordan Frank Roslyn M. (Berlin, 2008), 363–85.

Beer , Darwin's plots (ref. 10), 73–96. See also Young Robert M. , “Darwin's metaphor and the philosophy of science”, Science as culture, iii (1993), 375–403. For energy see Smith Crosbie , The Science of energy: A cultural history of energy physics in Victorian Britain (London, 1998).

Young G. M. , “The new Cortegiano”, in G. M. Young, Victorian essays, ed. by Handcock W. D. , (Oxford, 1962), 202–16.

McGee , ” The ‘ideograph’” (ref. 1), 11. The quotation is to be found in Wirt William , Sketches of the life and character of Patrick Henry (Philadelphia, 1817), 123.

For the representation of Watt as chemist see, Miller David Philip , James Watt, Chemist: Understanding the origins of the Steam Age (London, 2009). For an alternative view of Watt as engineer, see Russell Ben , James Watt: His life and times (London, in press).

“George Gore F.R.S.”, Electrician (1909), 467.

John William Rankine MacQuorn , Preliminary dissertation on the harmony of theory and practice in mechanics (Edinburgh, 1856). This was reprinted as the first chapter of his well-known textbook, William John Macquorn Rankine, A manual of applied mechanics (2 vols, London, 1858), i, 1–12. See also Marsden B. , “Engineering science in Glasgow: Economy, efficiency and measurement as prime movers in the differentiation of an academic discipline”, The British journal for the history of science, xxv (1992), 1992–46 and Marsden Ben , “Engineering science in Glasgow: W. J. M. Rankine and the motive power of air” (unpublished Ph.D., University of Kent at Canterbury, 1992).

“Yorkshire Board of Education: Proposed college of science”, Leeds Mercury, 6 November 1869, 5.

Tilly Charles , Stories, identities, and political change (Lanham, Md., 2002).

Cronon William , “A place for stories: Nature, history, and narrative”, The journal of American history, lxxxviii (1992), 1347–76.

Ravetz J. R. , Scientific knowledge and its social problems (Oxford, 1979).

Burke Kenneth , A grammar of motives (Berkeley, 1960; 1st edn 1945). See also Bygrave Stephen , Kenneth Burke: Rhetoric and ideology (London, 1993); Brummett Barry , “Burke's representative anecdote as a method in media criticism”, Critical studies in media communication, i (1984), 1984–76.

This is particularly true of the dramatist approach of Burke, see for instance, Liaoi A. , “Special forum on ecocriticism and theory”, Interdisciplinary studies in literature and environment, xvii (2010), 754–99; Williams David Cratis , “‘Drama’ and ‘nuclear war’ as representative anecdotes of Burke's theories of ontology and epistemology” (Washington, D.C, 1986); Wess R. , “Representative anecdotes in general, with notes toward a representative anecdote for Burkean ecocriticism in particular”, K.B. Journal (online) i (2004), np.

Miller David Philip , James Watt, chemist: Understanding the origins of the steam age (London, 2009), see the section entitled “representations”, 8–82.

Georges R. A. , “Toward an understanding of storytelling events”, Journal of American folklore (1969), 313–28 and Georges R. A. , “The concept of ‘repertoire’ in folkloristics”, Western folklore, liii (1994), 1994–23.

There are of course exceptions, see for instance, Forman Paul , “The discovery of the diffraction of X-rays by crystals: A critique of the myths”, Archive for history of exact sciences, vi (1969), 38–71. This however is intended to slay the myth, rather than the intention here which is to understand the generality of the phenomenon of story-telling.

Waquet Françoise , Parler comme un livre: L'oralité et le savoir, XVIe—XXe Siècle (Paris, 2003).

http://www.historische-kommission-muenchen-editionen.de/rektoratsreden/. I am grateful to Christof Meinel for this reference.

Carson Cathryn , Heisenberg in the atomic age: Science and the public sphere (Cambridge, 2010).

On the platform, see the special issue of Nineteenth-century prose (xxix, issue 1), introduced by Martin Hewitt's useful review article, Hewitt Martin , “Aspects of platform culture in nineteenth-century Britain”, Nineteenth-century prose, xxix (2002), 1–31. See also the path breaking paper Matthew H. C. G. , “Rhetoric and politics in Great Britain, 1860–1950”, in Politics and social change in modern Britain: Essays presented to A. F. Thompson, ed. by Waller P. J. (Brighton, 1987), 34–58. This paper shows the close relation between speechmaking and the press.

Jephson H. L. , The platform, its rise and progress (2 vols, London, 1892).

Brown David , “Morally transforming the world or spinning a line? Politicians and the newspaper press in mid nineteenth-century Britain”, Historical research, lxxxiii (2010), 321–42; idem, “Compelling but not controlling?: Palmerston and the press, 1846–1855”, History, lxxxvi (2002), 2002–61.

Brake Laurel Jones Aled Madden Lionel , (eds), Investigating Victorian journalism (London, 1990).

Dawson Gowan Topham Jonathan R. , “Science in the nineteenth-century periodical”, Literature compass, i (2004), 1–11; Cantor G. N. Shuttleworth Sally (eds), Science serialized: Representation of the sciences in nineteenth-century periodicals (Cambridge, Mass., 2004); Henson Louise Cantor Geoffrey Dawson Gowan Noakes Richard Shuttleworth Sally Topham Jonathan R. , Culture and science in the nineteenth-century media (Farnham, Surrey, 2004). Editors of popular scientific magazines have been covered too, see for instance Barton Ruth , “Just before nature: The purposes of science and the purposes of popularization in some English popular science journals of the 1860s”, Annals of science, lv (1998), 1998–33; Brock William Hodson , William Crookes (1832–1919) and the commercialization of science (Farnham, Surrey, 2008).

“Industrial education”, Morning Chronicle, 10 November 1851, 6–7.

The Morning Chronicle was owned by a group of aristocrats favourable to Robert Peel.

See Desmond Adrian , Thomas Huxley: Evolution's high priest (London, 1997).

Minutes of the trustees of Case school of applied science, 12 May 1880, Archives, Case Western Reserve University.

“Sir Josiah Mason's science college”, Birmingham Daily Post, 2 October 1880, 4.

This dinner was lovingly described down to the huge menu under the title “Dinner of the committee”, by the Hull Packet, 6 August 1841, 4–5.

Quoted by Brummett, “Burke's representative” (ref. 50), on p. 163.

“The Earl of Derby on scientific industry”, Manchester Times, 17 January 1874, 5.

Bell Duncan , “From ancient to modern in Victorian imperial thought”, The historical journal, il (2006), 735–59.

Travis A. S. , “Decadence, decline and celebration: Raphael Meldola and the Mauve Jubilee of 1906”, History and technology, xxii (2006), 131–52.

Haines George , German influence upon English education and science, 1800–1866 (New London, 1957), xii.

See for instance Crowther J. G. , Statesmen of science (London, 1965).

Horner David , “The road to Scarborough: Wilson, Labour and the scientific revolution”, in The Wilson governments, ed. by Coopey Richard Fielding Richard Tiratsoo Nick (London, 1993), 48–71.

Matthew , “Rhetoric and politics” (ref. 58), 58.

Barnes Barry Dupré John , Genomes and what to make of them (Chicago, 2008).

On Bakhtin see Bakhtin M. M. , The dialogic imagination: Four essays; ed. by Holquist Michael ; transl. by Emerson Caryl Holquist Michael (Austin, 1982); Dentith Simon , Bakhtinian thought: An introductory reader (London, 1994); Holquist Michael , Dialogism: Bakhtin and his world (London, 2007).

Gardiner Michael E. , “Wild publics and grotesque symposiums: Habermas and Bakhtin on dialogue, everyday life and the public sphere”, in After Habermas: New perspectives on the public sphere ed. by Crossley Nick Roberts John M. , Sociological review monographs (Oxford, 2004).

Bakhtin Mikhail , “Discourse in the novel” (ref. 78), 258–422, see 302–8.

The “World of Knowledge” classifies just four out of 1047 sources citing Bakhtin as in the history and philosophy of science. See however Mussell James , Science, time and space in the late nineteenth-century periodical press: Movable types (Farnham, Surrey, 2007).

Bakhtin , “Discourse in the novel” (ref. 78), 303. The extract is taken from Dickens Charles , Little Dorrit (London, 1857), 293. The misprint of “wholewide” in the Bakhtin edition has been silently corrected to Dickens' original “worldwide”.

Barry David Elmes Michael , “Strategy retold: Toward a narrative view of strategic discourse”, Academy of management review, xxii (1997), 429–52. Also see their exchange with critics Ireland R. D. Hitt M. A. , “Strategy-as-story: Clarifications and enhancements to Barry and Elmes' arguments”, Academy of management review, xxii.(1997), 844–7; Barry David Elmes Michael , “On paradigms and narratives: Barry and Elmes' response”, Academy of management review, xxii (1997), 1997–9. See Shklovskii Viktor Borisovich , Theory of prose, ed. by Bruns Gerald R. , transl. by Sher Benjamin , 1st American edn (Champaign, Ill., 1990). Idem, Bowstring: On the dissimilarity of the similar, transl. by Avagyan Shushman (Champaign, Ill, 2011).

Gosden Peter Henry Heather John Taylor Arthur John , (eds), Studies in the history of a university, 1874–1974: To commemorate the centenary of the University of Leeds (Leeds, 1975).

Mussell J. , “Cohering knowledge in the nineteenth century: Form, genre and periodical studies”, Victorian periodicals review, xli (2009), 93–103.