Ash M G
Department of History, University of Iowa, Iowa City, 52242-1409.
NTM. 1995;3(1):1-21. doi: 10.1007/BF02913687.
Until recently, the development of the modern sciences has usually been described as a continuous unfolding of constantly expanding and differentiating research institutions on the one hand, and the accumulation of more and better knowledge on the other. The changes that have occurred both in scientific institutions and in the direction and content of research in the course of revolutions or comparable political changes pose significant challenges to such accounts. I would like to propose an interactive approach to this issue. Instead of accepting a linear, deterministic model of scientific change as a result of political upheaval, I suggest that such political changes present an array of challenges to and possibilities for the interruption, redirection, reconstruction or effortful continuation of research. The central claim is that scientific development in times of political upheaval has proceeded in Germany primarily by means of increasing cooperation of scientists with the state, involving a process that I call the technologization of basic research. But this is not always a one-sided affair involving the subordination of science to practical politics or to ideology. Rather, I argue, what occurs is the mobilization or reconstruction of physical, institutional, financial cognitive and/or rhetorical resources. Such mobilizations can proceed in various directions: the state or agencies within it can mobilize scientists as resources in the interest of achieving certain political aims; scientists can convert themselves into such resources (or claim that they are doing so); or both things can happen at once. The approach is exemplified by examining continuities and changes in the situations of the sciences following the major turning points of 20th century German history, symbolized by the dates 1918, 1933, 1945 and 1990. Considered in particular are: scientific changes in Germany following the Nazi takeover and creative innovations by émigré scientists working in different cultural settings; the massive transfer of scientific resources after Nazi Germany's defeat and attempts to carry on and reconstruct science in the two postwar German states; and the massive reorganization of scientific institutions in eastern Germany after unification. The examples come primarily from biology and experimental psychology, but physical sciences and particular branches of technology are considered as well.
直到最近,现代科学的发展通常被描述为一方面是不断扩展和分化的研究机构持续展开,另一方面是更多更好知识的积累。在革命或类似政治变革过程中,科学机构以及研究方向和内容所发生的变化,给这种描述带来了重大挑战。我想针对这个问题提出一种互动式方法。我建议不要接受将科学变革视为政治动荡结果的线性、决定论模型,而是认为此类政治变革为研究的中断、转向、重建或艰难延续带来了一系列挑战和可能性。核心观点是,在政治动荡时期,德国的科学发展主要是通过科学家与国家加强合作来推进的,这涉及一个我称之为基础研究技术化的过程。但这并不总是单方面的事情,即科学服从于实际政治或意识形态。相反,我认为发生的是物质、机构、资金、认知和/或修辞资源的调动或重建。这种调动可以朝着不同方向进行:国家或其内部机构可以为实现某些政治目标而将科学家作为资源加以调动;科学家可以将自己转化为这样的资源(或声称他们正在这样做);或者这两件事可以同时发生。通过考察以1918年、1933年、1945年和1990年为标志的20世纪德国历史重大转折点之后科学状况的连续性和变化,来举例说明这种方法。特别要考虑的是:纳粹掌权后德国的科学变化以及在不同文化背景下工作的流亡科学家的创造性创新;纳粹德国战败后科学资源的大规模转移以及战后两个德国州进行科学传承和重建的尝试;以及统一后东德科学机构的大规模重组。这些例子主要来自生物学和实验心理学,但也考虑了物理科学和特定技术分支。