Jan Golinski

In Science as Public Culture: Chemistry and Enlightenment in Britain, 1760-1820, Jan Golinski argues, “Science, at its point of origin, is not public at all. Nor is this an accidental feature of experimental work; it is arguably quite essential. Sociologists of modern scientific practice have argued that relative privacy is required for successful laboratory work, in order that skills and apparatus can be refined and protected from interference and so that confused and chaotic initial perceptions can solidify into clear and distinct facts” (pg. 2-3). Golinski continues, “Science, like music, literature, or fashion is a cultural form, to be understood historically in relation to social forces such as emulation and consumerism” (pg. 6). Further, “By attracting aristocratic patronage and middle-class subscriptions for their performances and publications, and by linking natural philosophy with a range of technological activities from navigation to engineering projects, these men won science its place in British society” (pg. 6-7). Finally, “This transformation in the role of the public audience for chemistry was closely connected with the emergence of new instrumentation and a more consolidated social structure for the specialist community” (pg. 9).
Of William Cullen (1710-1790), Golinski writes, “Cullen’s achievement was to give chemistry for the first time in Britain the profile of a public science. He took an existing academic discipline and articulated it in a way which greatly enhanced its acceptability in the culture of the Scottish Enlightenment” (pg. 12). Of the period, Golinski writes, “The influence of paternalistic institutions was offset by the availability of other sources of reward for scientific and technological accomplishments. Although aristocratic patronage was important to many individuals in building their careers, aristocratic cultural values had little purchase on upwardly mobile social groups” (pg. 56). Golinski writes of Joseph Priestley, “His laboratory work – for example that on different kinds of air – was reported in a specific style of literary expositions. Carefully framed descriptive narratives were composed with the explicit aim of making experiments reproducible by relatively unskilled practitioners working with minimal equipment” (pg. 77). Looking at Priestley and his fellow scientists’ work, Golinski writes, “More important than spectacle in gaining an audience for chemistry lectures was utility. Lectures on different kinds of air could be used to get over the message that many practical arts depended on chemistry for knowledge of the properties of substances” (pg. 103). Discussing the conflict between Priestley and Lavoisier’s methods, Golinski writes, “To Priestley and his followers, expenditure of this scale on scientific apparatus was not only undesirable but reprehensible, because it foreclosed the possibility of Lavoisier’s experiments being replicated by others who lacked his wealth” (pg. 138). Golinski summarizes the difference between Beddoes and Lavoisier, writing, “To Beddoes, it was immediate sensory experience that was demonstrative, and not the sequence of steps that might connect it with theoretical conclusions. If Lavoisier could satisfy doubts as to what was actually perceived in his experiment, then he would have rendered it conclusive, in Beddoe’s view. To Lavoisier, on the other hand, experiments were to be made demonstrative by being embodied in structures of discursive reasoning” (pg. 154).
Describing changing ideas, Golinski writes, “No less dangerous than aristocratic patronage of enlightened philosophers was the ‘clubability’ that had been such a prevalent feature of their lives. Burke portrayed reformist political clubs as hotbeds of revolutionary enthusiasm, where natural moral restraints were shrugged off in the excitement of democratic discussion and egalitarian social intercourse” (pg. 184). Golinski argues, “Through the work of Sir Humphry Davy (1778-1829), chemistry was given an entirely new form as a public science. In the first ten years of the nineteenth century it emerged from the crisis of the previous decade with greatly enhanced esteem and respectability. Davy’s career was emblematic of this transformation, and indeed was substantially responsible for it” (pg. 188). Further, “Experiments also operate socially as a lever – they move opinions and secure acceptance of beliefs. They can do this, however, only if embodied in effective linguistic forms, and communicated via functioning social structures. In other words, the lever of experiment turns on the fulcrum of the social relations between experimenter and audience” (pg. 190). Golinski continues, “Davy connected the construction of the new pile with the traditions of English Enlightenment science – a voluntary activity, dependent on individual patronage, stimulated by emulation and the quest for honor. But at the same time he acknowledged that a change had taken place: His science now drew its strength from a single powerful experimental apparatus which required the widest public support” (pg. 218-219). Golinski concludes, “Whereas in the previous century expertise and complex equipment had sometimes been seen as threats to the ideal of science as a publicly accessibly enterprise, such concerns were now heard less often .The commitment to widespread public diffusion of science was however still strongly held. Hence the exploration of new textual forms and new institutions for public education co-existed with the progressive enhancement of specialist expertise” (pg. 237).… (mehr)