This book tells the story of how modern environmentalism emerged in postwar Sweden. It shows that the ‘environmental turn’ in Sweden occurred as early as the autumn of 1967 and that natural scientists led the way. The most influential was the chemist Hans Palmstierna, who was both an active Social Democrat and a regular contributor to the nation’s leading morning paper. Thus, he had a unique platform from which to exert influence. Drawing on his rich and previously untapped personal archive, the book explores how popular environmental engagement developed in Sweden. The book also highlights the journalist Barbro Soller, who in the mid-1960s became Sweden’s – and indeed one of the world’s – first environmental journalists. Moreover, it demonstrates how the pioneering historian Birgitta Odén, in collaboration with the Swedish National Defence Research Institute, sought to launch an interdisciplinary research programme based in the humanities and the social sciences as early as 1967–1968. An important conclusion of the book is that environmentalism emerged in Swedish society before there was an actual environmental movement. However, from 1969 onwards new social movements began to alter the dynamics. Hence, by the time the United Nations arranged the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment in June 1972, environmental knowledge had become a source of conflict between rival interests. The environmental turn in postwar Sweden is the first full-length study to emerge from the Lund Centre for the History of Knowledge (LUCK), and demonstrates how its specific take on the history of knowledge enhances historical scholarship.
This view of the history of knowledge does not constitute a radical break
with established research traditions. There is great interest in studying publics, media, and
public actors, not least within current sociologically inspired research into the historyofscience. 18 Despite this, comprehensive
studies of social breakthroughs of knowledge are unusual, especially in the subject of
history, the discipline in which I myself operate and was trained. It is far more common for
historians to study discourses
The dynamic processes of knowledge production in archaeology and elsewhere in the
humanities and social sciences are increasingly viewed within the context of
negotiation, cooperation and exchange, as the collaborative effort of groups,
clusters and communities of scholars. Shifting focus from the individual scholar
to the wider social contexts of her work, this volume investigates the
importance of informal networks and conversation in the creation of knowledge
about the past, and takes a closer look at the dynamic interaction and exchange
that takes place between individuals, groups and clusters of scholars in the
wider social settings of scientific work. Various aspects of and mechanisms at
work behind the interaction and exchange that takes place between the individual
scholar and her community, and the creative processes that such encounters
trigger, are critically examined in eleven chapters which draw on a wide
spectrum of examples from Europe and North America: from early modern
antiquarians to archaeological societies and practitioners at work during the
formative years of the modern archaeological disciplines and more recent
examples from the twentieth century. The individual chapters engage with
theoretical approaches to scientific creativity, knowledge production and
interaction such as sociology and geographies of science, and actor-network
theory (ANT) in their examination of individual–collective interplay. The book
caters to readers both from within and outside the archaeological disciplines;
primarily intended for researchers, teachers and students in archaeology,
anthropology, classics and the history of science, it will also be of interest
to the general reader.
This book is about science in theatre and performance. It explores how theatre and performance engage with emerging scientific themes from artificial intelligence to genetics and climate change. The book covers a wide range of performance forms from the spectacle of the Paralympics Opening Ceremony to Broadway musicals, from experimental contemporary performance and opera to educational theatre, Somali poetic drama and grime videos. It features work by pioneering companies including Gob Squad, Headlong Theatre and Theatre of Debate as well as offering fresh analysis of global blockbusters such as Wicked and Urinetown. The book offers detailed description and analysis of theatre and performance practices as well as broader commentary on the politics of theatre as public engagement with science. It documents important examples of collaborative practice with extended discussion of the Theatre of Debate process developed by Y Touring theatre company, exploration of bilingual theatre-making in East London and an account of how grime MCs and dermatologists ended up making a film together in Birmingham. The interdisciplinary approach draws on contemporary research in theatre and performance studies in combination with key ideas from science studies. It shows how theatre can offer important perspectives on what the philosopher of science Isabelle Stengers has called ‘cosmopolitics’. The book argues that theatre can flatten knowledge hierarchies and hold together different ways of knowing.
‘constructivist turn’ in democratic representation: A
normative dead end? Constellations, 22(4), 487–499.
Golinski, J. (2005). Making Natural Knowledge: Constructivism and the HistoryofScience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mill, J. S. (1978 ). On Liberty, ed. by E. Rapaport (originally published
1859). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
Rosanvallon, P. (2011). Democratic Legitimacy: Impartiality, Reflexivity, Proximity, trans. by A. Goldhammer. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Saward, M. (2010). The Representative Claim. Oxford: Oxford University Press
sociales: des disciplines du contexte?’, Revue d’histoire des sciences
humaines , 30 (2017), 7–29. See also Rens Bod et al., ‘A New Field:
History of Humanities’, History of Humanities , 1 (2016), 1–8.
Lorraine Daston, ‘The HistoryofScience and the History of
Knowledge’, KNOW , 1 (2017), 131–54. See also ‘HistoryofScience
or History of Knowledge?’, special issue of Berichte zur
Wissenschaftsgeschichte , 42 (2019), 109–270; Johan Östling et al. (eds
relationships within scientific networks operate depending on where
they were built, where they operate, and where and how their knowledge is spread. To do this, it is crucial to understand who is interacting
at different types of site, such as universities, excavation sites, museum
offices, private homes, hotels or formal scholarly meetings. But what
happens once those ideas leave specific spaces?
Throughout the historyofscience, practitioners – both amateurs
and professionals – have shared knowledge with their scholarly communities through various forms of
Simona Giordano, John Harris, and Lucio Piccirillo
been used in war, calls into question the morality
of scientific goals (or at least the morality of how scientific innovation
can be used, and of how people come to be empowered to make decisions
about how it is used).
The historyofscience is replete with such atrocities (Frewer and Schmidt
2007). We may remember the case of Hideyo Noguchi, employed in the
1920s at the Rockefeller Institute, who infected hundreds of patients in
New York’s hospitals with syphilis for ‘research purposes’ (Corbellini and
Lalli 2016). During the early 1900s several hundred people were
: Chronic Disease and Slow Death in Nineteenth-Century France (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2009).
7 D. Fox, Health Policies, Health Politics: The British and American Experience, 1911–1965 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986); S. Sturdy and R. Cooter, ‘Science, scientific management and the transformation of medicine in Britain, c.1870–1950’, HistoryofScience , 36:4 (1998), 421–66; C. Lawrence, Rockefeller Money, The Laboratory and Medicine in Edinburgh, 1919–1930: New Science in an Old Country (New York: University
-funded research would enable Britain’s Caribbean colonies to participate in the emerging ‘brave new synthetic world’, and in doing so these places would find their economic fortunes revived. 2
By exploring post-war visions of economic development for the British Caribbean colonies this work produces a rethinking of our wider understanding of the historyofscience and development in the twentieth century. Despite the rise of development as a universal ideal for the Global South and the emergence of development studies as a major scholarly field, we employ a narrative of past