Introduction

Author(s): Roy MacLeod

Source: Osiris, 2nd Series, Vol. 15, Nature and Empire: Science and the Colonial Enterprise
(2000), pp. 1-13
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/301937 .
Accessed: 18/06/2014 03:25

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Osiris.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:25:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Introduction
By Roy MacLeod*

I. CHANGINGPERSPECTIVES

DURINGTHE LAST THREE DECADES, HISTORIANSOF SCIENCE have

comeincreasingly toappreciate theroleofscienceandtechnology inthemak-
ingofnations, andinthedevelopment ofworldsystems intradeandcommerce. For
centuries, knowledge has beena companion ofcommerce, andbothhavefollowed
theflag.Fromthefifteenth century,thatflagwas commonly European.Led byIbe-
ria,through explorationand discovery, learning and commerce together beganto
comprehend theworld.By theseventeenth century,thesea-trading Europeanpow-
ers,including theNetherlands, France,andEngland,foundstrategic advantage in
commerce andcolonization.Withbothcamereciprocal advantages fortheimprove-
mentofnatural knowledge. In England,theunfolding ofempirecoincidedwiththe
Scientific Revolution.Strategic advantage turned uponthisnewunderstanding of
nature.Duringtheearlyeighteenth century,andcontinuing throughtheEnlighten-
ment,theneedsof Europeannavigation paid tributeto thesolutionof problems
centraltonatural philosophy. Bothpursuits droveinternational in voyagesof
rivalry
discovery andexploration. Bothalso serveda growing Europeaninterest in estab-
lishingcolonies,whether byconquest, trade,orsettlement.
Untilfiftyyearsago,thehistory ofscienceandthehistory ofcolonialism livedin
separatespheres.Theirrelationship was uncontested, in partbecauseit was taken
forgranted. Imperialhistory was,in sensu strictu,politicalhistory, thehistory of
military conquest, administration,andtrade.The interests ofsciencewerepresent,
ofcourse,butina conceptually subordinate capacity;as extensions ofmetropolitan
institutions,perhaps,in whichscientists wereindependent explorers orfonction-
naires. However, fromthe1960s,withthebeginning of the"endof empire"and
progressive decolonization,camean increasing interest in scienceandtechnology
as instruments ofpostcolonial development. Withthisalso camea growing interest
in themethods bywhichtheEuropeancolonialpowershad-for centuries-suc-
cessfully cultivatedandemployed scienceforeconomicadvantage andpoliticalcon-
trol.By the1970s,in a context ofgrowing politicalandintellectual dissatisfaction
withthepredominantly cognitive tendency in thehistory of science,thisinterest
witnessed an historiographical
turnthatcontributed, interalia, to theemerging so-

*Department ofHistory, ofSydney,

University Sydney,NSW,Australia2006.As guesteditorfor
volume15 of Osiris,RoyMacLeod wouldliketo conveyhisthanksto all thosewhoassistedin the
finalpreparation
ofthisvolume,notablyMargaret StephenWeldon,andJillBarnes.
Rossiter,

?) 2001 byThe History

ofScienceSociety.All rights
reserved.
0369-7827/99/1401-0004$02.00

Osiris,2001, 15:00-00 1

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:25:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
2 ROY MACLEOD

cial historyofscience.'It is surelynotcoincidental thata periodthatsawrenewed

interestin thestructure of scientific
revolutionsalso saw a growing interest in the
structureandpracticeofWestern sciencein theworldat large.
To see a relationshipbetween theprogress ofscienceandtheexpansion ofEurope
was an idea whosetimehad come.It was not,ofcourse,an especiallynovelidea,
evenin theNew World.In 1893,beforea largegathering ofhistorians at,signifi-
cantly,theWorld'sColumbian ExpositioninChicago,Frederick Jackson Turner pre-
sentedhisinfluential interpretationof thesignificance of thefrontier inAmerican
history.Thatempires, andcharacters, wereshapedbya continually advancing line-
"theouteredgeofthewave-the meeting pointbetweensavagery andcivilisation,"
as he putit,2was a commonthemeamongbothAmerican andimperialhistorians.
Scienceaccompanied transoceaniccolonization,andin shapingtheeconomicdes-
tinyoftheWest,defined therelationshipbetweenthe"old"andthe"new."
Perhapsthefirst notable-certainly, themostquotable-manifestation ofthisin-
terestamongat leastAnglo-American historianscamewiththeepochalpaperof
1967byGeorgeBasalla on "TheSpreadofWestern Science."3TheBasallamodel,
and thecriticalresponseit evoked,are nowwellestablished in theliterature. Fa-
mously, Basalladrewthreecurves, suggesting threestagesinthepassageofWestern
scienceintoanynon-European culture.A preliminary phaseofexploration would
lead to a periodof colonialdependency, a periodof adolescence,whichin turn
wouldbe followedbya phaseofmaturity, scientificindependence andnationalau-
tonomy. Scienceis associatedwithnations, andan independent nationmusthavea
nationalscience.
Today, inanincreasingly internationalized
world,a global"knowledge economy"
whereinformation and its exchangefeatureso prominently, manyhistorians are
movingawayfromusingthenation-state as theprimary unitof analysis,and are
lookingforbetter waysofunderstanding relationshipsbetween peoplesandcultures.
In this,thehistory of imperialism and colonialism-conjuring images,scarcelya
generation ago, thatwerereviledby revisionist scholars-has made a dramatic
comeback.It is in theinterdependent relationshipsof nationsandpeoplesthatwe
nowlooktofindwaysofapproaching thecomplexproblems oftheglobe.Forthese
reasons,thehistory of imperialand colonialsciencehas becomea new "venue,"
reflectinga convergence ofinterests
amongscholarsin worldhistory, thehistory of
medicine, themovement ofglobalcapital,andthehistory ofenvironmental change.4
In thecool gaze ofthenewmillennium, we caneasilysee howtheBasallamodel
reflected(andwhyshoulditnot!)certain intellectualfashionsofitsday,especially
in itssymmetry withthesociologyof"center-periphery" relationsandthepolitical
economyofmodernization theory-then so belovedofmajorinternational founda-

1 See, forexample,RichardDrayton, "Scienceand theEuropeanEmpires," JournalofImperial

and Commonwealth History,1995,23, 3:503-510.
2
[Frederick JacksonTurner], RereadingFrederick
JacksonTurner:"TheSignificance oftheFron-
tierinAmerican History" and OtherEssays,withcommentary byJohnMackFaragher (NewHaven:
Yale Univ.Press,1998),p. 32.
3George Basalla,"TheSpreadofWestern Science, Science,1967,156:616-22;a visionregained,
unaltered, in idem,"The Spreadof Western ScienceRevisited,"in Mundializaciande la cienciay
culturanacional,eds.AntonioLafuente, AlbertoElena,andMariaLuisa Ortega(Madrid:Ediciones
Doce Calles, 1993),pp. 599-603.
4 See, forexample, MichaelA. Osborne,"Introduction:The Social HistoryofScience,Technosci-
enceandImperialism," Science,Technologyand Society,1999,4, 2:161-70.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:25:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 INTRODUCTION 3

tions,theUnitedNations,and theWorldBank.5Its languagefittingly describedthe

advancing,inquisitivespiritoftheAmericanWestand theWesternworld,a language
fundamentalto both scientificdiscoveryand the Westernimage of itself.Thus
emergedtheTurneresque(or even Kiplingesque)"traits"of theconquerorofNature,
and ofrealmsbeyondtheseas, bymenwhoselivesrevealed"thatpractical,inventive
turnof mind,quick to findexpedients;thatmasterful graspof materialthings,lack-
ing in the artisticbut powerfulto effectgreatends; thatrestless,nervousenergy;
thatdominantindividualism,workingforgood and forevil, and withalthatbuoy-
ancy and exuberancewhichcomes withfreedom."6
To manyreaders,theBasalla model reflectedcommonsense. Its historicalnarra-
tive fit-although perhapstoo closely-the experienceof the UnitedStates,with
whichothercountriesweremeantto comparethemselvesand,ifpossible,to imitate.
Its perspectivewas plainlydiffusionist,at thetimewhenmuchWesternsocial sci-
ence subscribedto diffusionism as a majorexplanatoryfactorin humanhistory.It
was a creationof itstime.7
There is no questionthatthemodel servedas a valuable heuristicdevice. How-
ever,it lacked explanatorypower.Indeed, it seemed to embodya kind of genetic
fallacy,in whichtheexistenceof an idea is to be takenas a sufficient explanation
ofitscause. The suggestedtrajectory was setoutas linearand unidirectional;itmade
nothingof changingimperialstrategiesor theirdifferences overtime;it generalized
widelyovervastlydissimilarnon-Western cultures;and perhapsmostimportant, it
dispensed withpolitical agency "on the ground,"except insofaras it represented
cultural"resistance"to the apparentbenefitsof Westernscience. It failed to say
muchaboutWesternscience as a means of social controlor culturalsuppression.It
failed,moreover,to say anythingverymuchabout "colonial science" itself.None-
theless,like anygood Popperianmodel,itpromptedattempts to falsifyit.Historians
who had previouslyhad littlecontactwiththe historyof science-particularlyits
trajectoryin formercolonies-embarked on a trekto testthemodel's"predictions."
Withinthelast thirty years,therehave been severalattemptsto replacethese-in
hindsight, rathershaky-foundations.Over thelast decade, especially,momentum
forchangehas increased.In 1990,a largeinternational conferencein Parisdisplayed
a wide varietyof attemptsto "localize" the European experienceof science,from
theviewpointsof both"metropolitan" It was a moment,
and "colonial" historians.8
perhaps,whenthestudyof Europeanscience firstbegan to parallelrevisioniststud-

fora generation
5As enshrined by W.W. Rostowin Stagesof EconomicGrowth(Cambridge:
CambridgeUniv.Press,1960).An alternative
argumentwasproposedinRoyMacLeod,"On Visiting
the'MovingMetropolis':Reflections of ImperialScience,"HistoricalRecords
on theArchitecture
ofAustralianScience, 1982, 5, 3:1-16; and in ScientificColonialism: A Cross-CulturalComparison,
eds. NathanReingoldand Marc Rothenberg (Washington, D.C.: SmithsonianInstitution
Press,
1987).A decadeon, theissue is takenup afreshin RichardDrayton,"Science,Medicineand the
BritishEmpire,"in The OxfordHistoryof the BritishEmpire,vol. V: Historiography,ed. Robin W.
see DhruvRaina,
Winks(Oxford:OxfordUniv.Press,1999),pp. 269-70.Fora recentcontribution,
"FromWestto Non-West?Basalla's Three-stageModel Revisited,"Scienceas Culture,1999,8,
4:497-5 16.
6 RereadingTurner
[Turner], (cit.n. 2), p. 59.
7 Foreasyaccesstoitshighersimplifications, ModeloftheWorld:
see J.M. Blaut,TheColonizer's
Geographical Diffusionismand EurocentricHistory(New York: The GuilfordPress, 1993).
8 Patrick
Petitjean, Moulin,eds.,ScienceandEmpires:Historical
Jami,andAnne-Marie
Catherine
Studies about ScientificDevelopmentand European Expansion (Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Pub-
lishers,1990).

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:25:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
4 ROY MACLEOD

ies ofEuropeannationalism.9 Whatemerged was a growing awareness thatthehis-

toricalrealityof Europeancolonialism-theconstitution of colonialempires, no-
tablyfromthe eighteenth centuryonwards-had to be morecloselydefined.
Coloniesonceadministratively categorized-as,forexample,coloniesofconquest,
plantation,orsettlement-were revisited
as placeswithin whichthepractice ofsci-
encehada specialmeaning. Colonialscienceacquireda three-dimensional character
and presence,whether theultimatereference was Britain,France,Germany, or
Spain,orforthatmatter, theUnitedStates.
Thenextfewyearsbrought severalimportant additionstothismorecritical litera-
ture.In one,JamesMcClellanproducedan excellent accountofFrenchexpansion
intheeighteenth century, adopting,butqualifying thediffusionistinterpretationwith
a richdiscussionof contextual debate.10As he argued,theinterests ofFrancerep-
resentedscienceas an instrument of empire-complicit, ironically,withboththe
teachingsof thephilosophes andthecontradictions of slavery.Meanwhile, a more
globalperspective begantoemerge, withLewisPyenson's highly influential
insights
intothehistory ofEuropeanimperial science."'Pyenson lookedsystematically atthe
expansion ofdifferent Europeancultures,12 inspiringamongothers theuseofmodels
ofincreasing-insome,almostptolemaic-complexity.i3 By themid-1990s, work-
inglargely from a soi-disant
postcolonialenvironment inFrenchCanada,hehadexe-
cuteda magnificently conceivedtrilogy,surveying theextension ofthe"exact"sci-
encesintothecolonialworldsoccupiedbyGermany, theNetherlands, andFrance.14
Itwasa measureoftheincreasing sophistication ofthefieldthatoneofPyenson's
leadingarguments-that sciencewas an agencyofimperial culture,andofcultural
imperialism, butthattheexactscienceswerenotin turnshapedby thecolonial
experience-provoked strenuous debate.'5Criticsassertedthat,on thecontrary, co-
lonialexpansion,withitsinvestment in geophysics, meteorology, and astronomy,
wasvitaltotheprogress oftheexactsciencesinEurope;andthatinanycase,Euro-
pean imperialism underwrote theglobalexercisewithinwhichtheexactsciences
flourished(andwithout whichtheycouldnothavebenefited so quickly,
orso well).16

9 In theaptphraseofDrayton, "ScienceandtheEuropeanEmpires"(cit.n. 1), p. 508.

10JamesMcClellan
III, Colonialismand Science:SaintDominguein theOld Regime(Baltimore
andLondon:JohnsHopkinsUniv.Press,1992).
11Amongthesewere:Lewis Pyenson, "WhyScienceMayServePoliticalEnds:CulturalImperial-
ismandtheMissiontoCivilize,"BerichtezurWissenschaftgeschichte, 1990,13:69-81; idem,"Hab-
itsofMind:Geophysics atShanghaiandAlgiers,1920-1940,"HistoricalStudiesinthePhysicaland
BiologicalSciences,1990,21:161-96; andidem,"ColonialScienceandtheCreationofa Postcolo-
nialScientific Tradition in Indonesia,"
Akademika, 1990,37:91-105.
12 LewisPyenson, "Functionaries andSeekersinLatinAmerica:Missionary Diffusion oftheExact
Sciences,1850-1930,"Quipu,1985,2, 3:387-420; idem,"PureLearningand PoliticalEconomy:
ScienceandEuropeanExpansionintheAgeofImperialism," inNewTrends intheHistory ofScience:
Proceedings ofa Conference Heldat theUniversity
ofUtrecht, eds.R. P. W Visseretal. (Amsterdam:
Rodopi,1989),pp.209-78; andidem,"Typologiedes strategies d'expansionen sciencesexactesl,in
Petitjean, Jami,andMoulin,ScienceandEmpires(cit.n. 8), pp. 211-18.
13 See XavierPolanco,ed.,Naissanceetdevelopment de la science-monde: Production etreproduc-
tiondes communautis scientifiquesen EuropeetenAmerique Latine(Paris:La Decouverte,1990).
" Lewis Pyenson,CulturalImperialism andExactSciences:GermanExpansionOverseas,1900-
1930 (New York:P. Lang,1985); idem,EmpireofReason:ExactSciencesinIndonesia,1840-1940
(Leiden:E. J.Brill,1989);andidem,Civilizing Mission:ExactSciencesandFrenchOverseasExpan-
sion,1830-1940(BaltimoreandLondon:JohnsHopkinsUniv.Press,1993).
15 See especiallyPaolo Palladinoand MichaelWorboys, "Scienceand Imperialism"' Isis, 1993,
84:91-102;and Professor Pyenson'sreplyin "CulturalImperialism and ExactSciencesRevisited,"
Isis, 1993,84:103-8. See also RoyMacLeod,"On ScienceandColonialism," inScienceand Society

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:25:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 INTRODUCTION 5

More compellingly, scholarsfamiliarwiththewaysof colonial lifedrewattention

to the"other"-the "nonexact"-sciences (althoughthephraseis unappealing),in-
cludingthesocial, naturalhistory, and lifesciences,whichwere everydaycompan-
ions of colonial enterprise.In these,spectacularlyin India and Africa,the level of
intellectualinteraction betweenrulerand ruled,expertand populace, was vital,ev-
eryday,and decisive.The ensuingrelationwas one of interdependence. Westernsci-
ence was, above all, a purveyorof solutionsto theneeds of imperialgovernments;
at the same time,it could be, and was, assimilatedand transformed by local and
indigenouspeoples intoa bodyofknowledgeforlocal empowerment. In India,colo-
nial sciencebecame thebasis of negotiatedknowledge,whichconsolidatedand ulti-
matelytransferred powerto thecolonized.In LatinAmerica,colonial circumstances
favoredthe creationof a criollo science, which foundlocal ways of representing
natureand generateditsown discourse.17 In Australasia,independent traditions were
fosteredwithinthe ambitof colonial science, whichsustainedcolonial Europeans
on themarchto nationhood.
Looking back, thediffusionist perspective,thecenter-periphery model,and even
the"strongprogram"of imperialsciencehaveproved insufficientlyaccommodating
to the sources and discoveriesof recentresearch.Indeed, for the most part,these
earlystrategieshave,to borrowthewords of Lakatos, failedto produce a progressive
problemshift.What was needed,and whathas now come about,is a revolutionin
approach,producingin its wake a new and deeper set of questionsabout theuses
of knowledgeand power. In the European empiresfromthe eighteenthcentury,
"metropolis"and "periphery"were,of course,geographicallyconstituted-no one
failed to grasp the differingnarrativesof science in different environments, par-
ticularlyin subtropicaland tropicalclimates.But relationshipsbetweenmetropolis
and peripherywere also sociallyconstituted, and as such represented thecombined
effectsof social, political,and economic relationsamong different culturesand
peoples. It is theserelationshipsthatwereto shape thenatureof science "conveyed"
and exchangedwithEurope,and to empowernew nationswithWesternscience as
an instrument of regionaland international development.It is these relationships
thatwere equally to constraincolonial development,renderingcertainfeaturesof
colonial dependencyno less evidentin theworldtoday.
Duringthelast fiveyears,thehistoryof imperialand colonial science has devel-
oped in maturity and sophistication.On theone hand,itis becomingclearhow early
and extensiveimperialexpansionin science and technologyprovideda basis forthe
"knowledgeculture."The Iberianconquestsof thefifteenth centuryonwards-and
notmerelythefatal"Columbianexchange" are beingrevisitedin freshlanguage,
tailoredto an understanding of nature'slaws.'8 Thanksto a new interestin British
imperialhistory, codifiedin partbythenew OxfordHistoryoftheBritishEmpire,we
can tracehow theearlyadventurers of ElizabethanEnglandframedrulesof colonial

in Ireland: The Social Contextof Science and Technologyin Ireland, 1800-1950, ed. Peter Bowler
(Belfast:Queen'sUniv.1997),pp. 1-17;and idem,"ReadingtheDiscourseofColonialScience,"in
Les Sciences coloniales: Les Sciences hors d'occidentau XXemesiele, vol. 2: Figures et institutions,
ed. PatrickPetitjean(Paris:ORSTOM, 1996),pp. 87-98.
16
Drayton,"ScienceandtheEuropeanEmpires"(cit.n. 1),p. 507.
17
Juan-Jos6Saldafia,"CrossCulturalDiffusion Cuadernosde Quipu,
ofScience:LatinAmerica,"
1987, 2:33-57.
18 See, for example, AnthonyPagden, European Encounters withthe New World: From Renais-
(New Haven:Yale Univ.Press,1993).
sancetoRomanticism

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:25:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
6 ROY MACLEOD

engagement inwhichcommerce heldthekeytotheimprovement ofnatural knowl-

edge.Colonialismand sciencetogether combinedthedictatesofpietyandpatrio-
tism.As scienceadvanced,so didthe"civilizing mission,"in which"mother coun-
tries"becamechildren ofthesameprocessesto whichtheygavebirth.19
Morerecently, imperial perspectives havebeentakenupbycultural who
theorists,
havereplacedthe"modelbuilding" ofthe1960swithmultivalent perspectives col-
oredbythecomplexities ofcontact. The current postmodern turnagainstcanonical
authority(andtraditional historiography) hasencouraged historiesofmultiple inter-
actions,and a preference fornonlinear, nonprescriptive descriptions dealingwith
historicallycontingent practicesof communication and exchange.20 At thesame
time,thehistory ofcolonialsciencehasprovedrelevant tothosewhosee inWestern
colonialism theultimate causeofcontemporary dependency. To all these,thecon-
ceptof "periphery," once apparently so obvious,is historiographically ambiguous
and methodologically problematic.In purporting to explain,it has in factevaded
explanation.Andas onereexamines non-Western culturesandtheirlegaciesofnatu-
ralknowledge, evenwhathavebeenthought ofas simpleconventions ofperiodiza-
tionandhistorical narrativeproveunreliable. Scholarsas different as RoshdiRashed
andJosephNeedhamhavereminded us howfarWestern interpretations havefailed
to comprehend thecharacter of non-Western science.21Untiltheydo, ourunder-
standingofnon-Western peoples,andtheirrolein constituting science,remains in-
complete.
The timehas surelycometo widentheresearch agendaandbroadentheoretical
approaches. First,we needscholarship frombothimperial, Europeanviewpoints,
and fromtheperspective of coloniallife.It is in theprocessof multiple engage-
ments-betweenEuropeansat homeand abroad,betweenEuropeansandindige-
nouspeoples,andbetweenWestern and non-Western science-thattheprocesses
ofcolonialsciencedeveloped.Second,we needstudiesthatembracethechanging
relationshipbetweenthehistory of technology and ofcolonialscience;thatshow
howfleetsoftradefollowedflagships ofscience;thatunravel thecomplexassocia-
tionsbetweenimperial"promoters" andcolonialknowledge. Third,we needtotest
similarities
and differences betweenand amongimperialsystems, in theiruse of
scienceandtheirprivileging ofcontrasting scientificmetaphors andmentalities. In
thehistory ofimperialandcolonialscience,France,Britain, Spain,Portugal, Ger-
many,andtheNetherlands presentsimilarities andcontrasts. We haveyetto see a
majorcomparison of theirrespective features, contributions,andlegacies.Finally,
whilemanyauthors havewritten vertically,so tospeak,inrelation tospecificdisci-
plinesandcultural spheres, we lacka baselineforcomparative studies, undertaken
horizontally,acrosscultural frontiers.It is likelythatmuchnewinsight awaitsthe
study,say,ofthetransmission ofscienceacrossdifferent spaces,of"colonial"geol-

l9To generalizeRichardDrayton, "KnowledgeandEmpire,"in TheOxford HistoryoftheBritish

Empire,vol. II: The Eighteenth Century, ed. P. J. Marshall(Oxford:OxfordUniv.Press,1999),
p. 251.
20 See MichelPaty,"Comparative Historyof Modem Scienceand theContextof Dependency,"
Science,Technology and Society,1999,4, 2:171-203.
21 See Roshdi
Rashed,"Scienceclassiqueet sciencemoderne'a l'epoquede l'expansionde la sci-
enceeuropeenne," in Petitjean,
Jami,andMoulin,Scienceand Empires(cit.n. 8), pp. 19-32.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:25:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 INTRODUCTION 7

on a "south-
ogy across thePacificand Indian Oceans, and of conceptualtransfers
south"basis.

II. CIVILIZING PASSIONS

For mosthistoriansof science,EuropeanorAmerican,colonial science is a foreign

country-theydo thingsdifferently there.Untilrecently, thesame could be said of
imperialand colonial historians,who showed littleinterestin science. Now, how-
ever,fromthecontoursof thelatetwentieth comes a workingpartnership-
century,
a strategicalliance-for the twenty-first century,between imperialand colonial
historyand thehistoryof science. Today,bothfindit necessaryto understandhow
science and technologyhave drivenpolitical and economic change. Imperialhis-
torianshave begun to revisitthe historyof European colonialism.They have re-
vealed,forexample,theproconsularrolesof scientific expeditioners, administrators,
and practitioners,and have tracedtheimperialmandatesgiventhesciences-often
withdeliberate,far-reaching implicationsforscience, as well as forcommerce,at
"home."For theirpart,historiansof scienceare exploringsites-not excludingcolo-
nial museums-where thecolonial natureof science was (and in some ways,is still
being) "negotiated."
From these tendencieshas emergeda new subdisciplineof "colonial science"
(withits sistersubjects,colonial medicineand colonial technology),22 while inter-
pretationsof theexperienceare now routinelyofferedin courseson worldhistory.23
Impressivelistsof empiricalstudieshavebeen generatedby scholarsin formercolo-
nies,24while throughout the world,manyhave takenup the role of science in the
construction Much of thiswork,however,has takenplace
of nationalidentities.25
withinnationallinguisticand culturaltraditions-as, forexample,withintheBrit-
ish, French,Dutch, or Iberiantraditions.Much, also, has been biased towardsthe
institutionsof science, ratherthantowardsthe generationof scientificideas, his-

22
See, forexample,DavidArnold,TheProblemofNature:Environment, Cultureand European
Expansion(Oxford:Blackwell,1996).See MichaelWorboys, "ScienceandImperialism Since1870,"
in TheCambridge HistoryofScience,vol.8, ed. RonNumbers(New York:Cambridge Univ.Press,
forthcoming).
23 Surely theintentionofWilliamK. Storey, AspectsofEuropeanExpansion,vol.6
ed.,Scientific
ofAnExpandingWorld:TheEuropeanImpacton WorldHistory, 1450-1800(Aldershot: Variorum,
1996),andJamesE. McClellanIII andHaroldDorn,Scienceand Technology in WorldHistory:An
Introduction (Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniv.Press,1999); and by now,therealizationof Daniel
Headrick's textbooks, TheToolsofEmpire:Technology and EuropeanImperialism intheNineteenth
Century (NewYork:OxfordUniv.Press,1981),andTheTentacles ofProgress:TechnologyTransfer
intheAgeofImperialism, 1850-1940(NewYork:OxfordUniv.Press,1988).
24 Notably in IndiaandLatinAmerica.Forthelargestdemocracy inAsia,see,forexample,Satpal
Sangwan,Science,Technology and Colonisation:An IndianExperience,1757-1857(New Delhi:
AnamikaPrakashan,1991) andNarenderK. Sehgalet al., Uncharted Terrains:Essayson Science
Popularisation in Pre-IndependenceIndia (New Delhi: VigyanPrasar,2000); and forthelargest
democracy in LatinAmerica,see MariaMargaretLopes, 0 Brasildescobrea pesquisa cientifica
(Sao Paulo:Hucitec,1997).
25 See Ludmilla Jordanova,"ScienceandNationalIdentity," inSciencesetlanguesenEurope,eds.
RogerChartier and PietroCorsi(Paris:Ecole des HautesEtudesen SciencesSociales, 1996),pp.
221-31; JuanJos6Saldafia,ed., Los Origenesde la ciencianacional(MexicoCity:Cuadernosde
Quipu,4, 1992).

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:25:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8 ROY MACLEOD

toryof technology
or trade,or issuesmorecentralto geopolitical
and diplomatic
history.26
Butdespitethisweightofcoursesandcases,therehas stilltocomebetter under-
standing, amongbothcolonialhistorians and historians of science,of whatprac-
titionerson thegroundhaveknownforgenerations: thateversinceEuropeansfirst
engagedtheworldoutre-mer, thetrafficof ideas andinstitutionshas alwaysbeen
reciprocal.Thattexthas been takento readrelationships betweenEuropeansat
homeand overseas.But it is nowmoresignificant to see therelationshipamong
Europeansmediated byEuropeanencounters withindigenous Itrequires
peoples.27
littleprescienceto appreciate
thevalueofEdwardSaid'sreminder thatthecultural
consequences ofcolonialism wereas profound andlastingforthecolonizeras for
thecolonized.28 Suchreceivedwisdomamongimperialhistorians shouldoccasion
no surprise amonghistorians ofscience.Indeed,theliterature ofscientific
travelis
repletewithcross-references toreciprocality.29
Preciselywhattheconsequences of
thistrafficwere,however, remainimportant objectsof enquiry;as indeed,do the
processesthemselves-often informal anddrivenbymotivesthatcombined, or at
leastmixed,thepursuitof naturalknowledge withtheinterests of statecraft
and
trade.
In certaincontexts,
the"binaries"ofthediffusionist perspective haveretained a
degreeofutility. Forexample,itcanbe usefulto employa bibliographical distinc-
tionbetweenEuropeaninstitutions associatedwiththeadministration ofsciencein
colonialplaces(includingtheusesofscienceas an instrument ofcolonization);
and
thepracticeofcolonialscienceas a category ofideologyandself-reference, an ac-
tivityconductedby colonials,whether formalor informal, withregardto either
(orboth)colonialaspirations andimperialgoals.30 Butforthemostpart,sucheasy
categories arenowgivingwayto morecomplexreadingsof colonialscience-no
longermerelya phase,butrather a space,a complexoflegacies,a combination of
motives, and a rolein thediscourseof development.31 How else,afterall, to deal
withtheobviousdifferences intherelationshipbetween Ottoman scienceandEuro-

26
Therearesignificantexceptions.
See Ian Inkster,"Scientific
EnterpriseandtheColonial'Model':
Observations on AustralianExperiencein HistoricalContext,"Social Studiesof Science,1985,
15:677-704;andJanTodd,ColonialTechnology: Scienceand theTransfer ofInnovationtoAustralia
(Sydney:CambridgeUniv.Press,1995); and Ted Wheelwright and GregCrough,"The Political
EconomyofTechnology," in TheCommonwealth ofScience:ANZAASand theScientific Enterprise
inAustralia,1888-1988,ed. RoyMacLeod (Melbourne:OxfordUniv.Press,1988),pp. 326-42.
27 A majorAustralasian landmark was NicholasThomas,EntangledObjects:Exchange,Material
Cultureand ColonialisminthePacific(Cambridge, Mass.: HarvardUniv.Press,1991),followedby
hisevenmorecompelling Possessions:Indigenous Art/ColonialCulture(London:ThamesandHud-
son,1999).Forothervernaculars, see IvanKarpandStevenD. Lavine,eds.,Exhibiting Cultures:The
Poeticsand PoliticsofMuseumDisplay(Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution
Press,1991).
28 EdwardSaid, Culture and Imperialism (New York:Knopf,1993).
29
See BarbaraStafford, VoyageintoSubstance:Art,Science,Natureand theIllustrated Travel
Account,1760-1830 (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,1984), and fora closerview of thePacific,
NicholasThomas,Colonialism'sCulture:Anthropology, Traveland Government (Melbourne:Mel-
bourneUniv.Press,1994); or fora morerelaxedguide,see PeterRaby,BrightParadise: Victorian
ScientificTravellers
(London:Pimlico,1996).
30 See, forexample,R. A. Stafford,
Scientist ofEmpire:SirRoderickMurchison, Scientific
Explo-
rationand Victorian Imperialism(Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.Press,1989).
31 See Paty,Comparative History(cit.n. 19).

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:25:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 INTRODUCTION 9

Chinaand
pean science,or betweensciencein Europeand sciencein premodern
Japan?32
In thelastfiveyears,severalnewlinesofresearch haveemerged. First,thereis a
growing tendency toseescienceincolonialcontexts notas responding toorresisting
Europe,butas partofa constructed colony'sindependent Thesemaybegin
history.
withempirical sketches drawnfrom Europe,butthenfocusuponthesignificance of
"place,"andthetangledexperience ofthecolonialencounter. Theyremind us that
colonialhistories oncewritten fromEuropeareinfactoften historiesaboutEurope-
ansabroad,whichmustbe rewritten in termsfamiliar tolocalnarrators.33
The sameappliestohistories ofscientificexploration anddiscovery, whichhave
traditionallyletthestrategic and economicmotivesofEuropeanexpansionspeak
forthemselves.34 In fact,theconsequences of scientificvoyaging werefeltno less
bythoseindigenous peopleswhowererecipients ofscientificinterest,whobecame
"curiosities,"or who tradedin thecommodities thatwereattractive to sailorsor
neededbysettlers. A generation ofPacificstudieshasilluminated thismutual, often
fatalattraction.Elsewhere, notably inIndia,a generation ofsubaltern scholarshave
laboredto showhowcolonizersand colonizedwereeach,enduringly, shapedby
theirexperience ofthe"other," andwhereracialprejudiceand exclusion were man-
datedbyappealsto science.35
It is a commonplace that,to limitthishistory to a storyof one-waytraffic is
to misrepresent historical in
complexity linear terms. The colonialencounter was
never"one to one,"norwas it necessarily isolated,as it couldinvolvebehaviors
transported fromotherplaces and other times;norwasitboundbymechanical rules
of imperialadministration, in which colonial linkages resembled "spokes of a
wheel." On thecontrary, in ways reminiscent of imperial Rome, there was a consid-
erablecirculation ofscientists andadministrators amongwidelydispersed colonial
worlds.Rarely,it was longsupposed,did thesedifferent elitescommunicate with
each other.Now,however, librariesacrosstheworldare disclosingevidencesof

32 On which, see, interalia, AlbertoElena,"ModelsofEuropeanScientific Expansion:The Otto-

manEmpireas a Sourceof Evidence,"in Petitjean, Jami,and Moulin,Scienceand Empire(cit.n.
8), pp.259-68; andMorrisLow andNakamayaShigeru, Science,TechnologyandSocietyinContem-
poraryJapan(Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.Press,2000).
33 See suchcase studies as PeterHulme,ColonialEncounters: Europeand theNativeCaribbean,
1492-1797(London:Routledge, 1986),andtheessayofWadeChambers thatfollows;see also David
WadeChambers, JamesE. McClellan,andH. Zogbaum,"Science/Nation/Culture in theCaribbean
Basin,"inTheCambridge History ofScience,vol.8,ed.RonNumbers(Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.
Press,forthcoming).
34 See, forexample, Francisode Solano,"Viajes,comisionesy expediciones cientificasespafolas
a ultramar duranteel sigloXVIII,"CuadernosHispanoamericanos, 1988,2:146-56; andAlanFrost,
"ScienceforPoliticalPurposes:EuropeanExplorations ofthePacificOcean, 1764-1806,"in "Na-
tureinitsGreatest Extent"": Western ScienceinthePacific,eds.RoyMacLeodandPhilipF Rehbock
(Honolulu:Univ.ofHawaiiPress,1988),pp. 27-44.
35 Cf.theinfluentialwork,beginning inthe1980s,surrounding RanajitGuha,DavidArnold, Partha
Chatterjee, andDipeshChakrabarty. See RanajitGuha,ed.,SubalternStudiesI: Writings on South
AsianHistory and Society(Delhi:OxfordUniv.Press,1982)andDipeshChakrabarty, "PostColoni-
alityandtheArtifice ofHistory: WhoSpeaksforIndia'sPasts,"Representations, Winter1992,37:1-
26. See also theworkof GyanPrakash,anticipated in AfterColonialism:ImperialHistoriesand
PostcolonialDisplacements (Princeton:PrincetonUniv.Press,1995),andculminating in hisrecent
Another Reason:Scienceand theImagination ofModernIndia (Princeton: PrincetonUniv.Press,
1999).

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:25:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
10 ROY MACLEOD

intercolonial
exchange-ofvisits,as well as of periodicals,
specimens, and com-
modities-demonstratinghowideasregularly movedbetweenandamongcolonial
empires.Increasingly, an intellectual
significantly, tradein ideas also developed
betweenthedependencies of Europeand thegreatpowersof NorthAmericaand
Asia.36
In thefinalanalysis,thehistoriographyofscience,givento thestudyofrational
anduniversal has tendedtoneglect,
enterprise, orevento suppress, thepresenceof
"otherreasons."As such,it has tendedalso to deemphasize theuses of sciencein
relationto gender,race,andclass.Today,localityandplace arenowbeingconsti-
tutedas legitimate"centers" forhistorical
reconstruction.
Scienceoccurslocally,it
is argued,beforeitis recognized Butbetweenconception
universally. andrecogni-
tionfallsa longshadow.Formostofus,themetropolis remains,afterall,wherethe
actionis. However,themodeminjunction "to thinkgloballyand actlocally"can
usefully be inverted.
As we complete theturnofthecentury,we findinthestudyof
colonialscienceanditsrelationship toindigenousculturesnewwaysofseeingsci-
enceinaction-or rather in "inter-action"-as
a highlytexturedactivity, to
serving
celebrate thediversity
ofknowledge amongpeoples,ofplaces,andovertime.

III. READING COLONIAL SCIENCE

FollowingtheendoftheSevenYears'Warin 1763,andthesubsequent readjustment

ofcolonialpossessionsthroughout theworld,themajorpowersofEuropeentered
a periodofintensive that,in turn,
rivalry spurred
thepursuitofnatural knowledge.
By theend of theAmericanRevolution, and thesuccessfulrebellionof Spain's
Americancolonies,theworldwas set fortheexpansionof scienceas a global
discourse.Withintwogenerations, and certainly
by theTreatyof Berlin-which
dividedAfricaamongtheEuropeanpowers-sciencehad becomea metonym for
empire.Museumsandlearnedsocietiesthroughout Europerepresented theachieve-
mentofa ruleofknowledge, coincidentwiththeruleoflaw.In differingmeasure,
thecoloniesofEuropeoutre-merweretoembodyboth.
Thisperiod,whichsawBritishascendency established
atsea,also sawimportant
shiftsintheintellectual
relations
betweenthecontinental powers,theUnitedStates,
andthecolonialworldsofAfricaandOceania,together withnewaccommodations
withtheancient civilizations
ofAsia.These,ofcourse,reflectedinterests
ofstrategy
andtrade,prestige andprofit.However, wherecoloniesofconquest, plantation, or
of settlementensued,Europeancolonialsincorporated thepracticesof European
science.Governmentality,inthelanguageofFoucault, assignedtosciencea pastoral
influenceintheregulationofcolonialaffairs.
Whether favoredbyIberianmercantil-
ismor Manchester freetrade,Europeansciencecameto relyupona moreor less
continuingtraffic
withtheoverseasworld.By theendofthenineteenth century,the
majorpowersofEuropehad,intheirdifferent ways,becomeaccustomed toa long,
andapparently indissoluble,
marriage ofconveniencebetween strategic
interestsand
philosophicalopportunity.
Thefruits ofthismarriageenduredandevolved.Colonial
expansionenlargeduniversal knowledge. Sciencebecamea keyaspectofa global
intelligence
system, whichservedbesttheinterests ofthosebestplacedto receive

36
NicholasJardine
et al., eds., CulturesofNaturalHistory(Cambridge:CambridgeUniv.Press,
1996).

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:25:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 INTRODUCTION 11

itsdata.Sciencebecame,inturn, botha colonizing ideologyandan agencyofcolo-

nialself-identity.Fora colony, thepursuit ofsciencebecamea licenseformember-
shipin thecommunity of nations.Today,theprocessesby whichscienceserved
colonialexpansionarefundamental to understanding sciencein themodern world.
As such,theyformthebasisofthisbook.
Thisvolumeof Osirispresents notonlynewwork,butalso a freshapproachto
the studyof scienceand its European/colonial interactions.Its coverageis not
global.Nordoes it focusupona singlediscipline, geographical area,or sphereof
influence. Instead,it takesup certainthemesand examinesthemfrommultiple
standpoints. Overall,itis concerned toshowthevariety andcomplexity ofEuropean
experience in theencouragement, support, andlegitimization ofimperialexplora-
tionanddiscovery, andcolonialdevelopment in thecontext of metropolitan inter-
ests,betweenthelateeighteenth century and thepresent periodof post-coldwar
uncertainty. UsingexamplesfromFrench, British, Spanish,Portuguese, andLatin
American history,ithintsatthedifficulties intheorizing similaritiesbetweenimpe-
rialscienceandcolonialsciencein parallelempires.It suggeststhatstudiesbased
on imperial archives maskdifferent localrealities. On theotherhand,itshowshow
different colonialtraditions cannevertheless produceuniversal generalizations.
Theexerciserelies,aufond,upona commonvaluation ofcomparative approaches
tothedevelopment ofa politicallanguageofscience.Thescenehas shifted consid-
erablyfromaskingwhether sciencewasa feature ofimperialism (itwas,andis),and
whether imperialism "advanced"science(likely, ifnotalwayspossibletoprove),to
a broader rangeofquestions, someimplicit theBasallamodelitself.Forexample,
in
the"phase"ofcolonialscience,farfrombeingtransitional, remains formanycoun-
triesa condition of apparently permanent existence, with enormous implicationsfor
humanwelfareandeconomicdevelopment. It is onlynow,attheendofthemillen-
nium,thattheWorldBankhasdecidedtosupport universityeducation andresearch
in manyThirdWorldcountries. It is notleastforthisreasonthatthisvolumeof
Osiris,appearing inthisequinoctial year,is so timely.
Forreasonsofmethod andconvenience, thisvolumeis dividedintofoursections.
As we believereadersof Osiristo be reasonably familiar withAnglo-American
experience, we deliberately inviteda rangeof authorswithknowledgeof other
realms.The essaysin PartI are devotedto the"metropolitan perspective,"andto
whatmightbe called"imperiallegacies,"givingprideof place to thevisionand
experience oftheIberiancountries. First,JuanPimentel examinesthewayinwhich
Spainintheearlymodern periodforesaw theworldoutsideEuropeas comingwithin
a largerecumene,a universal monarchy enlightened byreason,to unitemankind
underthebannerofreligion. The visiontranscended science,butdefended nature,
and in theprocessestablished a new conversation betweenEuropeand colonial
America.Next,JamesMcClellanand FranqoisRegourdenterthe stagewitha
glimpseofFrancea century later,on theeve ofrevolution, commandeering natural
knowledge intheserviceofthestatetomaintain a hugeandunwieldy colonialem-
pire,threatened byrepublicanism, indifference, andEngland.In thethird paper,we
looknorth withSverker Sdrlin, whoexploresSweden'slessfamiliar imperialexperi-
ence oneinwhichgathering "scientificintelligence" ofplantsandpeopleswasto
securepresenceandauthority inthesub-Arctic. It wasa dreammorethana destiny,
butitsinfluence persists.Fartothesouth, Alberto ElenaandJavier Ordo'hezremind
us how Spain in theearlynineteenth century bore the loss of its vastAmerican

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:25:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
12 ROY MACLEOD

possessions, andbytheendofthecentury, sawitscolonialfailures inAfricaandthe

Pacificmirrored in thefailures ofSpanishscience.
Thatcomplexhistory ofvisionandexperiment, successandfailurebringsus to
PartII, wherewe considermetaphors andmeanings intheEuropeancolonialenter-
prise.Visiting "colonialnature," SuzanneZellershowshowthescienceofgeology
becamea meeting place forpoliticalnegotiation in NorthAmerica, whilein South
America, Margaret Lopes andIrinaPodgorny showhowthe"museum idea"helped
newnationsofLatindescentdeclaretheirintellectual independence.
Withsimilareffect, KapilRaj showshowinBritish India,wellintothelatenine-
teenth century, theenterprise of "mapping" notonlycreateda senseofpossession,
butalso accompanied scientificpractices thattraveled throughouttheentire British
Empire.The politicaleconomyofempirereturns as a themein MichaelOsborne's
paperon theacclimatization movement, anditsrolein "civilizing" theunruly do-
mainsofFrenchNorthAfricaandAustralasia. In France,appealstosciencefurther
unitedthecolonialparty, whichcalleduponscienceto rescuecolonizedpeoples
frombarbarism. In Africaas elsewhere, severaldecadeswouldelapsebeforethe
self-contradictions of "civilization"becameapparent, andnotuntilthe1970swas
itsrhetoric finallydismissed.Its problematic legacyreturns in PartIV, and in the
postponed history ofpostcolonial development.
Whythislegacyenduredformuchof thelastcentury becomesclearin PartIII,
whereessaysonthe"colonialproject"examinetheculture oflocalscience-as seen
from acrosstheAtlantic (byAntonio Lafuente), andas seenontheground incolonial
Brazil(by SilviaFigueiroaand Clareteda Silva). In bothcases,sciencewas first
castas an instrument ofcolonization, butin thesecond,itbecamealso a matter of
colonialself-interest.Colonialconditions could,anddid,marginalize thepractice
ofscience,buttheseedsofcolonialnationalism canbe tracedamongtheseattempts
tocreatea distinctive, local scientific
sensibility. Frommining tomedicine, PartIII
continues withpapersby HarrietDeacon on racismand theprofessions at South
Africa'sCape Colony;andbyMichaelWorboys onchanging conceptionsoftropical
medicinethroughout theBritishEmpire.Bothilluminate theroleof medicineand
scienceincreating a framework ofimprovement, evenatthecostofcreating "differ-
ences."Withtheconstruction ofan imperialmedicalsciencecomestheimageofa
globalmission, ofa waragainstdisease,invoking theweaponsofthenewbacteriol-
ogy.Itreadsas a storyas disturbing as anywe see in theThirdWorldtoday.
WithPartIV we comefullcirclebacktotheEuropeanworld,totheworldsystem,
andtosomeoftheachievements andomissions ofcolonialism. WadeChambers and
RichardGillespieskillfully guideus intoa newfoundland ofplaceandtimewhere,
increasingly,indigenous voicesasktobe heardandgivenpriority. Postmodern, post-
colonialmodalities do notthreaten realistpreferences, buttheychallengeourpoint
ofdeparture. Chambers andGillespiearguethatourapproachtounderstanding the
pursuitof knowledgeand thehistory of science,must,in somesense,be turned
insideout;thatthescholarly agendashouldprivilege local contextsofscience,and
so ultimately dissolvethelingering distinction betweenthosewhowriteabout"sci-
ence,"andthosewhowriteabouttheplace of sciencein colonialandneocolonial
history.
In thelastthreeessays,DeepakKumar,Christophe Bonneuil,andJohnMerson
discusstheroleof scienceas a toolof development. Untilthe1960s,thecolonial
powersviewedeconomicdevelopment as an alternative todecolonization.Colonial

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:25:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 INTRODUCTION 13

economicsbecamethefoster parentofdevelopment economicsin thepostcolonial

world.But as theseauthorsshow,thefragility of independence is everywhere in
doubt,eveninIndia,despiteitsvastresources andstablemiddleclass,itsnuclear pro-
gram, anditsinvestment ininformation technology.37Therhetoric hasproven uncon-
vincinginAfricaandelsewhere inthetropics where,despitetheencouragements of
governments andaid agencies,scientific
institutionshavehadlimitedsuccess;and
wherethe erosionof property rightsin local knowledgethreatens indigenous
peoplesand smallnationsalike.Globalization and commercial "bio-colonialism"
may, intheirindifferencetolocalinterests,
stirmemories ofEuropeancolonialexpro-
priationandexploitation.Thereis nomoreappropriate moment torecallSantayana's
injunctionthatwe wouldbe wisenottoforget history,lestwe repeatit.
A volumeofsuchglobalscopemustnotriskmakingglobalpromises. Inevitably,
thereareomissions, someofwhicha widerconscription (ormorevolunteers) would
haveremedied. Forexample,we conspicuously lackbotha Dutchand a German
dimension and thusomitregionsof theworldin whichthepracticesof colonial
sciencewereskillfully advanced, bothwellbeforeandduring thenineteenth century.
Whilewe maybe stronger on theIberianimpulsethanis usualin English,thereis
fartoolittleinourpageson France,andnothing on theUnitedStates,a regrettable
omissiongiventheroleplayedbyAmericanscience,technology, andmedicinein
thePhilippines andCuba,notto mention thepostcolonial world.Amongthemany
aspectsofEuropeansciencetributary toourtheme, thereis farmoretobe saidabout
thestudyofrace;anditmaybe observedthattheessaysthattakeIndiaandAfrica
as theirfocipayinsufficientattentiontocasteandclass.Fewofus alludetotherich
andextensive exchanges ofideasthattookplacebetween Europeans andindigenous
peoples,nordo we exploretherelations betweenscienceandbelief,on whichso
manyrevisionist accountsof colonialcontactare nowbeingconstructed. Finally,
thehistory oftechnology andofmedicine longseparatefieldsofscholarship, but
clearlypartof thesamecolonialexperience-couldeach easilyjustifya volume.
For thisadmittedly poorreason,neither has beengivensufficient space in these
pages.Theysurelywarrant greaterattentioninfuture issuesofOsiris.
Itremains torecorda wordofacknowledgement. No editorcouldhavebeenbetter
servedbyhisauthors, boththosewhoappearamongus,andthosewhowereobliged
forvariousreasonsto leaveourconvoy. In mostcases andin all theSpanishand
Frenchcases theauthors kindlyallowedme to circulate theirdraftsamongcol-
leagues,so thatall mightparticipate in whatbecamea virtualseminar.For the
French-subject authors,
especially,theseminar becameactual,thankstothehospi-
talityoftheMaisonSugerinParisanditsdirector, M. Jean-Luc Lory.To him,and
toall othersconcerned, mayI expressmywarmest thanks.

accountsofcolonialscienceinIndia,see JimMasselos,"TheDiscoursefortheOther
37 Forrecent
ofScienceandTechnology
Side: Perceptions inWesternIndiaintheNineteenth in Writers,
Century,"
EditorsandReformers: Social and PoliticalTransformations 1830-1930,ed. N. K.
ofMaharashtra,
Wagle(New Delhi:Manohar,1999),pp. 114-29;andmoregenerally, DavidArnold,Science,Tech-
nologyandMedicine(Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.Press,2000).

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:25:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions