Locality in the History of Science: Colonial Science, Technoscience, and Indigenous Knowledge

Home , Traditional knowledge

Locality in the History of Science: Colonial Science, Technoscience, and Indigenous Knowledge Author(s): David Wade Chambers and Richard Gillespie Source: Osiris, 2nd Series, Vol. 15, Nature and Empire: Science and the Colonial Enterprise (2000), pp. 221-240 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/301950 . Accessed: 14/10/2014 18:17

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 142.103.183.194 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 18:17:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Localityin theHistory of Science: ColonialScience, Technoscience, and IndigenousKnowledge

David WadeChambers* and RichardGillespie**

INTRODUCTION DURING THE SECOND HALF OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY,THE "colonialworld" becamea prominentresearch focus for historians of science. In theprocess of establishingthis new subdivisionof knowledge,colonial sciencehistorians took pains to clarifytheir use of theterm "colonial," an exercise thathelped refine the terminology ofthe larger colonial and postcolonial discourse.' But thesediscussions were more concerned with the meaning of "colonial"than withthe meaning of "science," consideration of which was generallyleft to philoso- phersand sociologistsof knowledge.And duringthis same period, philosophers, sociologists,and a fewhistorians (variously arrayed as positivists,realists, and con- structivists)were indeed contending over the nature of science.It maynow be seen thatconstructivist approaches,2 because they emphasize the locally contingent char-

Scienceand Technology Studies, Deakin University, Deakin, Victoria, Australia. MuseumVictoria, G.P.O. Box 666E, Melbourne3001, Australia. 1 The leadingscholar in thisenterprise is RoyMacLeod, who has publishedimportant theoretical piecesproviding a refreshingbreadth of perspective. See, forexample, Roy MacLeod, "On Science and Colonialism,"Science and Societyin Ireland:The Social Contextof Science and Technologyin Ireland,1800-1950 (Belfast: Queen's University, 1997) pp. 1-17;"Reading the Discourse of Colonial Science,"in Les Sciencescoloniales: Figures et institutions(Paris: Editions de l'Officede la Recher- che Scientifiqueet Technique d'Outre-Mer, 1996) pp. 87-96; and"On Visitingthe 'Moving Metropo- lis': Reflectionson theArchitecture of ImperialScience," Historical Records of Australian Science, 1982,5, 3:1-16.In addition,he has produceda greatrange of localitycase studiesthat range across Australia,the United Kingdom, India, and thePacific. Finally, he has editedmany useful volumes, such as Roy MacLeod and RichardJarrell, eds., DominionsApart: Reflections on theCulture of Scienceand Technologyin Canada andAustralia,1850-1945 (Scientia Canadensis, 1994, 17, 1 and 2); Roy MacLeod and PhilipRehbock, eds., Nature in its GreatestExtent: Western Science in the Pacific(Honolulu: Univ. of HawaiiPress, 1988); andRoy MacLeod andDeepak Kumar,eds., Tech- nologyand theRaj: TechnicalTransfer and BritishIndia, 1780-1945 (New Delhi: Sage, 1995). 2 Thereare manypossible entry points into the literature of constructivistthought. In additionto bookscited in thebody of this paper, some recent titles that provide a usefuloverview include: Barry Barnes,David Bloor, and John Henry, Scientific Knowledge: A SociologicalAnalysis (Chicago: Univ. ofChicago Press, 1996); PeterGalison and David Stump,eds., The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts,and Power(Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 1996); JanGolinski, Making Natural Knowl- edge: Constructivismand theHistory of Science(Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998); Ian Hacking,The Social Constructionof What?(Cambridge, Mass.: HarvardUniv. Press, 1999); David Hess, ScienceStudies: An Advanced Introduction (New York:New YorkUniv. Press, 1997); Karin

? 2001 byThe Historyof ScienceSociety. All rightsreserved. 0369-7827/99/1401-0004$02.00

Osiris,2001, 15:00-00 221

This content downloaded from 142.103.183.194 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 18:17:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 222 DAVID WADE CHAMBERS AND RICHARD GILLESPIE acterof theknowledge-making process, held particular promise and powerful ana- lyticconsequence for the emerging discipline of colonial science history.3 Gradually, withinthe new field,explicit commitment to theprevailing positivist assumptions gaveway to implicitacceptance of constructivnist perspectives. Thismove from a mainlypositivist to a mainlyconstructivist orientation was, in significantmeasure, empirically driven-not the result of considereddebate over abstractions.When an historianstudies a particularlocality,4 by definitionone would expectthat locality to becomethe "center" of his or her interest. Yet positivist colonialhistorians of, say, science in New Spainwere, in reality, often writing the larger social and intellectualhistory of Europe,and notthe history of Mexico,5seeking outlocal "traces"of Europeanideas andintellectual movements.6 "'Europe"' says DipeshChakrabarty, "remains the sovereign theoretical subject of all histories,in- cludingthe ones we call 'Indian,''Chinese,' 'Kenyan,' and so on."7When historians soughtricher, deeper, "thicker" accounts of science in non-European localities,8 they soonbecame dissatisfied with analyses in which every standard of truth and rational- itywas setin Europe,and in whichthe very meaning of "rationality,""enlightenment,""progress," and "usefulknowledge" had been defined on thatdistant conti- nent.Thus, little by little,historians of local sciencesloughed off a paradigmof

Knorr-Cetina,Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge (Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard Univ.Press, 1999). 3For example,Bruno Latour's writings have made a particularlyuseful contribution, both by in- sistingon eliminatingthe "great divide" between science and traditionalmodes of thought,and by locatingthe power of modernscience in its distinctiveinternational network of institutions.The workingsof that network create the conditions that make legible and commensurable (for the center) all theobservations, measurements, representations, and textsproduced in thevarious peripheries. See especially Bruno Latour, Science in Action: How to Follow Scientistsand Engineers Through Society(Cambridge, Mass.: HarvardUniv. Press, 1987). 4In thispaper I shalluse theterms "local" and "locality"flexibly to indicate"places" in which scienceis accomplished.A localitymay be a region,country, city, or even a singleinstitution, incor- poratingsocial, cultural, political, and economic factors and relationships, and including both centers and peripheries. I In fact,Mexican historians have been somewhatless Eurocentricthan historians of sciencein manyother colonial localities. Nevertheless, at thefirst Mexican colloquium in thefield (September, 1963), thirty-fourof the sixty-onepapers presented were part of a symposiumon theEuropean Enlightenmentin Latin America. Enrique Beltrdn,ed., Memorias del PrimerColoquio Mexicano de Historiade la Ciencia,2 vols. (Mexico City:Sociedad Mexicana de HistoriaNatural, 1964). The historyof Mexicanscience has a venerableand distinguisheddisciplinary history with antecedents in thenineteenth century. See EnriqueBeltrnn, "Fuentes mexicanas de la historiade la ciencia," Anales de las Sociedad Mexicana de Historia de la Ciencia y de la Tecnologia, 1970, 2:57-112; Juan JoseSaldafia, "Marcos conceptuales de la historiade las cienciasen LatinoAmerica: Positivismo y economicismo,"El Perfilde la cienciaen America (Mexico City: Sociedad Latinoamericana de Hist- oriade las Cienciasy la Tecnologia,1986); and Elias Trabulse,"Aproximaciones historiogrnficas a la ciencia mexicana," Memorias del Primer Congreso Mexicano de Historia de la Ciencia y de la Tecnologia(Mexico City:Sociedad de Historiade la Cienciay de la Tecnologia,1989), vol. 1, pp. 5 1-69. 6 See forexample, Roland D. Hussey,"Traces of FrenchEnlightenment in Colonial Hispanic America,"in LatinAmerica and theEnlightenment, ed. ArthurP. Whitaker,2nd ed. (Ithaca:Cornell Univ.Press, 1961), pp. 23-51. This book,originally published in 1942,uncovered useful material butremains a classicexample of a projectin Europeanhistory focused on LatinAmerica, and is one thathelped set the agenda for writing colonial science history. All six of thedistinguished contribut- ingscholars were apparently English speaking and basedoutside Latin America. 7Dipesh Chakrabarty,"Postcoloniality and the Artificeof History:Who Speaks for 'Indian' Pasts?" Representations,1992, 32:1-26. 8 CliffordGeertz referred to thestudy of local cases as "thickdescription," without which more generalcultural meanings and power relationships cannot be understood.Clifford Geertz, The Inter- pretationof Cultures: Selected Essays (New York: Basic Books, 1973).

This content downloaded from 142.103.183.194 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 18:17:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LOCALITY IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE 223 culturaldeficit, replacing it witha paradigmof culturaldifference. Within the "big picture"Europe was progressively"decentered,"9 and in a veryreal sense, science was also decentered.

PERIPHERAL CENTERS AND CENTRAL PERIPHERIES

Because modernscience arose principallyin one geographiclocale,'0 historiansof science had takenthe wheel as themetaphor for its internationalstructure: its center was in Europe (displaced thiscentury to themid-Atlantic), with the rest of theworld revolvingaround. But the metaphorof the wheel is exceedinglymisleading. From thetime of its cosmopolitanbirth in thecorrespondence of MarinMersenne (1588- 1648) and HenryOldenburg (1618-1677) and in institutionslike themuch neglected Casa de la Contratacionin Seville (1539?), the FlorentineAccademia del Cimento (1657), and the Royal Society of London (1660), modernscience is betterunder- stood,both metaphorically and actually,as a polycentriccommunications network." During the nineteenthand twentiethcenturies that network was fullyinstitutional- ized, whichrepresented a revolutionin knowledgemaking more significant for both science and societythan the theoreticaladvances of the seventeenthcentury tradi- tionallyknown as the ScientificRevolution. Thus, fromthe verybeginnings of the scientificmovement,

Centralityor peripherality was notprimarily a matter of geographical location, but the combinedeffect of social,scientific, and-not theleast-power relations.. .. Scien- tists,like other people, bore identities, they belonged somewhere, and they were loyal to something.Even more importantly, the daily activities of scientistswere carried out in a frameworkof institutions,agendas, career opportunities, working language, finan- cial supportand patronage systems.'2

This is to suggestthat the idea of science havinga European centerand a global peripheryperpetrated a confusing,and ultimatelyspurious, understanding of the relationsof science and place. Then and now,Europe had majorcenters, minor centers,and peripheries;cities like London,indeed, had centralinstitutions and peripheral institutions.Of course,progressively other localities developed scientificcen- tersand peripheries.Furthermore, within Europe and without,centers rose and fell.

9Andrew Cunninghamand Perry Williams, "Decentring the 'Big Picture':The Originsof Modem Science and the Modem Originsof Science,"British Journal of the Historyof Science, 1993, 26:407-32. 10"Modem science" as distinguishedby its institutions, procedures, and technologies. ItSee Latour,Science in Action(cit. n. 3), pp. 215-57, and StevenShapin and SimonSchaffer, Leviathanand theAir-Pump (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1985). SverkerSorlin has givena cleardescription of early processes of scientific internationalization: "National and International As- pectsof Cross-Boundary Science: Scientific Travel in the18th Century," in DenationalizingScience: The Contextsof International Scientific Practice, eds. ElizabethCrawford, Terry Shinn, and Sverker Sorlin(Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1993), pp. 43-72. See also LorraineDaston, "The Ideal and Realityof theRepublic of Lettersin theEnlightenment," Science in Context,1991, 4:367-86; and forthe role of the Casa de la Contrataci6n,see David Turnbull,"Cartography and Science in EarlyModern Europe:Mapping the Construction of KnowledgeSpaces," Imago Mundi, 1996, 48:7-14, and J. Pul- ido Rubio,El Piloto mayorde la Casa de Contrataci6nde Sevilla (Sevilla: Escuelade Estudios Hispano-Americanos,1950). 12 Sorlin,"National and International"(cit. n. 11),p. 45.

This content downloaded from 142.103.183.194 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 18:17:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 224 DAVID WADE CHAMBERS AND RICHARD GILLESPIE

Andwhenever a scientific center arose within a locality,both science and the locality werechanged by the event.'3 Eurocentricexplanations of thegrowth of sciencereceived a greatboost with theappearance of historianGeorge Basalla's widely known model describing "the introductionof modemscience into any non-European nation."' 4 The modelpre- dictedthat localities peripheral to theEuropean center would progressively "re- ceive"the ideas of Western science, slowly establishing their own scientific organi- zationsand personnel, perhaps producing along the way a few"heroes of colonial science.""5In thefinal stage, after the colony had accomplished"seven tasks," a broadand "independent" institutional support base forscience would have been es- tablished,thus allowing the given locality to competescientifically in the world of nations.16 The seventasks, which are rarelydiscussed in thecritical literature, in- cludedsuch activities as "overcoming"and eventually "eradicating" recalcitrant local "philosophicaland religiousbeliefs," founding scientific societies "patterned after"the major European organizations, and importing European technologies. This unrelentingEurocentrism was onlyone ofthe many reasons that the Basalla model was finallyrejected by most historians.'7

COLONIAL TO NATIONALTRAJECTORIES Basalla'smodel was initiallyattractive because it showed-in fact,seemed to pre- scribe-thestraight and narrow path to national scientific development. Each localitywas torise in invariantsequence from a colonialto a nationalstage, from scien- tificdependency to autonomy. Colonial science was, in effect, considered a scientific adolescencethat might eventually grow with the new nation-states into the maturity thatEurope had longsince achieved. In countrieslike Australia, where European settlerspredominated, the predictive capacity of themodel might, at firstglance, seemreliable. In justa littleover two hundred years, Australia moved from its first Europeanscientific expedition (Cook/Banks) through a clearly "colonial" period to a remarkabledegree of nationalscientific sophistication. Melbourne, for instance, is a localitythat seemingly forms a perfectexemplar of howthis can happen.The storyof the city's move from scientific periphery to scientificcenter develops around theperson of FrankMacfarlane Burnet (1899-1985), who became an outstanding

13 BrunoLatour, "Give Me a Laboratoryand I Will Raise theWorld," in ScienceObserved, eds. KarinKnorr-Cetina and Michael Mulkay (London: Sage, 1983),pp. 141-70. 14 GeorgeBasalla, "The Spreadof WesternScience," Science, 1967, 15:611-21. This paper,perhaps morethan any other, set theinitial research parameters for colonial science history. Patrick Petitjeanamusingly and accuratelydescribes Basalla's modelas thework "le plus cit6,et le plus refut6aussi" by historians of science working in thefield. Patrick Petitjean, "Sciences et empires: Un th6meprom6tteur, des enjeuxcruciaux," in Scienceand Empires:Historical Studies about Scientific Developmentand European Expansion, eds. PatrickPetitjean, Catherine Jami, and Anne Marie Mou- lin (Dordrecht:Kluwer, 1992), p. 6. 15 Basalla,"Spread of Western Science" (cit. n. 14),p. 614. 16 ibid.,pp. 617-20. 17 Althoughit has been subjected to devastating critique, Basalla's model continues to be citedlong afterevery vestige of itsexplanatory power has disappeared.The "fall"of the model among historians of sciencehas been well documented.This literatureis extensivelyreviewed in David Wade Chambers,"Locality and Science:Myths of Centreand Periphery,"in Mundializaciinde la ciencia y culturalnacional, eds. AntonioLafuente, Alberto Elena, and Maria Luisa Ortega(Madrid: Doce Calles, 1993),pp. 605-18.

This content downloaded from 142.103.183.194 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 18:17:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LOCALITY IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE 225 theoreticianof virologyand immunology.'8Burnet declined chairs at Harvardand in London,as he was determinedto makeMelbourne an internationalcenter for medicalresearch. He eventuallyattracted several future Nobel laureatesto work withhim. Today, Melbourne has sevenmajor institutes for medical research and currentlyattracts sixty-four percent of the institutional awards from Australia's Na- tionalHealth and Medical Research Council.19 Thus,especially for the "neo-Europes" of the colonial world,20 there might seem tobe a hopefuland discerning congruity in Basalla'sschema, especially in its postu- lationof a clearnexus between scientific activity and nation building. If themodel worksanywhere, one mightexpect it to be in thosecountries that had thedecided "advantage"of Europeancultural, legal, economic,and technologicalframe- works-thatis to say,in thecolonies of those nations whose socioeconomic condi- tionshad first given rise to modernscience. This is especiallytrue in invader/settler societies,21like Australia, where destruction of theindigenes and theirtraditional cultureshad been ruthlessly accomplished, thereby effectively eliminating the need to "eradicate"and "replace" prevailing traditional philosophies, the first of Basalla's seventasks of Europeanization. Australia, although obsessed with its great distance in kilometersfrom Europe, was socially,culturally, politically, economically, and raciallycloser to Europethan most of Europe's near neighbors (such as Egypt,Tur- key,and many parts of the former Soviet Union).22 But the apparent fit of the Basalla schemaeven with the Australian case lastsonly through a verysuperficial reading;indeed, some of the model's leading critics actually use Australiaas a counter- example.23At thevery least, the Australian story is "richerand morecomplex" thanthe Basalla modelallows.24 In Roy MacLeod's aptphrase, "science became a convenientmetaphor ... for

18 Of Australia'ssix Nobel Prizewinners in thesciences and medicine,all butMacfarlane Burnet spentmost of their professional careers abroad. 19Christopher Sexton, Burnet: A Life,rev. ed. (Oxford:Oxford Univ. Press, 1999). For a detailed accountof theWalter and Eliza Hall Institute,see Max Charlesworth,et al., eds., LifeAmong the Scientists(Melbourne: Oxford Univ. Press, 1989). The Melbournecase was suggestedby Barry Jones,former Australian minister for science and technology, personal communication, 1999. 20 AlfredW. Crosby,Ecological Imperialism: The BiologicalExpansion of Europe(Cambridge: CambridgeUniv. Press, 1986). Crosbyoffers ecological explanations for the quick demographic dominanceachieved in "neo-Europes.'For a morerecent and very interesting treatment of environ- mentalhistory issues in whichcolonialism (and particularlycolonial science) play a role,see two recentbooks by Richard Grove, Green Imperialism: Colonial Expansion, Tropical Island Edens and theOrigins of Environmentalism, 1600-1860 (Cambridge:Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995) andEcol- ogy,Climate and Empire:Colonialism and GlobalEnvironmental History, 1400-1940 (N.P.,White HorsePress, 1998). 21 The term"settler society" should not be used.It conveysan inaccuratepicture of theEuropean invasionand is offensiveto thememories of millionswho died in thepeaceful-sounding process of "settlement."See HenryReynolds, Frontier: Aborigines, Settlers and Land (Sydney:Allen and Un- win,1987), pp. 192-3;A. GrenfellPrice, White Settlers and NativePeoples (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.Press, 1950), and Tom Griffiths and Libby Robin, Ecology and Empire: Environmental History ofSettler Societies (Carlton: Melbourne Univ. Press, 1997). 22 See David Wade Chambers,"Does DistanceTyrannize Science?" in InternationalScience and NationalScientific Identity, eds. R. W. Home and Sally GregoryKohlstedt (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1991). 23 In particular,see MacLeod,"Moving Metropolis" (cit. n. 1),pp. 1-16,and Ian Inkster,"Scientific Enterpriseand theColonial 'Model': Observationson AustralianExperience in HistoricalContext," Social Studiesof Science, 1985, 15:677-704. 24 R. W. Home,"Introduction," inAustralian Science in theMaking, ed. R. W. Home (Cambridge: CambridgeUniv. Press, 1988), p. x.

This content downloaded from 142.103.183.194 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 18:17:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 226 DAVID WADE CHAMBERS AND RICHARD GILLESPIE whatthe Empire might become."25 Indeed, for colonial scientists, science served as metaphorand meansof legitimatecolonial aspiration. Eventually, both colonizer andcolonized came to believe that the promotion of science also promotedthe cause of independence.For example,after losing the vast majority of herempire, Spain was notslow to sabotagelocal attemptsto reformand modernizeeducational and scientificinstitutions in such remaining colonies as PuertoRico andCuba. Without a doubt,on bothsides of the colonial divide, science was seento providea mecha- nismfor increased colonial autonomy and self-sufficiency.26 Andwe mayspeculate thatthe long-lasting popularity of theBasalla modelmay lie in its cleardepiction of stagedscientific growth moving ever nationward. It is sometimesforgotten that Basalla's "three stage model" was deeply ensconced in theintellectual assumptions, not to mentionthe cold warideological baggage, of theearly theories of development. His famousessay appeared when W. W. Rostow's Stagesof Economic Growth, published seven years earlier,27 was at theheight of its influence.Rostow's five stages precisely parallel Basalla's three stages. If Rostow's modelprovides the economic development corollary of modernization theory, Bas- alla's similarmodel plays a kindredrole for scientific development. But there were fliesin the ointment of modernization theory: some regions could not escape perpet- ual underdevelopment,dependency, exploitation, or culturalbreakdown. In significant measure,these problems bedeviling world economic development-which havediscredited "stages of economic growth" theories-also infect the international sciencesystem. In otherwords, many localities are held structurallyin scientific underdevelopmentdue to suchfactors as braindrain, the high costs of technoscien- tificlabs andequipment, inability to supportthe full range of scientificdisciplines in anyone locality,and a subjugatedposition in theinstitutional relations of knowledgeand power. The Basalla/Rostowapproach to modernizationassumes that the patterns that characterizedscientific/economic development inthe West provide a modelfor other localitiesaround the world to follow.Without considerable modification this as- sumptionis effectivelyblind to bothhistory and culture,and is premisedon the notionthat "pre-scientific" localities, today, start from a positionsimilar to Europe's beforescientific take-off hundreds of yearsago. Furthermore,the philosophy, religiousbeliefs, values, and institutions oftraditional societies are considered probable obstacles,in effect,so muchchaff to be blownaway on thewinds of scientific change.28 These considerationsalone-without surveying the full critique that has been mountedover the last twenty years against staged, linear, and progressive models- suggestthe need for a newframework for comparing histories of local science. From theextensive discussion of the Basalla modelover the years, we havelearned much abouthow such a frameworkought to look. It shouldbe symmetricaland interactive acrossthe great divides-center/periphery, local/global, national/colonial, and tradi-

25 MacLeod,"Moving Metropolis" (cit. n. 1), p. 244. 26 See DavidWade Chambers, James E. McClellan,and Heidi Zogbaum, "Science/Nation/Culture in theCaribbean Basin," in CambridgeHistory of Science, ed. RonaldNumbers, vol. 8 (Cambridge: CambridgeUniv. Press, forthcoming). 27 W. W. Rostow,Stages of Economic Growth (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1960). 28 Michael Shermer,Why People Believe Weird Things. PseudoScience, Superstitionand Other Confusionsof our Time (New York: Freeman, 1997).

This content downloaded from 142.103.183.194 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 18:17:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LOCALITY IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE 227

Figure1. JosephDalton Hooker in theHimalayas receiving colonial tributes (in thiscase scientificallyundescribed rhododendrons). Hooker insisted that plants be sentto Kew Gardensto be described;indigenous people and colonialbotanists had onlylocal knowledge.By WilliamTayler (1849). (Reproducedwith permission of the Trustees of the RoyalBotanic Gardens, Kew.) tional/modern.It should be nonlinear,nonstaged, and nonprescriptive, butit should specifya setof parametersthat allow systematiccomparison of thegreat array of independentand interdependentlocal historiesof theproduction, application, and diffusionof natural knowledge. It shouldbe dynamicand flexible and should iden- tifyvectors of communication, exchange, and control. Finally, the framework should takecareful note of thesocial infrastructuresthat support knowledge work in both "Western"and "traditional" settings, without privileging one knowledge system over the other,thus allowing examination of bothlocal and global contingenciesof knowledgeproduction and inculcation in thechosen locality.29

29 Needlessto say,this is a tallorder. It is no wonderthat some have suggested it unlikely that such a modelwill everbe devised,especially considering the cultural, social, and economicdiversity of thecases forwhich the model must account! See Petitjean,Jami, and Moulin,Science and Empires (cit.n. 14), pp. 6-9.

This content downloaded from 142.103.183.194 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 18:17:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 228 DAVID WADE CHAMBERS AND RICHARD GILLESPIE

SCIENCE AND PLACE How doesone articulate the place ofknowledge or the locality of science? To some, evento formulatesuch a questionis nonsense.According to intellectuallegacies inheritedfrom the Greeks and, more recently, from empiricist portrayals of scientific knowledge,"the place of knowledge is nowherein particular and anywhere at all."30 In otherwords, under the old philosophicalparadigm, "the significance of place is dissolved."'3'Not surprisingly, then, historians of science have, on thewhole, shown littleinterest in thecomplex interactions of scienceand place.32 Exigencies of place mighthave been seen to presentobstacles against, or encouragementfor, doing or applyingscience, but so-called externalist explanations have been effectivelyiso- latedfrom the central processes of knowledge construction. On theother hand, colonial sciencehistorians very early began to realize that their stories were made inter- estingprimarily by parameters of locality.33

Parametersof Locality Untilrecently within the field, the most commonly found unit of localitywas the colonyor thenation-state. But to confineour interest to nationalcases wouldbe arbitrary,needlessly limiting, and ultimately unsound. Localities mark the intersec- tionof history, environment, language, and culture,and geographic boundaries are onlyone of thepossible desiderata in defininga case study.Localities may be boundedby tangibles, such as socioeconomiccircumstances, legalities, colonizing forces,topographies, and technologies;and by abstractions,such as beliefsabout time,space, and progress. They may be furthershaped by suchfactors as raceand gender,ideology, and religious belief. To definea scientificlocality, then, is simply to nominatea local frameof reference within which we mayusefully examine the roleof knowledge construction and inculcation.

30 See StevenShapin's delightful essay examining the social uses of solitude,"'The MindIs Its OwnPlace': Scienceand Solitude in Seventeenth-CenturyEngland," Sci. Context,1990, 4:191-218, quotationon p. 191.Shapin also remindsus that"Most writers who insist both on theglobal character ofmathematical and scientific knowledge and its universal application tend to overlookthe immense amountof workthat is done to createand sustainthe artificial and formalenvironments in which 'application'happens," p. 209. See also Adi Ophirand Steven Shapin, "The Place ofKnowledge: A MethodologicalSurvey,' Sci. Context,1991, 4:3-21; and StevenShapin, "Placing the View from Nowhere:Historical and SociologicalProblems in theLocation of Science,"Transactions of the Instituteof British Geographers, n. s., 1998,23:5-12. 31 JosephRouse, Knowledge and Power(Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 1987), p. 77. This book is stillextremely valuable for colonial science historians beginning to thinkabout the concept of local knowledge. 32 The ramificationsoftaking "place" seriously have been extensively discussed in theoreticalwrit- ingsin manyfields, such as geography,anthropology, postcolonial studies, and feminist studies. See forexample, Donna Haraway, Simians, Cyborgs, and Women:The Reinvention of Nature (New York: Routledge,1991), pp. 183-202;Michael Keith and Steve Pile, eds., Place and thePolitics of Identity (London: Routledge,1993); Bill Ashcroft,Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffen,eds., The Post- ColonialReader (London: Routledge, 1995), and otherscited below. For furtherdiscussion of the notionof knowledge "spaces'" see DavidTurnbull, "Reframing Science and Other Local Knowledge Traditions,"Futures, 1997, 29, 6:551-62; StanleyJeyerada Tambiah, Magic, Science, Religion, and theScope ofRationality (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990); EdwardW. Soja, Thirdspace: Journeysto Los Angelesand OtherReal-and-Imagined Places (Cambridge,Mass.: Blackwell,1996); andhomi bhabha, The Location of Culture (New York:Routledge, 1994). 33 As we haveseen, the diffusionist slant of theBasalla modelallowed us to maintainthe fiction thatwe weredealing with universal truths variously transmitted and applied.

This content downloaded from 142.103.183.194 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 18:17:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LOCALITY IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE 229

Whatdoes thisapproach mean for studies of, say, the history of Caribbeansci- ence?One mightdefine the locality geographically as thechain of islands,or as a particularisland, or as theentire basin including an outerrim reaching to North, Central,and South America. Additionally, one might look at thearea as a "colonial locality,"within which a numberof empiresacted and interactedover a particular timeframe. Or thecolonial locality might simply be madeup of theSpanish colonies.Alternatively, one mightconstruct a "traditional knowledge locality," examining how tribalknowledge was constitutedand theintellectual roles it played.In MexicoCity, a universitylocality for the construction ofknowledge might be differ- entiatedfrom a mining-schoollocality. For somepurposes, the world of medicine andhealth might be seento constitutea separate knowledge space. And so on. Such interpretiveflexibility, allowing overlapping hierarchies of localitywithin a singlegeographical area, might seem daunting to thehistorian. Clifford Geertz commentsthat, in trying to explain phenomena, to turnfrom invoking master narra- tives("grand textures of cause and effect") to providing "local frames of awareness" is to exchange"a set of well-charteddifficulties for a set of largelyuncharted ones."34But colonialhistorians of sciencehave already begun mapping these un- chartedlocalities; one mighteven say that their developing focus on localityis one of thefield's greatest achievements within the history of science.The problemre- mains,however, that if we do notfind a separate"other" vantage point from which tointerpret and compare-whether we call itmaster narrative, theoretical model, or thirdspace-we are leftwith the certainty of sinkinginto a vast sea of nativist ethnohistories. Is thisan infiniteregress, leading in one directionto solipsismand in theother to a pretenseof universalobjectivity that hides the subjugation of local cultureand local knowledge?Perhaps the best way forward, based on whatwe havelearned, is to constructa new,more responsive, democratic, and self-questioningglobal discourse.35This process would necessarily nourish and sustain the local historiesand local culturesthat alone can provide "external" critique of the modernity project and thestructures of powerthat it affords. The local andthe global are a dialecticalpair andmust remain so in ourhistories.36

Vectorsof Assemblage In anycolonial locality, vectors of assemblageencompass elements of processand of accumulation:the historical emplacement of theinstitutional and thephysical frameworkfor science. Telling this story has beenthe major work of most colonial sciencehistorians. The local scientificinfrastructure is made up notonly of organizations,buildings, museums, gardens, laboratories, instruments, chemicals, miner- als, disciplines,schools, textbooks, and journals, but also of ideas and strategies,

34 CliffordGeertz, Local Knowledge:Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology (New York: Ba- sic Books, 1983),p. 6. 35 Chakrabartycalls for"a historythat deliberately makes visible, within the very structure of its narrativeforms, its own repressivestrategies and practices"Chakrabarty, "Postcoloniality" (cit. n. 7), p. 25. 36 See also EdwardW Said, "Figures,Configurations, Transfigurations" Race and Class, 1990, 32:1-16; KatherineHayles, Chaos Bound: Orderly Disorder in Contemporary Literature and Science (Ithaca:Cornell Univ. Press, 1990), pp. 213-14; andDavid Turnbull,"Local Knowledgeand Com- parativeScientific Traditions," Knowledge and Policy,1993-4, 6:29-54.

This content downloaded from 142.103.183.194 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 18:17:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 230 DAVID WADE CHAMBERS AND RICHARD GILLESPIE metaphors,theories and taxonomies, values, communities of trained personnel, and new socioprofessionalroles for them to fill.David Turnbullusefully suggests the use ofDeleuze and Guattari's term "assemblage" to denote, in his words, this "amal- gam of places,bodies, voices, skills, practices, technical devices, theories, social strategiesand collectivework that together constitute technoscientific knowledge/ practices."The term "vectors of assemblage" suggests active and evolving practices as wellas theconstructed social and physical environments. For historians, the term "impliesa constructedrobustness without a fullyinterpreted and agreed upon theo- reticalframework."37 In truth, there is a fineassortment of theoreticalapproaches thatilluminate our understandingof thevarious elements of thisassemblage of people,places, ideas, and things: biography, environmental history, medical history, culturalstudies, material culture, feminist theory, etc. In coloniallocalities, the vectors of assemblage sustain the imperial metropolitan connectionto thescience system, but if deliberately so constructedmay also allow theattainment of nationalistcultural and socioeconomicobjectives. Although ex- ceedinglyrare, in somecases theseinstitutions may provide a base forthe preservationof traditionallocal knowledgesystems.38 Recently, debates over intellectual propertyhave recognized the value of indigenousknowledge of taxonomyin relationto health,but the resulting property laws, rather than protecting indigenous rights,have often served to transformthis knowledge into commodities, profitable onlyto largecorporations.39 This developmenthas now progressedto thepoint whereany analysis of the infrastructure oflate-twentieth-century science must look at thevectors of assemblage devoted to commodificationin science, including such socialmechanisms as copyrightlaws and the privatization ofuniversity research, as wellas theappropriation ofindigenous knowledge. Aroundthe globe, indigenous voices have been raised against these changes in the infrastructureof technoscience-changes that threaten the traditionalsocial ethosand moral economy of science as muchas therights of indigenous peoples. In thewords of Victoria Tauli-Corpus, "We are told that the companies have intellectual propertyrights over these genetic plant materials . . . thislogic is beyondus . . . we indigenouspeoples ... havedeveloped and preserved these plants over thousands ofyears."4" To understandthe weight of Tauli-Corpus's argument, itis usefulto con- siderwhat lies behindher use ofthe words "developed and preserved." Aside from

See Turnbull,"Local Knowledge"(cit. n. 36), p. 34. 38 In nineteenth-centuryMexico, for example, there was an attempt,especially by Jos6Antonio Alzate,to support the indigenous natural taxonomies rather than those of Linnaeus. See, forexample, PatriciaAceves Pastrana, Quimica, botdnica yfarmacia en la NuevaEspara a finalesdel sigloXVIII (MexicoCity: Universidad Aut6noma Metropolitana, 1993), pp. 55-74. In somelocalities traditional medicinehas beenpartially sustained, or at leasttolerated, in relationto Western medical practice. 39The intellectualproperty rights debate has now givenrise to its own largeliterature, which cannotbe reviewedhere due to lack of space. But see C. Lind,"The Idea of Capitalismor the Capitalismof Ideas? A MoralCritique of theCopyright Act," Intellectual Property Journal, 1991, 7:70-4; E. C. Hettinger,"Justifying Intellectual Property", Philosophy and PublicAffairs, 1989: 35; andLaurie A. Whitt,"Cultural Imperialism and the Marketing of Native America," American Indian and CultureResearch Journal, 1995, 19:1-31. 40 VictoriaTauli-Corpus, "We Are Partof Biodiversity,Respect Our Rights,"Third World Resur- gence,1993, 36:25, quotedin LaurieA. Whitt,"Metaphor and Powerin Indigenousand Western KnowledgeSystems," International Conference on WorkingDisparate Knowledge Traditions To- gether,Deakin University, Victoria, Australia, 1994.

This content downloaded from 142.103.183.194 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 18:17:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LOCALITY IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE 231 thefact that indigenous bodies of knowledge may often be sophisticatedin content, as has beenincreasingly recognized in areaslike taxonomy, indigenous knowledge localitiesemploy complex vectors of assemblage,which may include maps, calendars,training of personnel, techniques, procedures, skills, manipulation of material, interpretationofresults, prediction, meetings, and the preparation of texts.4' In other words,indigenous involvement in theproduction of naturalknowledge is neither trivialnor inconsequential. By exploringindigenous knowledge localities in the sameway that we exploreWestern scientific localities, we attaina betterposition foreffective comparison of these quite disparate knowledge systems.42

Networkof Exchange and Control As theprocess of assemblage develops in any locality, vital connections and linkages are madeboth locally and internationally.We haveseen how the letter writers and travelersof the early science movement led in a directline to the first global informa- tionnetwork. This network,the international science system, becomes ever more polycentricand hierarchical,with major and minorcenters and close and distant peripheriesdefined not geographically but in terms of scientific authority and social power.The network includes laboratories, journals, public and private funding agen- cies, museums,libraries, educational institutions, corporations, doctors' surgeries, administrativereports, and so on. It is importantto keep theassemblage and the exchangenetwork analytically separate, although both are required to participate in modernscience. Other knowledge systems have their own assemblagesand networks,but the fact that they are sociallyincommensurable may, in somecases, be moreimportant than their conceptual differences. In theconglomerate vectors of assemblagethat form the local infrastructureof technoscience,most people and things are tied directly into the international science system.This system does suchvaried work as formulatepriorities for research funding,privilege certain modes of inquiry,set standards for the size of things,author- ize knowledgeclaims, and establishregimes of culturaltransmission, including educationand popularization. The history of colonial science is arguablylittle more thanthe gradual connection of the locality into this global scientific communications

41 Manyof these elements have been entirely overlooked or underestimatedas parts of knowledge productionand communication.Texts, for example, may be inculcatedin song,dance, architecture, andceremonial business. Calendars have received some attention, but until very recently indigenous mapmakingtraditions were completely undervalued as evidenceof sophisticatednatural knowledge. See David Turnbull,Maps Are Territories:Science is an Atlas (Chicago:Univ. of ChicagoPress, 1993),pp. 19-53; David Woodwardand G. MalcolmLewis, eds., Cartographyin theTraditional African,American, Arctic, Australian, and PacificSocieties, The History of Cartography(Chicago: Univ.of Chicago Press, 1998); Barbara Mundy, The Mapping of New Spain: Indigenous Cartography and theMaps ofthe Relaciones Geogrdficas (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1996); MarkWarhus, AnotherAmerica:Native American Maps and theHistory of Our Land (New York:St. Martin's Press, 1997); G. M. Lewis, ed., CartographicEncounters: Perspectives on NativeAmerican Mapmaking and Map Use (Chicago:Univ. of ChicagoPress, 1998); LauraNader, Naked Science: Anthropologi- cal Inquiryinto Boundaries, Power, and Knowledge(New York:Routledge, 1996); andDavid Turn- bull,"Mapping Encounters and (En)CounteringMaps: A CriticalExamination of CartographicRe- sistance,"Knowledge and Society,1998, 11:15-44. 42 Sucha detailedcomparison can be found,for instance, in HelenWatson and David Wade Cham- bers(with the Yolngu community at Yirrkala),Singing the Land, Signing the Land (Geelong:Deakin Univ.Press, 1989).

This content downloaded from 142.103.183.194 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 18:17:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 232 DAVID WADE CHAMBERS AND RICHARD GILLESPIE network,which historically was basedin andcontrolled by the metropolitan center. In otherwords, this is thesystem that monitors, coordinates, authorizes, legitimates, classifies,and situatestheoretically the flow of observationaland experimentalin- formation.Perhaps the best description of these vectors is foundin Latour's "centers ofcalculation."43 Without this connection, a scientific locality cannot be takenseri- ously,no matterthe perfection of its assemblage or the quality of work being done. But thisnetwork is morethan a sciencesystem, more than just an information exchange.It also enablesmechanisms of social control, commodity transaction, exploitation,and appropriation.For example,Warwick Anderson suggests that "The recognitionthat even the most formally structured technical knowledge may be im- plicatedin colonialaccumulation and acquisitionis longoverdue.... inquiryinto thetextual economy of thelaboratory ... indicatesan expansionof thepower of thelaboratory to representand, in so doing,to constitute,regulate and legitimate colonial social realities.... The appropriationof colonial bodies and theirinsertion intoa metropolitandiscourse is ina sensea simulacrumof the whole colonial enterprise."44

INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS In thefinal section of thispaper, we wouldlike to followa slightlydifferent tack, introducing(though not fully arguing) the case thathistorians of science,in their accountsof particular localities, should be preparedto take stock of the nature, content,and roleof indigenousknowledge systems.45 There are a numberof reasons whythis is important.From studying "non-Western" cultures and their knowledge ofnature, we contributetoour understanding, and to the conservation, ofgreat intel- lectualtraditions that are tens of thousands of years in themaking. In doingthis we enhanceour understanding of the human mind, of humanculture, and mostespe- ciallyof the noble-and sometimesignoble-encounter of humans and nature. The twentiethcentury introduced the final stages of a half-millenniumof global multi- culturalengagement, marked principally by conflict and holocaust.46 By helpingpre- servethe multiple varieties of humanunderstanding ofthe natural world, we go to theheart of preserving cultural diversity. And perhaps we willimprove the possibil- ityof constructive cultural reconciliation in a deeplytroubled world. Finally,from a practicalpoint of view, there is an increasingrealization that indig-

43 Latour,Science in Action (cit. n. 3), pp. 215-57. 44 WarwickAnderson, "Where Every Prospect Pleases and Only Man Is Vile:Laboratory Medicine As ColonialDiscourse," Critical Inquiry, 1992. 45 This is notto suggestthat all historiansof sciencemust drop their tools and startworking on indigenousresearch projects, but we do believethat the study of sciencein anygeographic region mustinclude reference to indigenousknowledge systems (sometimes called IKS). Furthermore,we believethat responsible teaching will include reference to IKS in all generalistcourses in history and social studiesof science.See David WadeChambers, "Seeing a Worldin a Grainof Sand: Science Teachingin MulticulturalContext," Science and Education,1999, 8:633-44; idem,preface to Turn- bull,Maps Are Territories(cit. n. 41), p. v. See also thechapter on ethnosciencein Sally Gregory Kohlstedtand Margaret W. Rossiter, eds., Historical Writing on American Science: Perspectives and Prospects,Osiris, 1986, 1:209-28. 46 Sadly,but not surprisingly,modem technoscience has been an activeagent in theEuropean globalconquest, which has broughtdevastating consequences for nature and for other cultures. This factis notlost on indigenouspeoples.

This content downloaded from 142.103.183.194 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 18:17:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LOCALITY IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE 233 enousknowledge has a crucialpart to playin thepreservation of biodiversityand themanagement of naturalresources. The desirefor environmentally sustainable developmenthas promptedattempts to establisha dialoguebetween science and indigenousknowledge, combining the strengths and perspectives of both systems.47 Thisinterest in bringing disparate knowledge systems together in productive collab- orationis also seenin medicineand public health.48 Scholars have also drawnupon indigenousknowledge to counterwhat they see as thedangerous reductionism and culture-boundnature of Western science, its negative impact on nativepeoples, and itsinfluence on theway we perceivethe natural environment.49 Indeed, some have arguedfor the incorporation ofvalue systems into the sciences.50 Historiansof sciencehave a reasonablygood recordin relationto someof the moreobvious traditional cultures. For instance, it is notuncommon for major gen- eralhistories-in attempting to providethe big picture-to treat scientific civiliza- tionsof the Old World(China, India, Islam) and the New (Maya,Aztec, and Inca).51 Butif these major cultures are among the best known, they are by no meansthe only interestingindigenous bodies of knowledgeavailable to historians.52It is essential thatlocality studies of theseother knowledge traditions become incorporated into thearchive of humanhistory. Such a project,wherever carried out, must recognize thedangers of exploitation and repression that are in somemeasure inherent in eth- nographicstudies conducted from the center. For these reasons, such projects must allow thevoice of thecolonized and subjugatedcultures to be heardin theirown terms.Of course,local/global contention will notcease in thisendeavor, but the local willbe strengthenedand the possibility of mutual exchange and contribution willbe increased. Thecall torecognize the intellectual stature and continuing validity of indigenous modesof thoughtreflects a growinginternational concern that has cometo prom- inenceover the last twentyyears. UNESCO has commissioneda numberof re- portson issuesrelating to knowledge,culture, and development, all of whichhave opposed past policies of culturalassimilation (policies thathave been almost

47 GrahamBaines andNancy M. Williams,"Partnerships inTradition and Science,"in Traditional EcologicalKnowledge: Wisdom for SustainableDevelopment, eds. N. M. Williamsand G. Baines (Canberra:Centre for Resource and EnvironmentalStudies, Australian National University, 1993) pp. 1-6. 48 GregoryCajete, A People's Ecology:Explorations in SustainableLiving (Santa Fe, N. Mex.: ClearLight Publishers, 1999). 49 Vine Deloria,Jr., Red Earth WhiteLies: NativeAmericans and theMyth of ScientificFact (Golden,Colo.: FulcrumPublishing, 1997); Peter Knudston and David Suzuki, Wisdom of the Elders (St. Leonards,New SouthWales: Allen and Unwin, 1992). 50 GregoryCajete, Igniting the Sparkle: An IndigenousScience Education Model (Skyand,N.C.: KivakiPress, 1999); GregoryCajete, Native Science: Laws ofInterdependence (Santa Fe, N. Mex.: ClearLight Publishers, 2000); Zia Sardar,Explorations in Islamic Science (London: Mansell, 1989). '1For a recentattempt at thebig picturethat gives a good accountof certainareas of indigenous knowledge,see JamesE. McClellanIII and HaroldDom, Scienceand Technologyin WorldHistory (Baltimore,Md.: JohnsHopkins Press, 1999). 52 Preliminaryaccess to theseknowledge systems has been improvedby severalrecent publications:Helaine Selin, ed., Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology and Medicinein Non- WesternCultures (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1997); Douglas Allchin and Robert DeKosky, An Introduction tothe History of Science in Non-Western Traditions (Seattle: History of Science Society, 1999); Sarah Franklin,"Science as Culture,Cultures of Science,"Annual Review of Anthropology, 1995:163-84; David Hess, Scienceand Technologyin a MulticulturalWorld: The CulturalPolitics of Facts and Artifacts(New York:Columbia Univ. Press, 1995).

This content downloaded from 142.103.183.194 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 18:17:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 234 DAVID WADE CHAMBERS AND RICHARD GILLESPIE universallyviewed by indigenouspeoples as nothingless thangenocidal). For example,an influential1981 reportstated that one majorinternational objective should be the"rehabilitation of traditionalforms of knowledgeand, above all, of thepoten- tialitieswhich have been stifledby the pressure of the dominant countries or groups."53 And in 1995: "a culturallydistinct people loses its identityas theuse of its language and social and politicalinstitutions, as well as itstraditions, artforms, religious practices and culturalvalues, is restricted.The challengetoday . .. is to developa setting thatensures that development is integrativeand inclusive.This means respectfor value systems,for the traditionalknowledge that indigenous people have of their societyand environment,and fortheir institutions in whichculture is grounded."54 Importantly,this understanding is seen to apply to technoscientificknowledge in its relationshipto indigenousknowledge systems. In 1999, in a declarationadopted by theUNESCO-sponsored World Conference on Science in Budapest,this position was developed in some detail,acknowledging

thattraditional and local knowledge systems as dynamicexpressions of perceiving and understandingthe world, can makeand historically have made, a valuablecontribution to scienceand technology,and thatthere is a needto preserve,protect, research and promotethis cultural heritage.... Governmentaland non-governmental organizations shouldsustain traditional knowledge systems through active support to thesocieties thatare keepers and developers of thisknowledge, their ways of life,their languages, theirsocial organizationand theenvironments in which they live.... Governments shouldsupport cooperation between holders of traditional knowledge and scientists to explorethe relationships between different knowledge systems and to fosterinter- linkagesof mutual benefit.55

Thereare manyproblems associated with this international call to supportthe study and preservationof indigenousknowledge systems (IKS). It mighteasily degenerate intoa rushfor profiteering exploitation of botanicalknowledge. Furthermore, even if theIKS projectis pursuedwith the most honorable of intentions,it is possible to view it as a lost cause. Some knowledgesystems have disappeared,some are known only in fragments,some involvesacred knowledge that cannot be made public,and mostcan be uncoveredonly by learningrelevant languages and by workingin collaborationwith native scholars, elders, and practitioners.The comparisonof Western science withindigenous knowledge systems is fraughtwith all thedifficulties associated withunderstanding the similaritiesand demarcationsbetween markedly dif- ferentcultures; these problems are compoundedby lookingat preciselythat aspect of Westernculture that is believed to providean objective,disinterested, and non- culture-boundaccount of thenatural world. It is possible to conceivehow a culturecan accept and appreciateanother culture's aesthetics-althoughEuropean interestin indigenousart was a long timecoming,

53 UNESCO, Domination or Sharing?: Report on Indigenous Development and the Transferof Knowledge(Unesco Publishing, 1981), p. 31 54 UNESCO, Our Creative Diversity:Report of the WorldCommission on Culture and Develop- ment(Unesco Publishing,1995), pp. 70-1 (italicsin original);see also D. MichaelWarren, L. Jan Slikkerveer,and David Brokensha, eds., The Cultural Dimension of Development: Indigenous KnowledgeSystems (London: Intermediate Technology Publications, 1995). 55 UNESCO, The Declaration on Science and the Use of ScientificKnowledge: Reportof the World Conferenceon Science (Unesco Publishing, 1999).

This content downloaded from 142.103.183.194 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 18:17:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LOCALITY IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE 235 and popularappreciation has sometimesinvolved the developmentof a specific productfor white consumption. But the idea that very different cultures may be able to reconcilesome aspects of their knowledge of the natural world has beenconsid- eredan impossibleproject in somequarters. After all, the old paradigm argued, there is onlyone objectivereality, and only science has developeda reliablemethod for describingand explaining that reality. The historyof science,in sucha view,is the historyof pushing back the frontiers of superstitionand ignorance, with religion and beliefretreating in theface of superiorscientific explanation.56 Science,like any other social activity, bears the imprint of the society of which it is part.All knowledgesystems are "situated" in powerrelationships, value assumptions,and historical frameworks.57 As a culturallyspecific knowledge system-al- beitone with enormous power and one that remains a sourceof both good and evil- Westernscience, in ourintellectual calculations, cannot be accordeda privileged statusover indigenous knowledge. Far frombeing an abstractintellectual debate, thisissue goes to the heart of how different cultures view one another and their ways of seeingthe world.58 Furthermore, indigenous knowledge systems demand respect as powerfulcultural expressions of waysof knowing nature-ways that have clear implicationsfor how humansshould live and prosperin particularenvironments. The reassessmentof the character of IKS in lightof these findings is onlyjust start- ing,and thehistory of sciencehas an importantrole to playin this.By considering bothWestern science and indigenousknowledge systems as formsof local knowledgeand practice, the locality approach opens up a spacefor more equitable comparison.

BRINGING DISPARATE KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS TOGETHER In thelast few pages, we offeran accountof taxonomyintended to illustratesome of thethings that can be learnedwhen disparate knowledge systems are brought together.Science typically is thedominant knowledge system because it resides withininternational networks very different from those of a politicallymarginalized indigenouscommunity. For example, an elaboratesystem of commissions, publications,and institutions lies behindcontemporary botanical and zoological classifica- tionand nomenclature; itis inconceivablethat an indigenoustaxonomy-no matter howinternally cohesive, how comprehensive and differentiated, or even how simi- larlyspeciated-could continue to existwithin that system.59 An ethnoscientistis

56 MeraNanda, "The EpistemicCharity of the Constructivist Critics of Science and Why the Third WorldShould Refuse the Offer," in A House Builton Sand: ExposingPost-Modernist Myths About Science,ed. NorettaKoertge (New York:Oxford Univ. Press, 1998). Nanda makesthe case that scienceis the"last stand" against religious bigotry and superstition. 57 JohnLaw, ed., Power, Action and Belief:A New Sociologyof Knowledge? (London: Routledge and KeganPaul, 1986); idem,A Sociologyof Monsters: Essays on Power,Technology and Domina- tion(Sociological Review Monograph, 1991); SandraHarding, ed., TheRacial Economyof Science: Towarda DemocraticFuture (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana Univ. Press, 1993); HelenLongino, Sci- ence as Social Knowledge:Values and Objectivityin ScientificInquiry (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ.Press, 1990). 58 IvanKarp and Steven D. Lavine,eds., Exhibiting Cultures (Washington, D.C.: SmithsonianInsti- tutionPress, 1991). 59Brent Berlin, Ethnobiological Classification: Principles of Categorization of Plants andAnimals in TraditionalSocieties (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1992); RalphN. H. Bulmer,"Why is theCassowary not a Bird?A Problemof Zoological Taxonomy among the Karam of the New Guinea

This content downloaded from 142.103.183.194 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 18:17:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 236 DAVID WADE CHAMBERS AND RICHARD GILLESPIE likelyto focuson how indigenoustaxonomies differ from scientific taxonomy. And the historyof taxonomyhas much of interestto say on thisissue. For example,it maybe usefulfirst to considerhow scientifictaxonomy emerged from earlier Euro- pean folktaxonomies. Like indigenoustaxonomies, those recorded by Aristotle and in earlyherbals of the fifteenthand sixteenthcenturies listed around eight hundred taxa at the level of genus or species. Indeed, at the local level therewas oftenno differencebetween genus and species, because mostgenera were monospecificin a givenenvironment, and wheretwo or more species occurred,they were oftenmor- phologicallydifferent because theywere pursuing different ecological strategies. Several technologicalchanges transformed folk taxonomy. The printingpress and woodcutpermitted the printing of books thatcompared taxa fromdifferent regions and across time.Voyages of discoverybrought back large numbersof new speci- mens,which were storedin herbaria,botanical gardens, and museums.Naturalists began to specialize in plantsor animals,and thenin morerestricted groups such as birds,fishes, or insects.These huge increasesin thenumber of recordedtaxa, which werelargely the result of technologicalchange rather than intellectual breakthrough, posed practicalproblems of orderingand managementthat had to be resolved.Lin- naeus began to introducethe higher categories of class and order(above genus and species). In thelate eighteenthand earlynineteenth centuries, as thegenus lost its place as the chieftaxonomic rank, scientific taxonomy moved fartherfrom folk taxonomy. Scientistsincreasingly used biological functionsand anatomicalstructures to define species in familiesand otherhigher-order taxa. Meanwhile,genera were splitagain and again underthe weightof newlydiscovered species. No plausible explanation was offeredfor why it was possible to sortorganisms into "natural"groups based on sharedcharacteristics until Darwin arguedthat the similaritiesbetween organ- isms weredue to the"propinquity of descent."But thisdid notmake theprocedures of taxonomyany simpler;if anything,it simplyraised the stakesby requiringthat taxonomyalso indicateevolutionary history. An obvious differencebetween scientifictaxonomy and indigenousclassificatory systems is thatthe latter are not based on the theoryof evolution,with taxa reflectinggenetic or phylogeneticgroupings. However,it would be inappropriateto say thatthis was a way of fundamentally distinguishingscientific taxonomy from indigenous classification, or we would be forcedto conclude thatall taxonomyprior to Darwin was nonscientific. A morefundamental difference lies in thesocial realm:scientific taxonomy seeks to createa global systemof nomenclatureand a hierarchicalstructure, based on an elaboratesystem of publication,formal rules, and congresses.The preambleof the InternationalCode of Zoological Nomenclaturestates that "the object of the Code is to promotestability and universality,"and thiscontrasts noticeably with the flexible use of termsin indigenousclassifications, which are partof the everydaylan- guage of the communityand are used in manydifferent contexts.60 Clearly,classificatory systems are an integralpart of culture,whether we are talk-

Highlands,"Man, 1967,2:5-25; Paul Sillitoe,Roots of the Earth: Crops in theHighlands of Papua New Guinea(Kensington: Univ. of New SouthWales Press, 1983), chap. 8. 60 ErnstMayr, Principles of Systematic Zoology (New York:McGraw Hill, 1969); RalphBulmer andChris Healey, "Field Methods in Ethnozoology,"in Williamsand Baines, Traditional Ecological Knowledge(cit. n. 47), pp. 43-55.

This content downloaded from 142.103.183.194 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 18:17:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LOCALITYIN THE HISTORYOF SCIENCE 237 ing of indigenousor scientifictaxonomies. With regard to indigenousknowledge, Ralph Bulmerhas observedthat

ethnozoologicaldata do notexist as a readilyseparable body of knowledge in traditional societies,where generally no distinctionis madelike that between science and other systemsof knowledge in contemporarywestern culture. Consequently, the investigator is likelyto be confrontedwith what may, at firstsight, appear to be an unsystematic blendof detailed, credible information, mystical ideas, and superstition. It is important to realisethat such a mixtureof whatEuropeans might consider rational, empirically based knowledgeand mysticalor supernaturalbeliefs must be understoodwithin its culturalcontext.6'

There is somethingforced in wrenchingout the zoological classificationsystem of the Kalam of Papua New Guinea and comparingit to scientifictaxonomy, because it privilegesscientific knowledge and uses it to assess the "validity"of indigenous knowledge in a culturallyimperialist manner. Indeed, this charge can be made againstmuch of whatis done underthe label of ethnoscience.We oftenforget that thevalidity of scientifictaxonomy also sufferswhen taken from its culturalcontext. If you doubt this,try to explain (withoutreference to evolutionarytheory or the Code of Nomenclature)the reasons forthe manyscientific taxonomic distinctions thatignore obvious similaritiesor differencesof structureand function. Bulmerwas always conscious of these dangersin his work,and soughtto locate Kalam classificationswithin the whole of Kalam culture,as he understoodit. But like otheranthropologists, he remainedthe authorand authority(the etymological similarityis revealing),drawing upon his Kalam informantsand thenordering the materialinto an ethnographicnarrative for others in his profession.In his laterwork, Bulmerformed a moreequal collaborationwith his majorinformant, Ian Saem Maj- nep. In theirBirds ofMy Kalam CountryMajnep spoke directlyto thereader (based on taped conversationswith Bulmer), and the materialwas primarilyarranged ac- cordingto Majnep's culturalcategories.62 Conversationsacross culturesare even more subjectto all the difficultiesof multiple interpretationsand readingsthat are characteristicof conversationsbetween individuals.Our commentsabove on indigenousknowledge have been constructed withina contextof writingabout indigenouspeoples, notforindigenous peoples.63 Writtenfrom a Westernperspective, this essay is not a replacementfor indigenous views of the relationsbetween science and indigenousknowledge. On the other hand, we do hope it will usefullycontest some traditionalWestern biases, while opening up crossculturalspaces fornew researchdirections within the historyof science in local contexts.

61 Bulmerand Healey,"Field Methods," (cit. n. 60), pp. 43-4. 621Ian Saem Majnepand Ralph Bulmer, Birds of My Kalam Country (Auckland: Univ. of Auckland Press,1977); GeorgeE. Marcus,"Notes and QuotesConcerning the Further Collaboration of Ian Saem Majnepand Ralph Bulmer," in Man and a Half Essaysin PacificAnthropology and Ethnobiol- ogy in Honourof Ralph Bulmer,ed. AndrewPawley (Auckland: Polynesian Society, 1991), pp. 37-45. 63 Bothof theauthors have worked with indigenous people and one is of Cherokeeancestry. See Bain Attwood,introduction to Power,Knowledge and Aborigines,eds. Bain Attwoodand JohnAr- nold(Melbourne: La TrobeUniv. Press, 1992), pp. i-xvi.

This content downloaded from 142.103.183.194 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 18:17:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Figure2. A Kob,or PapuanLory (Charmosyna papou). The most important bird in the Kalamcategory Yakt ok b nomanay ayak,or birdswhich men's souls can turninto. Drawingby Christopher Healey from Ian SaemMajnep and RalphBulmer, Birds of My KalamCountry (Auckland: Univ. of Auckland PressX 1977).

This content downloaded from 142.103.183.194 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 18:17:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LOCALITY IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE 239

CONCLUSION For at leastfour hundred years, the world has witnessedthe rise and growth of the technoscientificmovement,64 inculcating such enormous power and authority that it has beenable to confront,overwhelm, and absorb the insights of traditional knowledgesystems around the planet. This social and organizational triumph is sometimes interpretedas evidence of the universality ofscientific knowledge claims. The local- ityapproach focuses on theconditions under which this appearance ofuniversality aroseand is maintained.These conditions include, for example, Europe's successful politico-economiccolonization of the world; the close integrationof itsinstitutions oftechnoscientific knowledge with its institutions ofpower; its unique social mecha- nismsof authoritativecommunication and interculturalexchange, employing new deviceslike laboratoriesfor knowledge making and networksfor retranscribing, moving,and incorporatinglocal knowledgeinto the global discourse; and, finally, theenormous instrumental successes of technoscience inthe manipulation of nature andin thedevelopment of technologies of control. By understandingmodem science as thespread of theideas and institutionsof rationalityand progress,the old paradigmperpetuated a clear agenda for colonial historians.We searchedfor local "traces"of European Enlightenment. We identified whenand how these ideas and institutions first appeared in a newlocality, recording whenthe far-flung provincials finally "got it right," sometimes offering reasons for theslow uptake of European ideas. We accepted,as patterningsciences, astronomy andphysics rather than chemistry and engineering; natural history rather than agron- omyor mineralogy.65And we dutifullyattempted to distinguishcenter from periphery,science from technology, colonial science from national, dependent science fromindependent, and basic science from applied, even though these categories and distinctionscompletely dissolved, or at leastseemed less useful,when analyzed in concretecase or local context.66 By the 1990s,many of thosequestions and assumptionsseemed outmoded. As historiansof thecolonial world embraced new perspectives-which we havehere called the"locality approach"-our histories became less defensive,analytically richer,and morefirmly fixed on local dimensionsof therise of thescience movement.If modemtechnoscience was consideredto be embeddedin thesocial, cultural,and intellectual context that produced it, then the failure of European science to takehold in anotherlocality was bestexplained not by seeking out backwardness ordeficiency in thetarget culture but by uncovering the local intellectualand socio- economicinterests that stood to gainor lose byits introduction; and by understandingthe structural aspects of the international science system that favored the "West" andthe "North." What,then, is thefuture of colonial science history as a scholarlyfield? To define a localitysimply as a "colony"is to inviteneglect of muchthat matters culturally

64Surelythe phrase "modern science and technology" has passedits use-by date. The term"technoscience" is perhaps a littleless problematicand feels especially appropriatefor the "jacked in" (computerized)sciences that dominate the beginning of thenew millennium. 65 SimonSchaffer, "Field Trials, the State of Nature and the British Colonial Predicament" (manu- script,1999). In thisimportant paper Schaffer reminds us thatthe Enlightenment also setup agron- omyas a modelscience. Had agriculturebecome a patterningscience, needless to say,we would thinkabout science differently in ways that especially matter in colonialand indigenous localities. 66 Nader,Naked Science (cit. n. 41).

This content downloaded from 142.103.183.194 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 18:17:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 240 DAVID WADE CHAMBERS AND RICHARD GILLESPIE and historically.In anycase, coloniesand empiresare primarilythe products of a particularmoment in history,whereas colonizing forces that dominate and exploit are alwaysand everywherewith us. Concentratingon themultidimensional-cultural,political, and socioeconomic-localcontexts of scientificendeavor will help to end another"great divide," the one thathas seen historiansof sciencewriting aboutcenters and historians of colonial science writing about peripheries.

This content downloaded from 142.103.183.194 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 18:17:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions