Abstract
It is doubly appropriate that my contribution in honor of Stevan Dedijer should deal with the relation of the ecology, or new environmental, movement to the development of science and technology. As has been the case with so many valuable concepts in the social study of science, Stevan was one of the first to speak of the “politicization of science” in the late 1960s. From his vantage point in Lund, at his recently established Research Policy Program, Dedijer, the renegade old leftist, found himself confronted by a new generation of critics of science and society. He grew aware of a shift from what had previously been a more narrowly-defined science policy discourse to a broader social discourse over the politics of science. Of course, this shift was not confined to Lund, nor to Sweden; it was rather a kind of universal phenomenon. But I like to think of Dedijer’s RPP — or RPI, as it now calls itself, for the program has become an institute — as one of the pioneers in the international academic response to this shift. Under Stevan’s inspiration, we were discussing these matters at least as early as anyone else. As so often, Stevan Dedijer was well before his time. Before there was a field calling itself the social study of science, or, more precisely, the political sociology of science, Stevan and his humble followers were practising the trade. (2)
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
See Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests, Boston: Beacon, 1971.
For further discussion along these lines - as well as a readable introduction to the contemporary cosmological discourse - see Stephen Toulmin, The Return to Cosmology, Berkeley: University of California, 1982.
The importance of cosmology and world-views for what might be termed the social acceptance of science and technology is a central theme in Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1983.
Aant Elzinga has reviewed this new discussion, among other places, in “Research, Bureaucracy and the Drift of Epistemic Criteria”, in Björn Wittrock and Aant Elzinga, eds, The University Research System, Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1985.
This idea of social movements as the creators of history is propounded in Alain Touraine, The Voice and the Eye, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. The quotation is from page 27.
For an attempt to define this notion of “cultural critique of technological development”, see Erik Baark and Andrew Jamison, “The Technology and Culture Problematique”, in Baark & Jamison, eds, Technological Development in China, India and Japan, London: Macmillan, 1986.
My understanding of “long waves” has benefited most from Christopher Freeman, et. al., Technological Development and Unemployment, London: Frances Pinter, 1982
and from Ernest Mandel, Long Waves of Capitalist Development, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
A more recent discussion can be found in Roy Rothwell and Walter Zegfeld, Reindustrialization and Technology, London: Longman, 1985.
Alvin Gouldner, Against Fragmentation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985, pp. 55–87.
My favorite discussion of the Owenites’ technological activities and interests is Jos Kingston, “It’s Been Said Before and Where Did That Get Us”, in Godfrey Boyle and Peter Harper, eds, Radical Technology, London: Wildwood House, 1976.
See also Maxine Berg, The Machinery Question and the Making of Political Economy 1815–1848, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980, especially Part 5.
The link between the social movement and reductionist biology is examined in Everett Mendelsohn, “Revolution and Reduction: The Sociology of Methodological and Philosophical Concerns in Nineeteenth-Century Biology”, in Yehuda Elkana, ed, The Interaction Between Science and Philosophy, Atlantic Highlands: Academic Press, 1974.
James Ridgeway discusses some of these early efforts in The Politics of Ecology, New York: Dutton 1970.
William Morris, as quoted in E. P. Thompson, William Morris, London: Merlin, 1977, p. 649.
Thomas Söderqvist, The Ecologists, Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1986, p. 113.
For details, see Ron Eyerman, “Rationalizing Intellectuals. Sweden in the 1930s and 1940s”, Theory and Society, 14, 6 (November 1985).
The knowledge interests of the new movement are discussed in Jacqueline Cramer, et. al., “The Knowledge Interests of the Environmental Movement and Its Potential for Influencing the Development of Science,” in Stuart Blume, et. al, eds,The Social Direction of the Public Sciences (Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook), Dordrecht: Reidel, 1987.
Fritiof Capra, The Turning Point, New York: Bantam, 1983;
Murray Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom, Palo Alto: Cheshire, 1982;
Bill Devall and George Sessions, Deep Ecology, Layton, Utah: Gibbs M. Smith, 1985.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1988 Jan Annerstedt and Andrew Jamison
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jamison, A. (1988). Social Movements and the Politicization of Science. In: Annerstedt, J., Jamison, A. (eds) From Research Policy to Social Intelligence. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-19462-9_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-19462-9_6
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-45276-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-19462-9
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)