Argument

During the early modern period, European naturalists were confronted with a rapidly growing body of new objects due to the recent geographic discoveries. According to Bruno Latour's model of “action at a distance” naturalists managed this situation by mobilizing and stabilizing specimens and inscriptions at the periphery of the known world, as well as accumulating, reshuffling, and processing that material in “centers of calculation.” This paper tries to resolve an ambiguity that lies in this model: While the work of naturalists was clearly dependent on local institutions, collections, and botanical gardens in particular, they nevertheless claimed universality for the interpretations of the natural world they propounded. Analysis will be based on a case study: In the 1730s Carl Linnaeus produced a series of manuscripts and printed books that allow us to reconstruct the sequence of translations which led from the first encounter with a “new” plant at the periphery of the known world (in the case of Linnaeus, Lapland, which he visited in 1732) to a major botanical center (the botanical garden of George Clifford, former director of the Dutch East India Company, who employed Linnaeus in 1736 and 1737 to catalog his collection). I will argue generally that the abstraction process that was constitutive of Linnaeus' universal plant taxonomy – the separation of “constant” species and genera from local “varieties”- did not take place exclusively in the centers of knowledge production. This abstraction process was rather coextensive with the global network of translation and exchange that connected such centers with each other and with their peripheries. The “map” of the plant world outlined by Linnaeus did not represent “things drawn together,” but rather “things being exchanged,” and the global circulation of specimens and inscriptions was the foundation on which its claim to universality rested.

Argument

This paper addresses the complex process of inscribing the names of the American natural world – both the natural species and the territories – in the records of the Spanish Empire as undertaken by its official chronicler Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo (1478–1557). Fernandez de Oviedo's ambitious attempt to identify all natural phenomena in the Historia general y natural de las Indias provides a very clear instance of the parallel developments of science and imperial discourse in the Early Modern period. As we shall see, however, Fernández de Oviedo's point of view in this regard was by no means the same as the point of view developed in Spain by the imperial administration; on the contrary, Fernandez de Oviedo's criteria for identifying and naming reveal an effort to displace any external assumption and prejudice and call for a distinctly local view of American reality. In Fernández de Oviedo's text, the traditional notions of identity and difference as well as the relative positions of center and periphery were put into question in order to propose new ways to frame and control reality in an expanding world.

Argument

This article describes from a constructivist perspective a Natural History expedition put together by the Spanish government and navy to visit territories in the Pacific in the 1860s. Right from the start the expedition ran into problems and barely made it back. However, it managed to compile an admiringly large assortment of specimens: extensive collections of shells, mammals, skulls, and photographs. The expedition was rooted in colonialism. Patrons and organizers of the expedition sought to recreate in Spain discourses and practices then dominant in France, particularly the colonial agenda of the Société Impériale Zoologique d'Acclimatation. The collection assembled by the Comisión Científica del Pacífico had a life of its own. Years after the expedition folded, the collection kept on circulating and inspiring local and foreign scientists to identify new species and draw lessons from anthropology to history. The study of this collection was always discontinuous, a fact that proves the guadianización of science in Spain. The collection has been revived after a number of serendipitous discoveries in various Spanish archives, particularly caches of old photographs. Presently, the website www.pacifico.csic.es is expected to contribute to the circulation of the inscriptions generated by this scientific expedition.

Argument

The life and work of the Russian scholar Ivan E. Orlov (September 1, 1886 – October 13, 1936) is described here in detail for the first time. Orlov is well known as one of the pioneers of relevant logic, but he was also interested in a wide variety of other topics including philosophy, chemistry, and music theory. This article shows that the sociopolitical climate of the1920s and 1930s exerted a significant influence on the style and content of Orlov's work. It theorizes that this climate determined to a considerable degree the evolution of Orlov's interests and also his fate.

The Wolfhound Era hurls itself against my shoulders,But I am not by nature a wolf.Osip Mandel'shtam (1931)

Argument

This article attempts to show that the cultural-historical psychological theory of Aleksandr R. Luria (Luriya)When the spelling of Russian names diverges from the transliteration system used by Science in Context, the transliteration is given in parentheses on the first occurrence. See editors' note in the Summer 2002 issue. and his colleagues is based on the philosophical foundations of historical materialism. It argues in particular that Luria's psychology, neuropsychology, and brain theory are integrated in the same scientific research program and are based on the same philosophical premises, and that his theories must be interpreted in the Marxist context in which they are embedded. Luria's research program asserts that the development of higher mental functions depends on the appropriation of cultural means, particularly language, within social practice. Moreover, the brain structures underlying mental functions are also dependent on the appropriation of cultural means. Luria's clinical diagnosis and his program for rehabilitation of patients with brain lesions are based on his psychological theory and brain theory. The following analysis of Luria's comprehensive program will show that a socio-cultural non-reductive explanation of mental functions and their underlying brain structures may have implications for the philosophical discussion of the mind-brain problem.