Classical Marxist Historiography of Science: The Hessen-Grossmann-Thesis

Freudenthal, Gideon; McLaughlin, Peter

doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9604-4_1

Cited by 11 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, the fact that the economic element is assigned the dominant causal weight does not imply that it acts directly on science. The Hessen-Grossmann thesis as reconstructed by Gideon Freudenthal and Peter McLaughlin (2009) is an excellent example of this point. For according to this thesis, technology was developed in order to facilitate economic development, and early modern (seventeenth-century) science was able to make the advances that it did by studying the technology that was developed in order to facilitate economic development (ibid., 4).…”

Section: Andreas Vrahimis (Forthcoming) Argues That the Debate Betwee...mentioning

confidence: 94%

On the Differences between the Classical and the “Western” Marxist Conceptions of Science

Nabolsy¹

2022

Marxism &Amp; Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This essay aims to provide an account of the differences between what I call the "Classical Marxist" conception of science which was adhered to by Marx and Engels and further developed by Boris Hessen and others on the one hand, and the conception of science which characterizes "Western Marxism" as it developed through the work of the theorists of the Frankfurt School on the other hand. I argue that Western Marxists such as Herbert Marcuse and Max Horkheimer did not in fact successfully criticize the logical positivist account of the modern natural sciences. Instead I argue that they implicitly accepted the positivists' characterization of the modern natural sciences (as they interpreted it) and then proceeded to devalue the modern natural sciences on this basis. I also show that Marcuse and Horkheimer, even though they presented themselves as revolting against the alleged "economism" of Classical Marxism, ended up endorsing a view of science which is functionally equivalent to a reductive economistic conception of science. I argue that the Classical Marxists' conception of science is far richer and far more interesting than either a stereotyped "economistic" conception of science or the Western Marxist conception of modern science as merely an element in a historical process centered on the oppressive universalization of instrumental reasoning.

show abstract

Section: Andreas Vrahimis (Forthcoming) Argues That the Debate Betwee...mentioning

confidence: 94%

On the Differences between the Classical and the “Western” Marxist Conceptions of Science

Nabolsy¹

2022

Marxism &Amp; Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the contrary, Hessen and the Marxist tradition have explicitly criticized this point as an individualistic tendency in philosophy. 49 In particular, Clark argued that he would have used a "biographical" 50 and "psychological" 51 model in the history of science (i.e., precisely what the Russian authors criticized).…”

Section: The Debates In the United Kingdom Stemming From The London Congressmentioning

confidence: 99%

The 1931 London Congress: The Rise of British Marxism and the Interdependencies of Society, Nature and Technology

Ienna

Rispoli

2021

HoST - Journal of History of Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Second International Conference of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine, held in London in 1931, exerted a profound influence on the historiography of science, giving rise to a new research field in the anglophone world at the intersection of social and political studies and the history of science and technology. In particular, Boris Hessen’s presentation on the Social and Economic Roots of Newton’s Principia successfully ushered in a new tradition in the historiography of science. This article introduces and discusses the London conference as a benchmark in the history of the social study of science within a Marxist and materialist tradition. In contemporary science and technology studies, political epistemology, and the study of society-nature interaction, it is no less relevant today than it was at the beginning of the fabulous 1930s. In reconstructing some important theses presented by the Soviet delegation in London, we aim to revive the conference’s legacy and the approach promoted on that occasion as a pretext to address current debates about society’s major transition toward a new agency and ways of existence in the Earth system. In particular, the London conference invited us to think of the growing metabolic rift between society, technology, and nature, and further reflects a historical moment of profound environmental and political crisis.

show abstract

“…'With astronomy matters are different', he said 'its history accompanies the development of mankind from its first beginnings.' Our predecessors were Babylonian priests and magicians, Greek philosophers, Arabian princes, medieval monks, Renaissance noblemen 34 On Hessen, see Freudenthal and McLaughlin 2009;Graham 1985. 35 Pannekoek 1930 this lecture was originally delivered in Dutch in 1916 as inaugural lecture in Leiden when Pannekoek started as unpaid lecturer in the history of astronomy, see 1916.…”

Section: History Of Astronomy As a Vision Of Politics And Societymentioning

confidence: 99%

Anton Pannekoek

Tai¹,

Steen²,

Dongen³

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Astronomer and Marxist Anton Pannekoek was a remarkable figure. As an astronomer, he pioneered quantitative astrophysics and founded the renowned Astronomical Institute in Amsterdam that now carries his name. Before World War I, however, he was employed as a Marxist theorist by the Social Democratic Party of Germany, making him one of the leading intellectuals of international socialism. Because of his significant contributions to such diverse subjects as astronomy and socialism, Pannekoek's life and work uniquely capture the fascinating connections between conceptions of nature, society, and their representations in the early decades of the twentieth century. This book aims to study these connections through the prism of Pannekoek's biography. In doing so, it sets out to explain Pannekoek's particular epistemic, aesthetic, and political choices, while placing them in the broader context of the early twentieth century.Pannekoek tried to keep connections between his political and academic life hidden from view. He had pragmatic reasons to do so. His academic career had suffered from his controversial political reputation on more than one occasion, most dramatically in 1919 when his appointment to deputy director of the Leiden Observatory was obstructed by the Dutch government. 1 From the mid-1910s onwards, he kept his socialist efforts at a distance from his career in astronomy, and even ended up writing two separate autobiographies: one focusing on his career in the labour movement, while the other discussed his astronomical research. 2 Remarkably, this separation has been carried over into scholarship on his life and work. This either discusses Pannekoek's role in the labour

show abstract

Classical Marxist Historiography of Science: The Hessen-Grossmann-Thesis

Cited by 11 publications

References 15 publications

On the Differences between the Classical and the “Western” Marxist Conceptions of Science

On the Differences between the Classical and the “Western” Marxist Conceptions of Science

The 1931 London Congress: The Rise of British Marxism and the Interdependencies of Society, Nature and Technology

Anton Pannekoek

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About