Discussion 231 branches of sidemce a re undergoing a process o f bifurcation, b u t w e do observe a process of in teg ratio n too,, some branches of science being joined in one, as for exam ple in th e case of cybernetics:.
Professor K edrov claim s besides th a t th e co ntem porary science is undergoing a process o f integrating, because w e observe th a t in betw een tw o sciences as for exam ple physics a n d chem istry th e re appears a n ew branch — physical chem istry. Buit th e process of in teg ratin g is, I think, a v ery specific one, as no individual is ab le to have an outlook o n th e whole body of science. Such an outlook is like a platondc idea — it exists for the m ankind a s a w hole, b u t a n individual is today fu rth e r from catching it, th a n ever in th e h isto ry of m ankind. T h e developm ent o f science is very, v ery rapid; a physicist, for exam ple, cannot g rasp th e w hole of physics. P ro fesso r O ppenheim er quoted as an exam ple th a t h e h ad ta k en p a rt in a sym posium of physics w h en th e fun dam en tal p ap er w as understood only b y v ery few p articip an ts of th e m eeting. A n in te grating outlook on th e whole body of science is: therefore fo r a n ind i vidual of our itdme a platonic idea.
I suppose th a t th ese rem ark s are a n exam ple o f th e usefulness of collaboration betw een historians and philosophers of science. Prof. K edrov’s paper seems to me essentially right, b u t it w ould be necessary to clarify such concepts as simplicity, analysis a n d synthesis and th e understanding of th e logic of choosing the explanatory postulates.
E. Rosen
A ccording to P rofessor Olszewski, periods in political h isto ry a re sharply defined, w hereas periods in the h isto ry of science a n d technology a re n o t sh arp ly defined. B ut in political history, som e periods a re n o t sh arp ly defined, for instance, th e fall of th e Roman Em pire. A nd in th e history of observational astronom y, we know th e year a n d th e day, a n d v ery n e a rly th e m inute, When th e period of telescopic observations began. The sam e m ay be said also for th e beginning of th e period of radio astronom y.
A. A. Z vorykin e
P rofessor Olszewski’s le c tu re a ttra c ts th e atten tio n of a ll th e hi storians of science a n d technology as both from th e th eoretical a n d p ractical point of view every scientist — w h en prep arin g w o rks con cerning th e histo ry of science and of technology — ought to resolve in
232 La périodisation de l’histoire de la science e t de la technique
some w ay o r o th e r th e problem of periodization. Myself, I w as already concerned w ith those problem s a n d published in 1957 an article On Som e Questions of Periodization of th e H istory of N atural Science and T ech nology i. O n receiving P rofessor Olszewisfci’s lecture, I have once again read m y article and hav e not found necessary to change anything in the principled approach to th e question.
We istdill now happen to come across th e phenom enon th a t m any historians o f science and technology reg ard th e problem s of periodiza tion .as p u re ly practical ones, as problem s to be resolved w hen preparing th e ir w orks. As a result, th ey underestim ate the m ethodological problem s an d by th e sam e token — in essence — th e y leave open th e v ery question of periodization.
The value of Professor Olszewski’s lectu re lies chiefly in his posing the problem as one Of th e most im p o rtan t theoretic problem s of th e h isto ry of science an d technology. All M arxists ag ree w ith each o th er th a t — w h en periodiizing th e social phenom ena — th e stu dy of th e social an d economic stru c tu re s Should be th e starting -p o in t. It is to be kept in m ind, however, th a t every group of social phenom ena h as its own pecularities. Hence follows a general conclusion th a t the periodiza tion should n o t be in troduced into p articu la r groups of phenom ena but deduced fro m th e peculiarities of 'the developm ent of those phenom ena.
It is th e objective course of h isto ry th a t helps to define th e in te rn a l periods, into w hich h isto ry b reak s down. W hen confronting, for in stance, the periodization having been accepted b y R ussian historians adhering to various methodological positions as to th e history of Russia, th e re m ay be noticed som e coincidences w ith th e periodization adopted by M arxist historians. A nd it is no m ere chance. So em inent a historian, as V. O. K luchevsky, could not h e lp unconsciously reflecting in his periodization those objective real periods in R ussian history th a t a re being singled ou t b y M arxist historians consciously proceeding from th e M arxist th e o ry a n d analysing th e actual developm ent of th e h isto ry of Russia.
In th e field of th e periodization of the h isto ry o f n a tu ra l science and technology — both from th e th eo retical and [practical point of view — even less has b een done th a n in th e domain of general history, although this question is n o t new. In th e -capital w orks on th e history of science and of p a rtic u la r branches of n a tu ra l science, published in the X X th century, th o se questions have been resolved in some w ay o r other, an d besides from several points of view. Some h istorians of science establish periods in p a rt coinciding iwith socioeconomic epochs, and
1 А. А. З в о р ы к и н , О некоторых вопросах периодизации истории естество знания и техники. ’’Вопросы Истории Естествознания и техники” (“Problems of the History of Science and Technology”, vol. 4, 1957).
D iscussion 233
within, th e fram ew ork of general historical periods th e y arran g e th e m aterial according to th e chronological principle o r according to th e m ost im p o rtan t discoveries. There are periodizations w here th e m ethods of n a tu re ’s icognition a re being ta k e n as a 'criterion, fo r instance th e periodizations ab ou t th e degree of dissem ination o f in d u ctiv e research methoids. In o u r co untry a great w ork in th e w ay o f th e theoretical in q u iry in to th e problem s regarding th e periodization otf th e h isto ry of n a tu ra l science is being carried on by th e h ere p re se n t -Professor Kedrov. I w ill n o t dw ell on his conception, alth o u g h I d id so a t one tim e — as it will be discussed here, too-.
In 'the lig h t of all th a t has been said I should like to- dw ell on the le ctu re of Professor Olszewski since h e h as fo rm u lated new in terestin g ideas about th e periodization. Professor Olszewski’s proposal is 1x> assum e as a basis of periodization K u h n ’s (conception proceeding from paradigm s deduced by him. It is ju st th e origin of th e parad ig m th a t is recom m ended to be assum ed as th e basis of th e periodization o f th e h isto ry of science. T here arises th e question: how is th e paradigm to- be u n d er stood — as a discovery a n d developm ent of th e determ ined law s of n a tu re or as a subjective com prehension and recognition of those lafws?
It is th e la tte r com prehension of th e paradigm th a t follows from Professor Olszewski’s lecture; i t tu rn s th e n ou t th a t th e h isto ry of classical m echanics is n o t to be begun from the m om ent w h en th e Principia o f N ew ton appeared, th a t is from th e y ear 1687, b u t from th e m om ent w hen th e proposition o f th a t m echanics w as u n iversally recognized — or th a t th e h isto ry of th e new est sta g e in th e develop m ent of biology is n o t to be ta k e n from th e m om ent w h en D arw in’s work appeared, th a t is from th e y e a r 1859, b u t from th e m om ent w hen D arw in’s proposition w as un iv ersally recognized.
The history of science, m ore p a rtic u la rly th a t of th e early stages, shows us a wide gap be,tween th e scientific discoveries a n d th e ir general acknow ledgm ent or a broad reform ation of th e system of scientific tho u g h t in th e lig h t of those discoveries. T hat is w h y th e h isto rian of science w ho w rites books, an d consequently aliso th e reader, w ill be p u t •in a n aw k w ard position w hen perform ing th e periodization o n th e basis of P rofessor K u h n ’s paradigm s. W ould it not be b e tte r to- keep on exam ining the developm ent of the h isto ry of science w ithin th e fram e work of socioeconomic epochs and singling out th e g enerality w hich characterizes th e science of each period. W ithin th e period, how ever, to single o u t th e p a rtic u la r 'branches of science as th ey a re form ing and developing, and to ta k e the scientific discoveries m ade by p a rtic u la r scientists as in itia l tum ingipodnts of th e h istory of science.
W hen ta k in g th e re a lly proceeding phenom ena '(and n ot th e judge m ents about them ) a s th e startin g -p o in t of th e 'periodization, w e negate
234 La périodisation de l’histoire de la science e t de la technique
of course a sim ple solution of th e periodization problem for the history of n a tu ra l science ais a whole, fo r th e h isto ry of technology as a whole, for th e histo ry of p a rtic u la r b ran ch es of science a n d technology, for the h isto ry of p articu la r constructions a n d processes, for th e h istory of p articu lar problem s. W henever th e h isto ry of one o r another pheno m enon is to be divided into periods one should seek for the answ er to th e periodization problem s in the peculiarities of those phenom ena, by following — as i t seem s to us — th e aforesaid general considerations.
I should like to dw ell a t g reater len g th on th e periodization of th e general histo ry of technology since I am both theo retically a n d p racti cally concerned first of all w ith these problem s. W hat is to be assum ed as a basis o f th e periodization? Of course, th e q u alitativ e transitions in th e developm ent of in stru m en ts a n d m eans of labour since it is th e y that, in o u r opinion, determ ine th e contents of technology. A nd if so, th e schem e of the developm ent of in stru m en ts an d m achines, presented by M arx in his P o verty of Philosophy m ay be assum ed as th e basis of such a periodization. H ere is the scheme in question: “Simple in stru m ents; accum ulation of sim ple in stru m ents; complex instrum ents; p u t ting th e 'Complex in stru m en t in m otion b y m eans of o ne m otive pow er — by m eans of m an ’s hands; p u ttin g those in stru m en ts in m otion by m eans of n a tu ra l power; m achine; system of m achines having one en gine; system of m achines having an autom atically w orking engine” 2. It is h ere th a t comes to light, a s it w ere, th e in te rn a l logic of techno logical developm ent a n d th e in tern al logic of th e developm ent of tech nology. Technology how ever develops n o t only by proceeding from the in tern al logic, b u t also by proceeding from th e social laws. In conse quence, tw o coincident principles of periodization are to be accepted for th e general h isto ry of technology: according to th e in tern al logic of th e developm ent of technology as such, and according to th e socio economic periods w hich ooncide- historically an d logically.
The basis of such a periodization h as been given in m y aforesaid w ork a n d a n attem p t a t a practical application of this: periodization has been m ade in o u r collective work on th e h isto ry of tech n o lo g y 3. The periodization in question am ounts to th e following:
1) O rigin a n d spreading of sim ple in stru m en ts of labour in th e con ditions of th e p rim itive com m unal m ode of 'production.
2) D evelopm ent a n d spreading of complex in stru m en ts of labour in th e conditions o f th e slave-ow ning mode of production.
2 K. M a r x , P overty of Philosophy.
3 А. А. З в о р ы к и н , H. И. О с ь м о в а , В. И. Ч е р н ы ш е в , С. В. Ш у х а р - д и н, История техники. Москва 1962 (A. A. Z v о г у k i п е, N. I. O s m o v а, V. I. T c h e r n y s h e v , S. V. S с h о и к h а г d i n е, H istory of Technology).
Discussion 235 3) Spreading of complex in stru m en ts of labour, s e t in m otion b y mam, in the conditions of th e feudal m ode of production.
4) Form ation of prereq uisites for th e creation of m achine technology in th e conditions o f m an ufacto ry period.
5) S preading of steam idriven m achines in th e p eriod of cap italist victory a n d consoMdation in advanced countries.
6) D evelopm ent of th e m achine system o n th e basis of electro -tra n s- misision in th e period of monopolistic 'Capitalism.
7) T ransition to th e autom atic system o f m achines in th e period fol lowing th e G reat O ctober Socialist Revolution.
In a collective work, one is obliged to give in to th e opinion of o n e’s colleagues, bu t I should denom inate th e last period th e same w ay as I h ad argued a t one tim e: ‘“P rep a ratio n a n d realization of th e tran sitio n to th e autom atic system of m achines in th e conditions o f th e general crisis of capitalism an d of th e building of socialism ”.
As everybody knows, th e concrete h istorical m aterials, both in th e dom ain of n a tu ra l science, and in th a t of technology, a re — p ractically — n o t easy to be kept w ith in a n y logical period 'since th e re alw ays are some nuances, now and th e n v ery su bstan tial, connected w ith th e pe culiarities of th e developm ent of science a n d technology in tim e an d space, nevertheless — w hile constantly realizing a certain conditionality o f th e established periods a n d above a ll th e d istribu tion of the m aterial th ro u gh ou t those periods — w e should n o t grieve abo ut th a t, inasm uch as th e periodization is subject to a c e rta in logical schem e p u rified from a n u m b er of 'concrete historical deviations.
Professor Olszewski says th a t the lack of synchronism in th e devel opm ent of technology in p articu la r countries p rev en ts from holding to th e general periodization of th e h isto ry of technology. I am not inclined to agree w ith th at. T h ere is a strik in g exam ple: th e in d u strial rev o lu tion in the X V IIIth and X lX th centuries. T h a t revo lutio n — fo r various countries — d id n o t coincide in tim e, a n d a g eneral exposition of th e jo in t history of technology in th a t period w ould seem to be impossible. B ut w hen we exam ine th e in d u strial rev o lu tio n of d ifferen t countries, w e see th a t th e in te rn a l stages an d th e logic of technological develop m ent a re rem ark ab ly coincident. E veryw here th a t in d u strial revo lu tio n begins w ith th e creation of n ew m achines in th e tex tile in d u stry , W here upon the problem s of new energetics (em ergence of steam engines) come to th e fore, th e n th e -production of m achines b y m eans of m achines, the revolution in m etallurgy, m ining a n d chem istry, a n d th e final stage: m achine re-equipm ent of th e tran sp o rt a n d appearance of new m eans of com munication. The sam e can be — m ore or less app roxim ately — observed withdn th e (development of technology in o th er periods.
I should lik e to dw ell o n an o th e r im p o rtan t problem raised in P rofessor O lszew ski’s lecture: on his sta tin g th a t th e developm ent of
236 La périodisation de l’histoire de la science et de la technique
technology precedes the changes in economic and social relations. The problem of th e in terrelatio n b etw een technology aind th e socioeconomic m om ents is moti so sim ple as it m ay appear a t first sight. It w ould seem th a t in th e lig ht of th e law of correspondence betw een th e relations of production and th e ch aracter of productive forces, a new technology should a t first arise w ith in th e old society, a n d th e n b e follow ed by a reconstruction of th e economic basis an d of th e corresponding su per stru ctu res. In re a lity — as M arx pointed out w h en analysing th e tra n sition from feudalism to capitalism —• th a t process is fa r m ore complex. A t th e first stage of th e ir developm ent, th e productive forces come in conflict w ith th e old relations, of production, leaning not upon th e new, b u t upon th e old technological -basis, a n d securing in th is connection a form al subordination of lab o u r to capital. C apitalism exists u n d er those conditions as a stru c tu re w ith in feudalism . The form al subordination of la b o u r to th e arising forces of capitalism leads — in its in te rn a l m ovem ent — to- th e creation of a new technological b asis' being a real condition fo r ithe consolidation a n d developm ent of the capitalist m ode of production.
T here comes — as M arx says — th e economic rev olu tio n which on the one h an d brings about real conditions for th e dom ination of capital over labour, a n d on th e other, generates conditions fo r th e origin of a new, socialist m ode of production w hich is able to rem ove th e con trad icto ry form of th e developm ent of cap italist stru ctu re. The tra n si tion from -capitalism to socialism tak es place, too, in a situ atio n w hen w ithin the capitalist society th e re does not exist a m aterial-technological basis peculiar to socialism, let alone to communism.
W ell-know n is V. I. L enin’s sta tem en t against th e M ensheviks alleg ing th a t Russia h a s n o t attained th e level of .development of productive forces th a t m akes socialism possible. D eriding such a com prehension of th e tran sitio n from capitalism to ‘socialism, V. I. Lenin pointed out th a t th e solution of th e said problem necessarily req u ired a considera tion of th e concrete conditions of the country; b y advancing th e plan for th e electrification, for th e industrialization of th e country, fo r the collectivization of th e agriculture, as w ell as th e program of a cu ltu ral revolution, V. I. L enin determ ined th e 'ways of creatin g th e m aterial- -technical basis, ad equ ate to socialism.
R. Taton
J e pense que le problèm e d e la périodisation .des sciences, to u t comme celui d e le u r classification, se présente sous deux aspects essentiels, l ’un philosophique e t méthodologique, l’a u tre pratiq u e. Ce d ern ie r aspect
