Search

In modern discourse about the history of science, it seems to be widely accepted that at the end of the nineteenth century, Germany was one of the leading countries in the production of science. In the past, historians of science tried to trace back a specific ‘German style’ of science that—in combination with other factors—determined this German dominance around 1900, especially in the life sciences. Considering the theoretical concept of ‘national styles’, it has to be kept in mind that around 1900, contemporaries already proclaimed ‘national styles’ of science as representations of national identity. Thus, the question arises as to how far existing historiographical conceptions of national styles may include earlier claims and prejudices. Careful reconstructions of contemporary discourses on national styles and inquiries into the ‘stylisation’ of a dominant, successful ‘German style’ are necessary. One of the contemporary critics of a ‘German style’ of science was the physiologist Jacques Loeb (1859–1924), who emigrated to the USA in 1891. Loeb corresponded regularly with the physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach (1838–1916). Ernst Mach can be considered Loeb's intellectual father with whom he corresponded about strategic, philosophical, and epistemological questions. Using the Loeb–Mach correspondence, the aim of the paper is to reconstruct Loeb's conception of a ‘German style’ of science and its differences to an ‘American style’. Changes in his views are discussed as well as the roots of his views and some of their consequences. Finally, Loeb's ideas on national styles and his working profiles before and after his emigration are compared to historiographical analyses of ‘American’ or ‘German’ styles of science around 1900. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By the end of the 19th century, the Prussian censuses registered regularly the nationality of the population according to a standard criterion: the mother tongue. The background to this institutionalization could be mapped out in terms of the early creation of the statistical office, the reform of the bureaucracy, and the political challenge following the annexation of the western part of the former Polish state. However, this paper gives a different account of that goes beyond a state-level history of a statistical institution. At the beginning of the 19th century, nationality was already registered in some localities. The purpose was to measure the use of German in schools and churches and hence the effectiveness of the Germanization of the Poles. Although the statistical office was in existence, it had little influence on these local practices, and their heterogeneity prevailed for decades. This situation was modified by the centralization of the census in the 1860s in the hands of the statistical office, and the emergence of a demographic approach. This change occurred in the context of discussions with local authorities regarding their use of language statistics. The census has to be seen therefore as an integration on multiple levels of statistical practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of energy from wind has a multi‐faceted relationship to visibility. Between 1973 and 1991, various actors in the West German environmental movement made assertions about the visibility of renewable sources of power, but wind energy took on a particular prominence. In this article, the question of how different actors have used knowledge and the materiality of wind turbines for competing purposes is explored. Environmentalists attempted to create visible signs of a valid alternative energy future by tinkering with small, decentralized wind turbines, while the Federal Republic of Germany's Ministry of Research and established energy providers used the failure of the state‐subsidized large‐scale wind‐energy project GROWIAN to criticize renewables and brand their application as misguided. In both cases, actors created new wind energy visibilities to convey their conflicting interests—pitting those advocating a new, environmentally friendly energy system against those who sought consolidation of the large‐scale fossil‐nuclear energy system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines how four feminists belonging to the broadly defined left-wing of the Wilhelmine-era German women's movement - Henriette Fürth, Johanna Elberskirchen, Ruth Bré and Grete Meisel-Hess - engaged with scientific knowledge to redefine early 20th century understandings of the female sex drive. It contextualizes these authors' efforts to redefine the sex drive within contemporary sex reform politics and changing scientific understandings of human sexuality. The article illuminates how these four feminists used scientific knowledge to redefine the female sex drive as a simultaneously physiological and psychological phenomenon that was active, desiring and naturally in need of satisfaction. It further shows how these feminists mobilized this definition to assert women's 'biological right' to sexual emancipation and self-determination. However, this article also examines the conflicts this particular representation of the female sex drive provoked within the broader German women's movement, as well as the political restrictions it imposed upon feminist demands as a result of the biopolitical, racialist and heterosexist valences of fin-de-siècle sexual science. This article points up both feminists' contributions to scientific knowledge about sexuality and the difficulties of using science to advance feminist causes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]