On a sunny Thursday morning in April, it was finally happening again. The bi-annual PhD conference on the history of the sciences and humanities brought together twenty-five young researchers from Belgium and the Netherlands at the beautiful Soeterbeeck Abbey. After the 8th edition in 2021 was held online, we were very happy to be greeted by the neighbouring farm’s donkeys, kangaroos, and llamas, and of course to meet face-to-face and enjoy real-life conversations.
During the coffee breaks, dinners, board game night and long walk in the countryside, there was a wealth of interesting research to discuss. We had short and long presentations, which gave those who are in the early stages of their project a chance to discuss their plans for the coming years, and those who are knee-deep into their topic the opportunity to go into more detail. This resulted in a very varied and exciting two-day program, with diversity in topics as well as geographies, sources, and actors. While it is impossible to cover each talk exhaustively in this report, we would like to highlight several emerging themes. This overview offers a generalized but insightful picture of the work done by the new generation of historians of sciences and the humanities.
Intersecting Terminologies
A first feature that struck us during the presentations was that many discussions turned around the terms used by historians, as well as by actors from the past. Historicizing these words proved to be very fruitful. Their semantic metamorphoses not only result from but also shape theoretical and practical changes in science, with wide-ranging implications.
Luz van den Bruel investigated the posthumous work of German scholar Christian Jakob Kraus (1753-1807) who classified books and studies by previous scholars. In the field of philology, she divided these books between “besondere Philologie” and “allgemeine Philologie” – the study of “sprachen an sich”. Kraus ascribed to this philosophically informed branch of philology the task of comparing languages over space and time to understand the nature of language itself. Through the analysis of Klaus’s writings, Luz shed new light on the birth of linguistics and on discipline formation and standardization in the late 18th century.
Disciplines and their interplay also formed the center stage in Antje Van Kerckhove’s presentation on the understanding and treatment of vaginismus by Belgian healthcare professionals during the second half of the 20th century. Vaginismus, now considered as both a psychological and physical disorder requiring the cooperation of various health professionals (sexologists, gynaecologists, psychologists, etc.), was initially grounded in psychoanalysis. Antje explored how the multidisciplinary approach to vaginismus, which emerged relatively recently in the 1970s, directly influenced healthcare practices as the concept of vaginismus evolved from a mental and marital problem to a psychosomatic condition.
State & Civil Society
Several presentations considered actors who applied and implemented scientific knowledge to engineer nature and society. The authors of these talks challenged the notion of a top-down, state-centered explanation of historical change. Instead, they stressed the importance of actors from a wide range of societal areas, such as churches, philanthropists, forestry schools or medical societies.
Martijn van der Meer’s paper on the origin of Dutch infant clinics (1880-1940) made this methodology very clear. Advocating a Latourian approach of keeping every actor “on the same level” to observe their concrete interactions and resource mobilisations, Martijn showed how discourses and institutions of child healthcare were built by a large coalition (or “political community”) of local governments, clergymen, hygienists, doctors, statisticians, and charity foundations. Although infant mortality was considered a national concern, the state itself mostly intervened by financing existing institutions.
Similarly, Rinske Vermeij’s presentation on vocational guidance at the Groninger psychotechnical institute during the Interwar period looks at the complicated relations of a wide range of actors. This new field of social engineering, vocational guidance and selection, was pioneered in the Netherlands by a provincial, private institution: the Dr. Bos Foundation in Groningen. Furthermore, the institute’s successive directors, Gerard Heymans and Henri Brugmans, relied on the collaboration of employers and employees to make observations and experiments in firms. Brugmans emphasized qualitative evaluation of people through conversation, rather than top-down tests.
Another example of such a non-state promotion of scientific devices was the statistical graphic, as presented by Marieke Gelderblom. She examined the adoption of this tool in the Netherlands during the “Golden Age of Statistical Graphics” (1850-1914). Her research shows that actors from the civil society (such as demographers, medical societies, or scientists) were the main proponents of using statistical graphics. Surprisingly, the Dutch state, was rather reluctant to invest in it. However, when trying to convince officials, Dutch demographers and doctors offered examples from foreign governments which did use graphics.
“Are pine trees fascist?” was the question by which Max Bautista Perpinyà introduced us to a new example of a blurred boundary between state and non-state actors in post-Franco Spain. Pine trees were massively planted in reforestation programs during the Franco era, but conservationists now perceive them as a form of environmental degradation in the name of the interests of the regime and of the pulp industry. Facing these criticisms, Spanish forestry engineers were able to rebrand pine trees by incorporating them in the emerging global conservation ethos. According to them, the flaws of Francoist reforestation projects were caused by the lack of knowledge about the need of genetic diversity within species, and future genetic improvements would be able to address these shortcomings.
“Experts” & “Non-experts”
A third theme that came up frequently in the conference presentations and subsequent discussions was the exploration of the boundaries between “experts” and “non-experts”. This classic discussion has certainly gained traction in the Netherlands and Belgium with the embrace of the “history of knowledge”. The ongoing relevance of this issue was demonstrated by several PhD candidates in their presentations on the role of Great Lakes fishermen and conservationists in their fight against sea lampreys, of the contribution of indigenous people in the capture of wild animals in Indonesia, of hierarchies in Congolese leprosaria, of the origins of art history in Belgium, and of the promotion of numerals by local chroniclers in the Netherlands.
In an entertaining presentation, Vincent Bijman shared the telling story of the “invasion” of the North American Great Lakes by the sea lampreys. In their efforts to deal with the advance of sea lampreys, local knowledge of fishermen and conservationist played a vital role, especially in catching the beast and spreading horror stories to stigmatize this scary-looking fish.
Using indigenous knowledge and people to scientific ends, was also the central story in Pieter van Wingerden’s narrative. In his presentation on “catching rhinos and understanding tigers”, Pieter showed how, during the early 19th-century expeditions of the Dutch Natuurkundige Commissie in modern Indonesia, tensions emerged on how to deal with the knowledge of their indigenous guides and helpers. The Dutch researchers relied on this local knowledge to catch the animals, while simultaneously deeming everything the indigenous people said as “bizarre”. The solution offered was to brand the knowledge as European, making it challenging for historians to uncover the actual indigenous contributions.
This question of expertise in a colonial context was also explored by Felix Deckx in his talk about leprosy care in Congo from 1930 to 1970. As long as leprosy was incurable, its victims were isolated in colonial “leprosaria” under the rule of missionaries: considered as sinners, they were denied any agency and were there only to be prepared for their afterlife. The introduction of sulphone treatment shook the existing colonial and religious hierarchy, as missionaries had to cooperate with scientists and Congolese male nurses to cure their patients.
Inès Sanchez Cienfuegos’ presentation on the birth of art history in Belgium showed how modest the contribution of Belgian universities was in the development of this field until the last decades of the 19th century. While art history courses existed on paper from 1830 onwards, they were often not taught due to a lack of money or staff. Instead, the earliest developments in Belgian art history came from free lessons given to amateurs in museums or to artists and artisans in art academies, in order to avoid anachronisms in ornaments.
How to demarcate knowledge gained by non-experts and so-called experts, was also a crucial topic explored by Theo Dekker. In his talk, he showed how 18th-century chroniclers from the Low Countries made an extensive use of numerals in a non-scholarly context, challenging the idea of a top-down diffusion of numeracy by philosophers and the state. Nevertheless, these chroniclers were themselves middle-class authors, collecting data for local authorities and functions, raising the question of the precise demarcation between experts and non-experts during the discussion.
Ethics and Values in Science
As historians of science, we are well aware of the ethics and values involved in the practice and products of knowledge. At the conference, however, we were challenged to think about the particular theme of medical ethics in the context of the history of euthanasia and the conservation of foetuses.
First, Niels De Nutte explained in his presentation about the history of euthanasia in 20th-century Belgium how scientists played a role in shaping the concept of a “good death”. Not only is science itself imbued with values, it also contributes to the shaping of morals, in this case around death: the continuum of its positivist interpretation by secularised doctors was subtly transformed over time from a eugenic framework to an individualistic one, centred on personal choice.
Lisa Vanderheyden took us to another end of the spectrum of life. In her talk about her research on the provenance of the foetuses in the collection of the Vrolik museum, Lisa addressed the ethical ramifications of terminology. At the turn of the twentieth century, for doctors and policemen, speaking of an “unborn child” or of a “foetus” meant a difference between prosecution and collection. However, Lisa also raised another ethical concern that goes beyond her study and incites us to reflect on our own historical work. First, in communicating her work, she is careful to be conscious of the emotional weight her subject can carry for people. Second, there is a broader question she addressed: to what extent do we, as historians, have a right to show and de-anonymize historical subjects who at the time had no way to consent to their conservation to history? This thought-provoking and important question gains increasing importance as historians will receive access to all kinds of digitally stored private data in the future.
Representation of Science, Representation of Scientists
As many presentations showed, science is also about performance and persuasion. Scientists constantly need to assert their expertise and usefulness to the public and to stakeholders, while the latter can also, in time, use this prestige for their own ends.
It can start as simple as an orange. Lisa Johnson presented on the cultivation of exotic fruits in the early modern period in the northern Netherlands; in particular, she discussed the development of practical expertise on how to grow these non-native fruits. Lisa combined this discussion of the technological changes in how to grow citrus fruit with an investigation into their symbolic association with the House of Orange. These fruits became part of the visual political propaganda of Prince Maurice of Nassau (1567-1625).
Ted van Aanholt’s research discussed two case studies that illustrate the different reception of ideas from natural philosophers by authorities. He emphasized the importance of the local context in the reception and representation of atomism by comparing seventeenth-century Oratorian Jean-Baptiste Du Hamel with the Benedictine Andrea Pissini. While the former was close to the French royal court and careful to slip his atomistic hypotheses into an Aristotelian framework, the latter was much more isolated and assertive in his display, leading him to be convicted by the Roman Church.
Luca Forgiarini‘s presentation shed light on the prominent role of science in public discourses during the postwar period. By examining the history of CERN, Luca demonstrated how science evolved into a model for political cooperation. He emphasized that beyond the scientific rivalry between East and West, there was also some space for European scientific cooperation, as Yugoslavia was a member-state of the institution. Therefore, Luca highlighted the importance of idealism in constructing a cooperative and competitive Europe through collaborative efforts.
Finally,David Skogerboe‘s research focused on the history and future of European satellite infrastructures within the European Space Agency between 1975 and 1995. He examines the formation, development and impact of “satellite futures”. This means that he looks at how changing sociotechnical expectations shape technological, societal, and political development and emphasizes the influence of “future” communication on technology and public understanding of science.
Using Visual Sources
Last but not least, visual sources were present throughout many of the presentations. Strikingly, the themes of uses, representations, and agency were only the more relevant when dealing with these types of sources. In this last part, we highlight three PhD’s who place the visual at the centre of their research.
Anse De Weerdt explored the use of magic lantern slides in the School of Tropical Diseases as carriers of the colonial worldview between the years 1885 and World War II. One key aspect she discussed was how to identify agency within these sources, and how to distinguish between the Belgian perspective and the real people depicted in these sources. Anse also highlighted the significance of technology, discussing both its capacity to support representation and its inherent limitations in terms of what it allows to depict.
Marissa Griffioen pointed us to the importance of not only the visual object itself but also the context around it. In her talk, she discussed the circulation of maps in the early modern Low Countries. Marissa studies these maps through the concept of “map encounters” by tracing, identifying and analysing how people interacted with these weird pictures. This approach leads her to using visual sources, like printings and portraits, to complement the use of texts and depict the practical and symbolic use of maps.
The conference concluded with a meta-moment as Georgiana Kotsou delved into the act of conferencing itself. Using group photographs from chemistry conferences in the first half of the twentieth century, she explored the rituals and routines depicted within these images. Through her analysis, Georgiana identified significant formal differences between photographs of large international gatherings and those of smaller conferences. Importantly, she highlighted that conference photographs served as a medium of communication and were instrumental in constructing scientific personae.
(Colophon)
This edition was organized by Valentine Delrue (Ghent University; Ca’ Foscari), Michiel Bron (Maastricht University), Virgile Royen (University of Liège), and Elske de Waal (Utrecht University), with financial support from the Descartes Centre (UU), the National Committee for Logic, Philosophy and History of Science (RASAB), the Vossius Center (UvA), the Huizinga Institute, the Maastricht University, the Faculteit Letteren en Wijsbegeerte of the UGent, the research group Traverses (ULiège) and the R&D Department of the ULiège.
We left behind these sunny days with reluctance and with pride. Yet they will soon be back. Hopefully, in two years, a new PhD Conference in History of Sciences and Humanities is going to take place, as we are very happy that a new group of PhD candidates have already enthusiastically taken up the baton to organize the Tenth Anniversary edition in 2025!
