Science, Democracy, and the American University: From the Civil War to the Cold War by Andrew Jewett (review)

In this very well-written, extremely well-documented, and ambitious book Andrew Jewett argues that “the meaning of science is fluid, contingent, and contested” (372). The documentation, in terms of footnotes and citations, reflects Jewett’s education (PhD in History, University of California, Berkeley) and his “epic academic journey” (viii) to his present position (Associate Professor of History and Social Studies at Harvard University).

The documentation also aids the reader in accepting and following up, if necessary, Jewett’s observations on debates within the natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and theology concerning the role of science within a changing American democracy. Indeed, Jewett provides passing reference to the post–World War II “emerging field of American studies” (337). This is done in the context of his description of a humanities approach, as contrasted to a science approach, among American historians. At the same time, in keeping with his position that developments within disciplines and schools of thought are always contested, he follows the cited statement above with the observation that “… Columbia’s Richard Hofstadter, among others, retained important ties to the social sciences” (337).

In an explanation for the growth of scientific disciplines after the 1860s, Jewett challenges theses that are based on liberal Protestant interpretations, or professional, class, or status bases. Rather, he posits that this growth reflects the attempt to mobilize science “as a resource for strengthening American democratic practices” (1). Science and the university will replace religion and the church. Although a who’s who of guiding academics and intellectuals of the twentieth century are discussed, the philosopher John Dewey is presented as the symbol of this movement. At the center of Dewey’s thought was the assumption that science contained within itself the seeds of a democratic society if only it could be extended to the realm of human behavior.

Jewett employs the label “scientific democrats” for the diverse group of American thinkers who believed that science provided a basis for a cohesive, democratic, modern society and culture. In terms of democracy, they assumed that within the American framework, public opinion is central. Their claims for science were more controversial. For this group science meant more than the use of empirical methods and technological information and growth, it also “meant behaving in accordance with specific ethical tenets or exhibiting particular ethical virtues” (10). These underlying ethics were suited to the needs of a modern society. The bulk of the text conveys the successes and failures of the “scientific democrats” through political and social periods of change from World War I to the Great Depression to the New Deal to World War II to the Cold War and the dominant value-free and ethically-neutral view of science. Jewett also briefly comments on emerging challenges to that view.

Jewett has provided a comprehensive history of competing interpretations of the meaning and uses of the term science. His work is a highly significant contribution to an understanding of a central component of American intellectual thought. As such, it is essential reading for advanced students and scholars in a number of disciplines. Finally, during a period in which science is under attack from both the political left and the political right, his concluding words are worth repeating: “In the end, a history of science’s past political meanings can demonstrate only that its present political import remains up to us” (374).