Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 44(2), 146–160 Spring 2008
Published online in Wiley Interscience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/jhbs.20302
© 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Historical accounts of the social sciences have too often accepted local or national institu-
tions as a self-evident framework of analysis, instead of considering them as being embed-
ded in transnational relations of various kinds. Evolving patterns of transnational mobility
and exchange cut through the neat distinction between the local, the national, and the inter-
national, and thus represent an essential component in the dynamics of the social sciences,
as well as a fruitful perspective for rethinking their historical development. In this pro-
grammatic outline, it is argued that a transnational history of the social sciences may be
fruitfully understood on the basis of three general mechanisms, which have structured the
transnational flows of people and ideas in decisive ways: (a) the functioning of international
scholarly institutions, (b) the transnational mobility of scholars, and (c) the politics of trans-
national exchange of nonacademic institutions. The article subsequently examines and
illustrates each of these mechanisms. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
INTRODUCTION
The social sciences have developed in a permanent tension between the aspiration to uni-
versally valid knowledge about human societies and their primary dependence on nation-
states. Since modern systems of higher learning, research funding, and scientific publications
have been predominantly organized along national lines, the social sciences have often been
understood as a plurality of national traditions, and this has remained an enduring feature of
their historiography.
Due in particular to differences in state structures, the institutional and cognitive forms
of the social sciences indeed display important variations across nations (Wagner et al., 1991;
Rueschemeyer & Skocpol, 1996). A predominant part of the social sciences emerged as “sci-
ences of government,” that is, as scientific or administrative knowledge placed at the service
of expanding national states. The science of politics, political economy, as well as a host of
fact-finding endeavors like political arithmetic and statistics, have their origins in the demand
for more reliable knowledge of state affairs (for general overviews, see Heilbron et al., 1998;
Kazancigil & Makinson, 1999; Porter & Ross, 2003). The social science institutions that
emerged in the nineteenth century continued this tradition. In France the national Académie
JOHAN HEILBRON is a sociologist at the Centre de sociologie européenne (CSE, CNRS) in Paris and at
Erasmus University Rotterdam. Book publications include The Rise of Social Theory (1995), The Rise of
the Social Sciences and the Formation of Modernity (with L. Magnusson and B. Wittrock, 1998/2001) and
Pour une histoire des sciences sociales: Hommage à Pierre Bourdieu (with R. Lenoir and G. Sapiro, 2004).
E-mail: heilbron@msh-paris.fr
NICOLAS GUILHOT is research fellow at the Social Science Research Council in New York. Recent pub-
lications include: The Democracy Makers: Human Rights and the Politics of Global Order (New York:
Columbia University Press, 2005); “A Network of Influential Friendships.” The Fondation pour une Entraide
Intellectuelle Européenne and East-West Cultural Dialogue, 1957–1991, Minerva, 44, No. 4, 2006, pp.
379–409. E-mail: guilhot@ssrc.org
LAURENT JEANPIERRE is assistant professor of political science at the Institut d’études politiques in
Strasbourg, and researcher at the Groupe de sociologie politique européenne (PRISME/GSPE, CNRS).
Publications include: Paris en exil. Intellectuels français réfugiés aux Etats-Unis pendant la Seconde
Guerre mondiale (forthcoming); “Une opposition structurante pour l’anthropologie structurale: Lévi-
Strauss contre Gurvitch, la guerre de deux exilés français aux États-Unis,” Revue d’histoire des sciences
humaines, 11, 2004, pp. 13–43. E-mail: laurent.jeanpierre@urs-u.strasbg.fr
146
jhbs442_03_20302.qxd 4/2/08 1:45 PM Page 147
characterized by the preeminence of the law faculties, within which the new discipline sub-
sequently developed; in countries under British influence, history provided the core discipline
around which political science later developed (Atal, 1995). Such a global or world system
perspective would also have to account for the divergence of twentieth-century social science
in socialist states and capitalist democracies and the “cold wars” that have accompanied it.
In the following programmatic outline for a transnational history of the social sciences,
we have chosen a more specific level of analysis than that of the world system. Focusing on
the core disciplines and the dominant trends (thus largely ignoring transdisciplinary and
extra-academic countercurrents such as Marxism or feminism), we distinguish three general
mechanisms that have structured the transnational flows of people and ideas in decisive ways:
(a) the functioning of international scholarly institutions, (b) the transnational mobility of schol-
ars, and (c) the politics of transnational exchange of nonacademic institutions. In the following
we briefly examine and illustrate each one of these.
INTELLECTUAL MIGRATION
Different patterns of migration have shaped the development of a transnational space for
the social sciences. Leaving temporary migration aside (student exchanges, research mis-
sions, fieldwork, travel, short visits), long-term migration for academic purposes or with the
intention of a more or less permanent settlement abroad has basically taken two forms: vol-
untary migration of resourceful individuals who seek integration in the social science com-
munity of a prestigious center or who want to develop international research networks, and
forced migration of individuals or specific groups. Although the distinction is far from clear-
cut, and does not imply that the former is merely a matter of individual choice and the latter
one of structural constraint, it is useful to distinguish between the two, in particular to account
for the consequences of the massive persecutions in the twentieth century.
Voluntary migration of scientists has always existed throughout the history of science. But
after the turn of the twentieth century such individual displacements became slowly triggered
and partly institutionalized by way of signed agreements between academic institutions. In
1905, for instance, Harvard University, Columbia University, and Berlin University decided to
exchange some of their professors for a year. The University of Paris imitated its German coun-
terpart only four years later (Charle in Charle et al., 2004). Whether American philanthropies
like the Rockefeller Foundation or cultural institutes, the institutions comprising an emerging
national apparatus of cultural diplomacy (e. g., the French Alliances françaises, the British
Council, the German Goethe Institute, etc.) have also fostered displacements of professors
and researchers, first between Europe and the United States, and between all continents after
World War II. There were 384 Rockefeller fellows in the social sciences between 1925 and
1941 (25 percent of all the Foundation’s fellows in the sciences), a third of which eventually
lived in a country of residence different from their country of origin by 1950 (Fleck, 2007;
Rockefeller Foundation, 1951). Most of them had been selected primarily in England, France,
and Germany, the United States being the first-ranking country of residence.
Besides visiting professorships and fellowships, research missions have also brought
social scientists abroad. Among them, anthropologists and archeologists from European coun-
tries have been the first to rely on national networks of scientific institutes for their fieldwork.
Some of these research institutions had been created as early as the mid-nineteenth century
and were located in Greece, Italy, the Middle and Far East, and in most of the colonies of each
nation’s empire (Charle, 1996). Visiting professorships and research missions have since
largely developed, especially after 1945. Social scientists took part in them as their disciplines
became institutionalized in universities at the national level. Although they participate in the
making of transnational scientific fields, visiting or migrating professors and researchers are
not necessarily willing or able to settle abroad permanently. Thus, two distinct social roles
have tended to predominate among them: migrating scholars have behaved either as “ambas-
sadors” representing national interests or as “specialists” building or consolidating a transna-
tional space for scientific exchanges (Charle, 1994).
In each discipline of the social sciences, the structure of institutionalized scientific
migrations tends to reflect the hierarchy of the world-system for that particular discipline or
its linguistic or regional subsystems. The transnational flows can take two directions. Social
scientists may migrate from academic centers to a periphery to teach, export their skills, or
do research. Franz Boas, who left Germany for the United States in 1899, contributed to cre-
ating the first institutions of anthropological research in Mexico in 1910. French social sci-
entists such as psychologist Georges Dumas, anthropologists Claude Lévi-Strauss and Roger
Bastide, and historian Fernand Braudel had a strong impact on the development of the social
sciences in Brazil through their positions at the University of Sao Paolo during the interwar
years. The same can be said of French professorships at the University of Algiers. In the
opposite direction, talented young scholars leave a peripheral position for the academic cen-
ters in order to get trained or to work with the most eminent scholars. Vienna and Prague
around 1900 (Pollak, 1992), Berlin and Heidelberg until 1933, and Paris until 1940 have
been such centers for social scientists. Oxford and Cambridge, London, along with the most
prestigious universities of the United States (Berkeley, Chicago, Columbia, Harvard, Yale,
etc.) probably still are. The anthropologist, Bronislaw Malinowski left Poland for London in
1910 and in 1938 left the London School of Economics for Yale University. Many young
American and European psychologists visited Janet or Charcot in Paris at the end of the
nineteenth century or Freud in Vienna. Imperial and colonial political structures also pro-
vided a dissymmetrical framework for voluntary migrations of social scientists, as shown in
the case of Orientalist scholars and Algerian anthropologists being trained in Paris after 1945
(Brisson, 2004) or in the case of the Habsburg Empire. Some centers attract scholars on a
regional basis, as is often the case with the most prestigious South African, Indian, Japanese,
and Mexican universities today.
The hierarchy of academic centers and national traditions is not the only factor account-
ing for the direction of transnational scientific migrations in the social sciences. Most of the
scientific migration flows from Europe to America derive from the fact that the United
States has been relatively open to productive foreign social scientists throughout the century,
especially when European or non-Western universities were going through financial or em-
ployment shortages, or when they still rejected some of the new disciplines. The word “brain
drain” was coined in the early 1960s in Great Britain to describe the rapidly increasing num-
bers of scientists emigrating from Europe and even more so from Third World or “emerging”
countries to the United States (Adams, 1968). It is estimated that around one million stu-
dents and scholars have moved from these countries to the Western centers over the past 40
years (Kallen, 1994). Such a massive migration has reinforced the hegemony of American
universities and research centers in the social sciences. However, the concentration of scien-
tific resources and talented individuals is not the only by-product of voluntary scientific
migration. When that migration is not permanent, temporary scientific socialization in one of
the world-centers of a discipline may also contribute to the construction or reinforcement
of national scholarship in one’s country of origin. Florian Znaniecki was one of the pioneers of
academic sociology in the United States, but also one of the founders of sociology in his
home country of Poland.
changed in the postwar era. No longer confining peripheral countries to a subordinate posi-
tion, the “behavioral” sciences and their emphasis on societal modernization seemingly sug-
gested that they could also catch up with a global modernity. As a result, modernization
theory provided an attractive language for relating the social sciences to autonomous national
development, social progress, and democracy. The Americanization of some core disciplines,
such as political science and sociology, was often equated with the scientific emancipation
from the former colonial power, and the construction of public research universities as sym-
bols and actors of national development by newly independent states facilitated the diffusion
of research agendas and methods influences by modernization theory. This process was am-
biguous, as the image of the scientific method encapsulated in behavioralism and the highly
stylized sequence of societal development contained in modernization theory contributed to
hiding the fact that it found its ideological roots in the Anglo-American experience of socie-
tal development. Moreover, the rise of such subfields as “area studies” was inseparable from
American geopolitical concerns in the context of the Cold War (Simpson, 1998). The behav-
ioral sciences also had a built-in international dimension to the extent that their ahistorical
approach to social phenomena called for the neutralization of cultural contexts through wide-
scale comparisons (National Academy of Sciences, Social Science Research Council, 1969).
They also provided a conduit for a technocratic ethos suiting modernizing national elites
in the periphery. As a result, modernization theory accommodated many political constraints
of the time: it studied social change but placed the emphasis on overall stability; contributed
to exporting the Western sequence of societal development, projected as a universal process
of “modernization”; and sought to recast modern Western society as a post-ideological social
order (Latham, 1998; Gilman, 2003).
These continued relations of dependency also implied that scientific relations between
peripheral countries were mediated by the metropolitan center, where scientific standards were
established and where most transversal scientific socialization took place. By contrast, the
organization of the social sciences on a regional basis was often seen as a strategy for greater
autonomy—and it is certainly no coincidence that the more vigorous critique of economic but
also scientific dependency came from Latin America, where such organizations as the Latin
American Social Science Council (CLACSO) (1967) or the Latin American Social Science
Faculty (FLACSO) (1958) ensured a strong level of regional scientific integration.
International scientific organizations such as UNESCO paradoxically acted as conduits for this
expansion but also, subsequently, as reflexive and critical forums denouncing the “relationship of
dependency” in the diffusion of social scientific knowledge and calling for “indigenization”
of research and the development of autonomous regional cooperation (UNESCO, 1976).
If the international development of the social sciences was in large part determined by
state policies and international politics, the role of private institutions and in particular of
philanthropic foundations deserves a special mention. Because they emerged within an ideo-
logical constellation where a paternalistic concern for social welfare and a strong belief in
modern science met a pacifist discourse inextricably intertwined with mercantile imperialist
designs (Berman, 1983), the early foundations such as the Rockefeller Foundation or the
Carnegie Corporation were major forces in the transnationalization of the social sciences.
While building the infrastructures of a modern social scientific establishment at home, such
as the Social Science Research Council in 1923 (Fisher, 1983), the foundations also sought to
build international networks of scholars. Just as the nascent sciences of society were supposed
to ease domestic social conflict, their internationalization was supposed to foster understand-
ing and dialogue among the nations. Cooperation on the pressing issues of the day was expected
to defuse international tensions by working toward the scientific understanding of their causes.
CONCLUSION
Although this historical landscape remains necessarily sketchy given the scope of this
paper, it nevertheless sheds some light on the current state of the social sciences and allows
for some tentative conclusions. Compared to the humanities and other disciplines wedded to
their linguistic background, the development of the social sciences may well appear to be a
transnational project in its own right. It has nevertheless remained the product of national ef-
forts and styles of research for the major part of the last two centuries. After 1945, and more
so from the 1960s onward, worldwide international exchanges became increasingly institu-
tionalized. But transnational disciplinary spaces of exchanges remain fragile. They show a
highly dissymmetrical structure, where Western countries, among them the United States in
the first place, hold a hegemonic position. This structure has not only determined the patterns
of diffusion of the social sciences but also their very content and their fields of application,
as they often supported the administrative and policy apparatus that maintained this asym-
metric world order (Fourcade, 2006). Yet, for the same reason, the critique of social scientific
knowledge has concentrated on issues of centrality and periphery. In the last forty years, a
radical and politicized critique has turned again to philosophy and the humanities in order to
question the dominant epistemology and the universalist underpinnings of the social sciences
(Wallerstein, 1999). Arguably, this critique has not exhausted its effects and may change the
future borders of the disciplines as well as their geographical contours. But it is already clear
that the social sciences cannot proceed without assimilating this critique and adopting a more
reflexive stance. The debate around “cosmopolitanism” that flourished in the 1990s and the
sociological critique of “methodological nationalism” (Beck & Sznaider, 2006) seems in
many ways to be a first result, within the social sciences, of this critique. The risk, obviously,
is that this newly professed cosmopolitanism amounts to a mere restatement, in universalistic
terms, of the specific interests of a socially privileged academic aristocracy (Calhoun, 2002).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Some of the arguments developed in this article have also been presented in Johan Heilbron,
Nicolas Guilhot, Laurent Jeanpierre, Social Science. In A. Iriye & P.-Y. Saunier (Eds.), The
Palgrave Dictionary of Transnational History. London: Palgrave Macmillan (in press).
REFERENCES
Adams, Walter. (1968). The brain drain. New York: Macmillan.
Adcock, R., Bevir, M., & Stimson, S. C. (Eds.). (2007). Modern political science: Anglo-American exchanges since
1880. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Alatas, S. F. (2003). Academic dependency and the global division of labour in the social sciences. Current
Sociology, 51, 599–613.
Alger, C. F., & Lyons, G. M. (1974). Social science as a transnational system. International Social Science Journal,
26, 137–149.
Asad, T. (1973). Anthropology and the colonial encounter. New York: Humanity Books.
Ash, M. G. & Söllner, A. (Eds.). (1996). Forced migration and scientific shange: Émigré German-speaking scientists
and scholars after 1933. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Atal, Y. (1995). Arrival and departures: The case of political science in Asia. In D. Easton, J. G. Gunnell & M. B.
Stein (Eds.), Regime and discipline: Democracy and the development of political science. Ann Arbor: The
University of Michigan Press.
Bailyn, B., & Fleming, D. (1969). The intellectual migration: Europe and America, 1930–1960. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard/Belknap Press.
Baker, F. W. G. (1992). Forty years history of the international social science council: The evolution of the social sci-
ences. Paris: ISSC.
Beck, U., & Sznaider, N. (2006). Unpacking cosmopolitanism for the social sciences: A research agenda. British
Journal of Sociology, 57, 1–23.
Bentwich, N. (1953). The rescue and achievement of refugee scholars: The story of displaced scholars and scientists,
1933–1952. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Berman, E. (1983). The ideology of philanthropy: The influence of Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller Foundations on
American foreign policy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Brisson, T. (2004). Une migration intellectuelle post-coloniale et son impact scientifique. Les intellectuals arabes
face à la redefinition des savoirs sur le monde arabe (milieu des années 1950-fin des années 1970). PhD
Dissertation: Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin en Yvelines.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Epilogue: On the possibility of a field of world sociology. In P. Bourdieu & J. Coleman (Eds.),
Social theory for a changing society. Boulder: Westview Press/New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Bourdieu, P. (2002). Les conditions sociales de la circulation internationale des idées. Actes de la recherche en sci-
ences sociales, 145, 3–8.
Brian, E. (2002). Transactions statistiques au XIXe siècle. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 145, 34–46.
Calhoun, C. (2002). The class consciousness of frequent travelers: Toward a critique of actually existing cosmopoli-
tanism. South Atlantic Quarterly, 101, 869–897.
Carver, E. (1991). Gösta Bagge, the Rockefeller Foundation and empirical social science research in Sweden,
1924–1940. In Lars Jonung (Ed.), The Stockholm School of Economics revisited (pp. 79–97). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Charle, C. (1994). Ambassadeurs ou chercheurs, Les relations internationales des professeurs de la Sorbonne sous la
IIIème République. Genèses, 14, 42–62.
Charle, C. (1996). Les intellectuels en Europe au XIXème siècle, Essai d’histoire comparée. Paris: Le Seuil.
Charle, C., Schriewer, J., & Wagner, P. (Eds.). (2004). Transnational intellectual networks. Forms of academic knowl-
edge and the search for cultural identities. Berlin: Campus.
Coakley, J., & Trent, J. (2000). History of the International Political Science Association. Dublin: IPSA.
Moscovici, S. & Marková, I. (2006). The making of modern social psychology. The hidden story of how an interna-
tional social science was created. Cambridge: Polity Press.
National Academy of Sciences, Social Science Research Council. (1969). The behavioral and social sciences:
Outlook and needs. Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ninkovitch, F. (1981). The diplomacy of ideas: U.S. foreign policy and cultural relations, 1938–1950. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Patterson, T. C. (2001). A social history of anthropology in the United States. Oxford: Berg.
Platt, J. (1998). A brief history of the International Sociological Association. Madrid: International Sociological
Association.
Pollak, M. (1976). La planification des sciences sociales. Actes de la recherché en sciences sociales, 2/3, 105–121.
Pollak, M. (1979). Paul F. Lazarsfeld—fondateur d’une multinationale scientifique. Actes de la recherche en sciences
sociales, 25, 45–59.
Pollak, M. (1992). Vienne 1900: Une identité blessée. Paris: Gallimard.
Porter, T. M., & Ross, D. (Eds.). (2003). The modern social sciences. The Cambridge history of science (Vol. 7).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rasmussen, A. (1995). L’internationale scientifique (1890–1914). Thèse de doctorat (2 volumes). Paris: Ecole des
Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales.
Renoliet, J. J. (2001). L’UNESCO oubliée. La Société des Nations et la coopération intellectuelle (1919–1946). Paris:
Publications de la Sorbonne.
Rivas, D. (2002). Missionary capitalist: Nelson Rockefeller in Venezuela. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Rockefeller Foundation. (1951). Directory of fellowship awards for the years 1917–1950. New York: Rockefeller
Foundation.
Ross, D. (1991). The origins of American social science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rueschemeyer, D., & Skocpol, T. (Eds.). (1996). States, social knowledge, and the origins of modern social policies.
Princeton: Princeton University Press/New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Vintage.
Schaefer, A. (2000). American progressives and German social reform, 1875–1920: Social ethics, moral control, and
the regulatory state in a transatlantic context. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Schaeper, T. J., & Schaeper, K. (1998). Cowboys into gentlemen: Rhodes scholars, Oxford, and the creation of an
American elite. Oxford: Berghahn.
Schroeder-Gudehus, B. (1978). Les Scientifiques et la Paix. La communauté scientifique internationale au cours des
années 20. Montréa: Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal.
Schuerkens, U. (1996). Les congrès de l’Institut International de sociologie de 1894–1937 et l’internationalisation de
la sociologie. Revue internationale de sociologie, 6, 7–24.
Simpson, C. (Ed.). (1998). Universities and empire: Money and politics in the social sciences during the Cold War.
New York: Free Press.
Srubar, I. (1988). Exil, Wissenschaft, Identität. Die Emigration deutscher Sozialwissenschaftler 1933–1945,
Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Staley, D. J. (1995). The Rockefeller Foundation and the patronage of German sociology, 1945–1955. Minerva, 33,
251–264.
Staum, M. (1996). Minerva’s message: Stabilizing the French Revolution. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Sussman, L. R. (1992). The culture of freedom: The small world of Fulbright scholars. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Timms, E., & Hughes, J. (Eds.). (2003). Intellectual migration and cultural transformation: Refugees from national
socialism in the English-speaking world. Wien: Springer.
Tiryakian, E. (1966). A problem for the sociology of knowledge: The mutual unawareness of Emile Durkheim and
Max Weber. Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 7, 330–336.
Trent, J. E. (1982). Institutional Development. In W. G. Andrews (Ed.), International handbook of political science
(pp. 34–46). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Trindade, H. (Ed.). (2005). Social sciences in Latin America (1930–2003). Information sur les sciences sociales, 44,
219–593.
UNESCO. (1976). Inter-regional co-operation in the social sciences. Paris: Unesco.
Wagner, P., Weiss, C., Wittrock, B., & Wollmann, H. (Eds.). (1991). Social sciences and modern states: National
experiences and theoretical crossroads. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wagner, P., Wittrock, B., & Whitley, R. (Eds.). (1991). Discourses on society: The shaping of the social science
disciplines. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Wagner, P. (1999). The twentieth century—the century of the social sciences? In A. Kazancigil & D. Makinson
(Eds.), World social science report (pp. 16–41). Paris: Unesco/Elsevier.
Wallerstein, I., et al. (1996). Open the social sciences: Report of the Gulbenkian Commission on the restructuring of
the social sciences. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Wallerstein, I. (1974–1989). The modern world system. New York: The Academic Press.
Wallerstein, I. (1997). The unintended consequences of Cold War area studies. In N. Chomsky, et al. The Cold War
and the university: Toward an intellectual history of the postwar years (pp. 195–231). New York: New Press.
Wallerstein, I. (1999). Social sciences in the twenty-first century. In A. Kazancigil & D. Makinson (Eds.), World social
science report (pp. 42–49). Paris: Unesco/Elsevier.