Abstract
As a visiting fellow at the Department of Cultural Anthropology and Cultural History, at the Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, Germany (2022–2023), I had the opportunity to visit Goethe’s workplace, see his laboratory collections, botanical gardens, library collections and his house in Weimar—a beautiful medieval town where Goethe lived and worked. During my stay as a fellow, I encountered Andrea Wulf’s brilliant book, Magnificent Rebels: The First Romantics and the Invention of Self (2022) that narrates the life of thinkers, writers and philosophers who were part of the ‘Jena circle’, which included, most prominently, Goethe. I enjoyed reading the book; it discusses in detail Goethe’s life as a writer, administrator and scientist, and his enthusiasm for learning about new developments in the natural sciences and laboratory research through his young friend, Alexander von Humboldt (Wulf 2022). While reading the book, I was curious to see if the bibliography listed JPS Uberoi’s important book, The Other Mind of Europe: Goethe as a Scientist (1984). To my disappointment, I could not find any reference to the book. I loved Wulf’s book, but I also thought how useful and insightful it would have been had the author engaged with JPS’s book in her careful discussion of Goethe’s life as a scientist.
It is in this context that I want to talk about an important reference to JPS’s work by the distinguished anthropologist and STS (science and technology studies) scholar Emily Martin,
1
one of the most insightful anthropologists and observers of science and medicine of our time. In her keynote address at the 1994 meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science (4S) held in New Orleans, LA, USA, Martin spoke about the contributions of anthropologists to the field of STS. The address was later published as an essay in Science, Technology & Human Values, the society’s official journal. In this essay, ‘Anthropology and the Cultural Study of Science’ (Martin 1998), Martin referred to JPS’s work, which I found unusual, since scholars based in North American and European universities hardly discuss the work of scholars from elsewhere, especially in STS, although the scenario is now changing. Here, Martin argued that anthropology had contributed greatly in the understanding of the many cultures of science. Addressing some key concerns related to the anthropological studies of science, Martin referred to the STS scholar Sharon Traweek’s (1993) essay introducing the varied traditions of North American and European scholars who engaged with social and cultural studies of science.
2
Martin wrote:
Sharon Traweek (1993) counts scholars in at least twenty academic disciplines engaged in the study of science, medicine, and technology. To these, one would want to add the critical work of Third World scholars such as J. P. Singh Uberoi, who, in his book The Other Mind of Europe (1984), questions whether different conceptions of knowledge might have arisen from a different historical starting place, such as Paracelsus or Leibniz, rather than Newton and Copernicus. (Martin 1998: 25)
Martin’s inclusion of JPS Uberoi here can be read as both a tribute to him and as a critical comment on the existing scholarship in academic thinking or classroom teachings in North American and European settings. Her reference, though brief, is a telling reminder to the international STS community to read works by scholars who are not around them, and who are not part of their worlds.
I doubt JPS would have been happy to be called or categorised as a third world scholar, as Martin refers to him, since his own work, in many ways, challenges the categories of first world/third world when it comes to knowledge production. He was fully aware of the power dynamics and imbalances of the Western and non-Western world and showed that astutely in his essay ‘Science and Swaraj’ (1968). He wrote: ‘The problem or problems of science in a rich, technologically satiated society are different from, even opposed to, its problems in a society of poverty lately liberated from colonial bondage’ (Uberoi 1968: 119). Here JPS reminds us to think about the significance of doing sociology and anthropology of science in non-Western locations differently, keeping in mind their specific situations.
One has read many reflections, reminiscences and memories in the form of newspaper articles, social media expressions and memorial meetings after the passing away of JPS Uberoi speaking about his contribution to their academic and intellectual lives—and specifically to the field of sociology of science—mostly written by his colleagues, former students and friends based in India and abroad. It is remarkable that he started publishing on science while based in India at the same time that STS was shaping up in Europe and North America. His work continues to shine a light on the diverging paths that science assumes in practice.