Abstract
I consider this chapter the linchpin that connects the chapters around the theme of science and democracy. I begin with a look at the rise and dominance of the Neoliberal Thought Collective and how this collective has destroyed democracies in the United States in particular. I rely on the work of Philip Mirowski and Wendy Brown in this section. This I discuss the tradition of distrusting and public involvement in science and the creation of the myth that science is inherently democratic and people need not get involved. I include of critique of Friedrich Hayek, Michael Polyani, and Thomas Kuhn’s work from the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s in which they rationalize the separation of science from democratic, public institutions and suggest the republic of science is merely for scientists. I also note how recent thought, especially the work of Helga Nowotny, in some ways accepts this argument developed by Hayek, Polyani, and Kuhn. I think move into a discussion of Harry Collins and Robert Evans’ work on expertise and how their model can promote more public involvement in science matters.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Barron, C. (Ed.). (2003). A strong distinction between humans and non-humans is no longer required for research purposes: A debate between Bruno Latour and Steve Fuller. History of the Human Sciences, 16(2), 77–99.
Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism’s stealth revolution. Cambridge, MA: Zone Books.
Collins, H. (2014). Are we all scientific experts now? Cambridge: Polity (F. Bradley & T. Trenn, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago.
Collins, H., & Evans, R. (2002). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 235–296.
Derrida, J. (2004). The principle of reason: The university in the eyes of its pupils. In J. Derrida (Ed.), Eyes of the university: Right to philosophy (Vol. 2, pp. 129–155). Chicago: The University of Chicago.
Fleck, L. (1935/1975). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
Fleck, L. (1939/1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact.
Hands, D. W. (2001). Reflection without rules: Economic methodology and contemporary science theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Harrison, R. (2014). Juvenescence: A cultural history of our age. Chicago: The University of Chicago.
Hayek, F. (1948/1980). The use of knowledge in society. In F. Hayek (Ed.), Individualism and economic order (pp. 77–91). Chicago: The University of Chicago.
Husserl, E. (1954/1970). The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Iliffe, R. (2003). Butter for parsnips: Authorship, audience, and the incomprehensibility of the Principia. In M. Biagioli & P. Galison (Eds.), Scientific authorship: Credit and intellectual property in science (pp. 33–65). New York: Routledge.
Kant, I. (1979). The conflict of the faculties. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Latour, B. (2004). Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Mirowski, P. (2011). Science mart: Privatizing American science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mirowski, P. (2013). Never let a serious crisis go to waste: How neoliberalism survived the financial meltdown. London: Verso.
Nowotny, Helga. (2010), The changing nature of public science, Helga Nowotny, Domnique Pestre, Eberhard Schmidt-Assman, Helmuth Schulze-Fielitz, Hans-Heinrich Trute, The public nature of science under assault: Politics, markets, science, and the law, 1–27. Berlin: Springer.
Pestre, D. (2010). The technosciences between markets, social worries, and the political: How to imagine a better future. In H. Nowotny, D. Pestre, E. Schmidt-Assman, H. Schulze-Fielitz, & H.-H. Trute (Eds.), The public nature of science under assault: Politics, markets, science and the law (pp. 29–52). Berlin: Springer.
Pestre, D. (2012). Concluding remarks. Debates in transnational and science studies: a defense and illustration of the virtues of intellectual tolerance. British Society for the History of Science, 45(3), 425–442.
Pignarre, P., & Stengers, I. (2011). Capitalist sorcery: Breaking the spell. New York: Palgrave.
Plehwe, D. (2009). Introduction. In P. Mirowski & D. Plehwe (Eds.), The road from Mont Pèlerin: The making of the neoliberal thought collective (pp. 1–42). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Polanyi, M. (1969/2002). The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. In P. Mirowski, & E.-M. Sent (Eds.), Science bought and sold: Essays in the economics of science (pp. 465–485). Chicago: The University of Chicago.
Proctor, R. (2008). A missing term to describe the cultural production of ignorance (and its study). In R. Proctor & L. Schiebinger (Eds.), Agnotology: The making & unmaking of ignorance (pp. 1–33). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Schelling, F. (1802/1966). On university studies (E. S. Morgan, Trans.). Athens: Ohio University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Weaver, J.A. (2018). The Economics of Science, Neoliberal Thought, and the Loss of Democracy. In: Science, Democracy, and Curriculum Studies. Critical Studies of Education, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93840-0_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93840-0_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-93839-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-93840-0
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)