Historians of science are notoriously critical of their subjects. We despise hagiography and critique commemoration. We rightly have exposed and condemned those who have used the power of science to oppress other people. But history of science, as a discipline, is also notorious for its whiteness, both in the makeup of its practitioners and in the subjects of its analysis. The premise of this roundtable is that these things are related.
If the discipline of history of science wants to create a space at the table for people who are not white, who are not associated with elite universities, who are not necessarily straight, cis-, male, or from the United States, we need to hold open the possibility of writing histories that lift up those who have sought liberation alongside critiques of those who have conspired against it. Moreover, whiteness cannot remain the discursive lens for histories of oppression. Those from traditionally marginalized communities are entitled to frame both histories of oppression and histories of the oppressed, providing insights too often obscured by the practices of whiteness.
The participants in this roundtable embody a broad range of personal identities and professional interests, but each has, at one time or another, written an account that features someone they at least partially admired. Each panelist will reflect on the potential of less critical narratives and narratives that are critical in nontraditional ways for transforming what counts as the history of science and who counts as a historian of science.
Organized by Audra Wolfe
