Despite having relative prominence in the early years of the emergence of professional history of science as a discipline, history of chemistry declined in prominence and has played only a small role in attempts to craft “grand narratives,” “big pictures,” or textbooks in history of modern science. This decline of chemistry can perhaps be explained by general trends in historiography, the “invisibility” of chemistry in daily life, its explicit practicality, and its perceived cosmological and ideological neutrality. Yet, history of chemistry can and should enrich and inform broader narratives in history of science. In particular, consideration of the emergence of modern chemistry can enhance and bring together different models for understanding the historical process of creating knowledge about nature, including van Lunteren’s use of the analytical balance as metaphor, Kwa’s “taxonomic” and “experimental” styles, and Pickstone’s “analytical” and “experimentalist” ways of knowing. Chang has suggested that “compositionism” could serve as an effective modification of Pickstone’s categories, and I would suggest we could further refine this to include “structuralism,” a way of thought that has dominated chemistry for over a century. Applying each of these models to chemistry supports in turn a pluralistic view of chemical thought and practice, creating a “grand narrative” for chemistry itself.
