Introduction to the Special Issue – “Scientific Biography: A Many Faced Art Form”

Journal of the History of Biology, Nov 2011

Oren Harman

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10739-011-9275-7.pdf

Introduction to the Special Issue – “Scientific Biography: A Many Faced Art Form”

OREN HARMAN 0 0 Bar Ilan University Tel Aviv Israel Biographers have many things in common. They see connections between psychology and ideas. Between personal life histories and grander historical patterns. They are respectful of origins. They value agency. They seek out personal papers and spend hours in archives. They carefully track down connections, redrawing and recreating networks of relationships to people, institutions, schemes, traditions. Most of all, they believe in the illuminating power of a life. Whether it is unusual or quotidian, unique or emblematic, a life is always illustrative of its times and therefore reflective of them, or at least - in the right hands - it can be. - But biographers, too, can be as different from each other in their motivations as the characters they seek to alight are in their lives. For some biography is an exercise in laying down precisely the facts of someones life, carving out its historical territory and thereby explaining its significance. For others it is a pursuit of a reputation, an attempt to grapple with the memory of a life more than with the life itself. Still others embark upon biography as a means by which to track the history of a particular idea, like race or democracy or altruism or the gene, the genre affording either an aesthetically pleasing or organizationally efficient, or simply an easier, way to speak about issues that are greater than just one life. Some biographers are interested in how a biography reflects on the future, others on how it illuminates the past. Some view it primarily as story telling, others as accounting, still others as a moral tool for historical retribution. Some are most interested in psychology and the inner world, others in actions, still others in the connections between the two. Some train their attention on failures, some on successes. Some direct their craft at other scholars and still others at wide audiences. Biography may be afforded a corralling and artificially unifying space in bookstores and in catalogues, but upon closer examination it proves to be a myriad of very different things. In this Special Section of Journal of the History of Biology, and in light of the recent resurgence of discussion on the general topic of biography, the pluralities of a particular kind of biography, the scientific biography, will be taxonomied and juxtaposed. Five scholars who have produced very different kinds of biographies of life scientists have been asked to consider a set of fundamental questions pertaining to their motivations and craft: Is your scientist a central and well-known player, or is he peripheral and unknown? Why did you make that choice? Is your scientist an end or a means? In what way, and why? Who is your imagined audience? Are you more interested in speaking to fellow historians, to scientists, or to intelligent lay readers? Why? How does the answer to the above question relate to your view of the nature and import of biography writing? Is there anything unique about scientific biography as opposed to general biography? Are you more concerned with history or historiography in approaching a biographical project? What are the salient differences between fiction and non-fiction when it comes to writing a gripping biography? What are the limits and boundaries between the two? How can biography be compared to other units of historical analysis, such as ideas, institutions, organisms, research programs, instruments? Is biography writing a moral exercise? If so, in what way? Is biography writing more an art or a science? How and why? The contributors all use illustrations from the lives they have studied in addressing these questions, and have each been asked to share their thought processes in the first person. While some things may unite them, it is my hope that the readers will see that each biographer has undertaken quite a different project. Interestingly, in reply to the basic question: Why are particular lives important? EDITORIAL NOTES


This is a preview of a remote PDF: http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10739-011-9275-7.pdf

Oren Harman. Introduction to the Special Issue – “Scientific Biography: A Many Faced Art Form”, Journal of the History of Biology, 2011, 607-609, DOI: 10.1007/s10739-011-9275-7