Abstract: As it was the case with many European countries, the Romanian intellectuals were trained in Western universities from where they imported back home the knowledge and cultures acquired while studying. Although such transfers followed the most general features of Basalla’s three-stage model of the spread of science, the Romanian case proves the rather challenging undertaking such process actually represented. Against the backdrop of constant negotiations, this article aims to disclose the particulars of those transfers to the Romanian Principalities both as theoretical and practical.
Keywords: theoretical knowledge, practical knowledge, negotiation.
Introduction
Both the Romanian Principalities and the state of Romania after the successive territorial unifications from 1859 and 1918 (and even after its accession to the European Union in 2007) have had a long history of identity building, based on the wilful or forced incorporation of Western or Eastern models. Such incorporations touch upon all aspects of life – ranging from lifestyles and standards of living to political, economic and scientific developments. Yet, it goes without saying that such processes hardly went smoothly, every step of such incorporation facing various degrees of opposition spanning from both the ethnic (and later on, national) centripetal understanding of life development, and centrifugal attitudes towards the allogenous direct or induced trajectories.
As a result, the direct or mediated contact with foreign models and, subsequently, the transfer of science and knowledge, particularly from Western cultures, faced uneven positions in a territory characterised as
“not placing itself at the top of world hierarchies”1 before the dawn of the 19th century, and rather followed its own, specific pace of development. In fact, even the voices from the period acknowledged the lag between the Romanian territories and the rest of Europe. As Cezar Bolliac stated,2 being between the East and the West, the Wallachian territory is shaped by “Oriental feeling and Occidental aspirations”, but still remained as a single holder of Medieval forms of living among the Christian European states.
Murgescu3 tries to further explain the discontinuity which is related to the willingness to accommodate Westernness by strictly connecting it to age. The younger the people, the higher the chances to be more open to the cultural and scientific transfer. As a result, the modern period of the Romanian territories4 provides an opportunity for discussing the topic of the transfer of Western knowledge, the main agent of which were almost exclusively young people who had studied abroad. This approach should not be understood as a clear distinction between two groups of people taking opposite side when it comes to the incorporation of Westernness in the native culture. Since the travelling habits extend beyond age, both old and young are exposed to elements of Westernness. If for the older generation Westernness was imported more as a lifestyle, for young ones, who had access to the Western education, such imports meant not only the betterment of living conditions, but also the import of science and knowledge and their adaptation to the local realities.
This article will focus on the import of Western scientific knowledge in the 19th century, corresponding to Basalla’s (1967) “colonial” phase and less of the achievements made through the use of such transferred
knowledge. This approach draws extensively on Basalla’s evolutionary model, since the selection of literature placed under scrutiny here fosters to a great extent a linear development of early transfers of knowledge in modern Romanian territories. It is undoubtedly a selective approach (i.e. transfers of scientific and economic knowledge, and applied science and economy) triggered mainly by the need to see how and to what extent Basalla’s model is illustrative for the Romanian colonisation in the fields of science and knowledge.
In order to test this theory, this analysis will examine the tendency to synchronize with the Western knowledge not only in terms of theoretical advancements in physics, chemistry or economy, but rather how such knowledge had been required and incorporated by a society which appeared to orbit around past-oriented systems of administration orthodoxies. Furthermore, such imports may or may not be successful undertakings due to various reasons, ranging from the perceived lack of adaptation to the local realities or the rejection due to political agendas of influential local personalities. Seen this way, the reality of knowledge transfer and incorporation is arguably not a mere process of “translating” innovative thought, but rather a more intricate course of “translation and adoption” of advanced scientific knowledge, following more a model proposed by Raina.5
The sources informing this chapter consist of the knowledge popularization articles, which were hosted by the most important newspapers of the era, and belong to the intellectual elite which had access to Western science and knowledge through direct contact – e.g. through studies in France, Germany or Austria. The findings of this chapter will be based on an analysis of discourses on the transfer of knowledge, and the unique case of the materialisation of the utopian socialist ideology in the one year attempt to create and exploit a phalanstery, shaped according to the Fourier doctrine.
The greatest advantage of resorting to knowledge popularization texts is their rhetorical construction.
Employing such discourse strategies “humanizes” the somehow arid talk about knowledge by a set of strategies which were intended to justify the need to bring the European present time developments to the Romanian territories. The discourses analysed here are mainly based on three pillars: “the local context”, the description of which leads to the need of transformational undertakings, “the foreign context”, which stands as proof of a successful and tested model of advancement of knowledge and its incorporation in everyday socio-economic realities and, finally, “the knowledge transferred”, as potential power to change for the better the harsh realities form the Principalities.
The spread of Western science
George Basalla’s diffusionist, three-stage model of the spread of science is centred upon “repeated patterns of events”,6 in which a handful of Western European countries at the peak of scientific development -Italy, France, England, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, and the Scandinavian countries- came to become the beacon flashing into the darkness of scientific knowledge, in which the rest of the world apparently remained. Not only did these few countries possess a wealth of scientific knowledge, but they also magnetically attracted those wanting to professionalise and who, in their turn, took knowledge beyond the outer fringes of this cradle of science colonising the home territories. Such contagion followed three distinct stages: the first, “the non-scientific phase”, which does not testify for the absence of any knowledge what so ever but as certains the lack of Western knowledge present in the territory; the second, the
“colonial” phase which is at the height of transfer since it represents the moment when the actual dissemination takes place and, the last, the “independent” phase in which the transplanted knowledge takes roots in the form of the establishment of a derived local scientific tradition.
Basalla’s model might hold a certain degree of adequacy not as a whole, but rather with regard to its individual levels of stages, which lead to various degrees of contestation. For instance, the extensive use of
terms like ethno-science by Cobern and Loving7 ascertains the existence of “local” scientific traditions which oppose to “Eurocentric” ones. This is not the case of a bundle of scattered knowledge, but a system of integrated understandings of natural reality. If seen this way, the future scientific colony comes as an overlaying stage onto the already existing one.
This model on the other hand implies a valorisation which Michael Adas8 considers unnatural, but rather stemming from the perception on the analysed object. Since the 19th century is the time of machine supremacy in the industrial era, enabling control over nature -namely understanding its functioning- Adas posits it is only obvious that the western scientist’s “modes of thought and social organisation corresponded much more closely to underlying realities of the universe than did those of any other people or society, past or present”.9
Furthermore, Dhruv Raina (1999) for instance imputes Basalla the lack of perspective mainly in the use of the spread which eliminated the possibility of “hybridization”10 challenging this way the characterisation made by Basalla, for whom the success of the independent stage is based on the elimination of all native opposition. As Raina goes on, Basalla’s approach fails consider other determinant features of which understanding the meaning of science in different cultures is of paramount importance.
Finally, a great deal of arguments dismissing the Basalla model draw extensively on the external factor of the political influence on the “spread” of science (Adas, Raina, Anderson).11 Such a factor carries a lot of weight in the spread of science in the sense that it challenges the reasons and principles of naturalisation of science as seen by Basalla. Not being aware of any studies putting Basalla’s model to test for the Romanian reality of science imports, the following discussion will not try to further consolidate or dismiss his approach, but rather to see which features of the diffusionist model may apply to the model of the Romanian realities.
The transfer of knowledge in the field of science
The increasing number of young Romanians from all the Principalities studying in Western European countries contrasted sharply with the poor state of the general formal education within the home territories. Alex Drace-Francis12 presented, based on actual figures dating back to those times, the almost inexistent logistical framework to ensure a proper education for the masses, a feature notable both in Moldova and Wallachia. Against this backdrop of almost inexistent infrastructure, future personalities from both Principalities who received high education in Western universities and returned home offered not only the possibility of naturalising the acquired knowledge, but, additionally, endorsed the prospects of incorporating the European models in the institutions of their home territories in terms of functionality.
Ion Ghica (1816-1896), trained in Paris, and acting as prime-minister in several cabinets, offers one of the many examples of an extreme opening to the synchronisation with the Western scientific values. In his 1844 article “A gaze on sciences”, Ghica examines the efforts made in the field of education, but notices both the obsolete and discontinuous teaching practices. He also considers that what had been disseminated here as scientific knowledge resembles more to an accumulation of snippets of information, collected randomly from various fields of positive sciences and significantly fails to offer a wider, integrated picture of the interconnections between the phenomena and the tools to asses, describe and employ them. As a direct result, he stated, the “darkness” of the Middle Ages was still lingering over the Romanian territories, which only then started the struggle to detach from ignorance. For Ghica, not even the great accomplishments of Enlightenment could still prove useful, since the understanding of the reality they covered have altered so dramatically that Diderot’s Encyclopaedia failed to constitute a landmark in the field of knowledge: “the water and air decomposed by Lavoisier are no longer the water and air form the Encyclopaedia, and Fresnel’s sun does not light the world with the same light refracting through Newton’s
prism”.13 In a similar vein, in terms of incorporating the new face of scientific approaches to the natural phenomena, Ghica also factored in the multiplication of science fields, the spreading of a formerly compact field into new and complementary ones as the discoveries may require, i.e. the case with natural history developing branches like zoology, botany and mineralogy or, conversely, the joining of formerly independent fields into new ones, e.g. mechanics is made of a combination between physics and algebra.
But what is really intriguing is that Ghica also brings forth, surprisingly to a certain extent, a religious dimension in the natural course of science in a rhetoric of combining the advances of science and God’s involvement. Stating the primacy of theological rules over the juridical regulation of a society, Ghica went on to claim firstly that the great minds of science achieve results simply because of God’s will and, secondly, that their scientific discoveries have but one purpose, namely to restate the greatness of God’s acts: “no one sees better the greatness of God’s acts except those who are involved in discoveries”.14
It is not even remotely clear whether Ghica really believed that the scientific discoveries are tools in fortifying the existence of a great Creator or whether he employed this discursive approach just in order to collineate with the “strongly religious” Romanian society; or the idea that God represents the means to discover the world and “resort to science” is needed to discover this same world. But it is equally irrelevant why he chose this approach to build his text on popularising the Western science as long as it might have been proven to be a successful undertaking. What is left behind the discourse strategies is an advocating account in favour of incorporating the advances of science into the timely upbringing of the Romanian society by means of transfer of knowledge.
Shaped by such allegorical rhetoric, Ghica’s text is mainly composed of general commentaries on the development of Western science although he acknowledges transfers from theoretical to knowledge to their practical incorporation. Resorting to the example of the use of steam and Watt’s engine, Ghica anticipates the increasingly changing face of transport and industry which, as a result of its incorporation in national development, might prove to be a successful undertaking for the Romanian territories, too.
Other voices, on the other hand, attach more emphasis on the transfer of knowledge in practical fields than the arid theoretical imports. This is Ion Ionescu de la Brad’s (1818-1891) case, who, trained as an agronomist in France, offers one of the best examples in the field of applied chemistry. The knowledge gained in Western Europe, put to the test during a period when he was an exile in the Ottoman Empire, postulated the principles of applied science in the field of agriculture. Basically, this transfer of knowledge is determined by at least three sets of distinct arguments, two of which are imported as foreign models while the last is offered by the local economic context. The first two reasons were given to Ionescu de la Brad by the advances made in the use of scientific developments in practical everyday economic life, offering as undeniable proof the work of the German chemist Justus von Liebig and his research on plant nutrients and trace elements. Secondly, although not getting into direct contact with him, since Ionescu de la Brad’s degree was awarded by a French institution, the contact with his work had taken place indirectly by the successful attempts of the French, German and English farmers already employing the research made by von Liebig. And finally, the third argument is provided by the local, almost exclusively agrarian economy, which could benefit extensively from the use of such discoveries. His conclusion in terms of synchronisation with the Western world narrows down the extraction of “from science the uses for practicing agriculture, particularly in accordance to the importance which this field holds for us”.15
So, basically, the structural organisation of the local economy, as rudimentary as it was, offered an additional reason for supporting the need to transfer applied science knowledge. The actual economic profile of the Romanian territories needed to be further analyzed so that the urge to import practical knowledge must be clearly integrated into a wider, more coherent and more practically visible frame rendering such imports meaningful to local realities. De la Brad resorts to such depictions in such a way as to consider the local economy as a part of the well-oiled machine of a wider European supply chain, rather than an individual player in a self-sustained, autarchic local economy.
The arguments on which he built his theory of development came from the betterment of the agrarian economy, particularly of the flax crops. Against the profile of a competitive textile manufacturing market shaped as competition between England and the joint efforts of France and Germany, an important role is envisaged around the raw material suppliers which, in de la Brad’s opinion, opened unprecedented opportunities for the Romanian agriculture. De la Brad stated: “[o]ur flax will be sought by the German, the French and the other nations forming a coalition against England and equally by England, since the fight among these nations is determined by the flax manufacturing industry and the battle will be won over by the party getting the most out of agriculture in terms of more, better, and cheaper products”.16 In other words, combining the position held in both texts, the transfer of knowledge, either theoretical or practical, must be done following a very clear strategy stemming not only from a mere need to align with the West, and in addition from the need to become a part of a system to which, at least geographically, the Romanian territories belong.
With a sharp and honest gaze at the local realities, de la Brad further proves that the selection of certain knowledge imports could compensate for the lack of development in other fields, but such discrepancies on the other hand may prove beneficial from a social point of view. Instead of supporting an indiscriminate incorporation of innovation, de la Brad saw in the lack of flax manufactory industry a potential for the field of raw material and a rescue for the manual labour in front of the threats posed by the large-scale use of machines. The competition from manufactory flax industry, the privileged position in the supply chain agriculture might hold, and the shelter against the machine induced threats against workers – were all reasons to advocate in favour of a measured nationalisation of foreign knowledge.
The transfer of knowledge in the field of economy and social change
As seen so far, the transfer of scientific knowledge happened either as a result of a need to compensate for the outdatedness of education formulas, or to consolidate a certain integrational position of systemic value within the envisaged chain of European economies. But a central focus of the position to synchronise with the Western values was the principle of economic development, which eventually led to struggles to incorporate both theoretical and practical thinking.
At a wider perspective the main tendencies defining the need to (re)develop the Principalities follow the same patterns of comparison, contextualization and adaptation. In the inaugural lecture for the course on political economy with the Academy form Iași (the Principality of Moldovia) in 1843, Ghica used the formula of acknowledging the power of transformation the economy possesses when it comes to changing the destiny of a country. The key factors leading to the economic and social transformation are, as far as Ghica saw them, industry and political unification which, when combined, lead to the increasing power of a nation state. His first example is Germany in the case of which the political will of the rulers and the previous treaties faded against the unification powers of industrial development which, as Ghica went on, opened the path for an additional and natural unification under the same legal and momentary systems, as it should be in the case of people speaking the same language.
The case of England further proves the edge offered by an economy incorporating scientific innovation in the field of production. The strength of a nation which is based on strong economic17 (industrial) development surpasses other nations who may be far greater in territory and population. As a direct result of the development of the industry, England manages to rule the Indian colony simply by using a commercial system based on trading companies. In addition, the British Empire is also used as an example for transplanting knowledge to the American soil, where it used to possess 13 colonies. Unlike the Indian case, where the economic development of the British Empire proves the ability to lead, America is singled out as an example in which the transfer of knowledge enabled development. The American example is a proof of the benefits gained by such transfer not only through its development, but more significantly,