Science and the Public 369The failed revolution in 1848 became the impetus for the development
of popular science in Germany, as men such as Rossmässler believed that
a democratic Germany was more likely to emerge through the impact of
popularizing activities than by political means.^93
Only in- depth comparative studies of professional and popular sci-
ence in other national contexts in this period will reveal larger patterns
of signifi cance. They will also help us to avoid the temptation of treating
the British story as paradigmatic for our understanding of science and
its contested meanings and for our analysis of the participants involved
in the contest.^94 To determine what is peculiarly British about the story
told here, future studies could explore a series of interrelated questions.
Were there equivalents to the gentlemen of science, the scientifi c natural-
ists, the North British Physicists, the popularizers, and the reading public
in other countries? If so, then did these groups relate to each other in
a similar way, raise identical issues, or command the same amount of
power? If different groups existed, what did the geography of the scientifi c
landscape look like and how did it affect the contest over the meaning of
science? Is there a satisfactory explanation for the absence of important
groups of players, if, for example, women or Christian clergymen are not
well represented among the popularizers? Were there tensions within the
group of professional scientists akin to the rivalry between the scientifi c
naturalists and North British Physicists? Did professional scientists at-
tempt to control popular science and, if so, how resistant were readers to
the authority of self- proclaimed scientifi c experts?
This analysis of the contested meanings of science in Victorian Britain
has only complicated the task of writing a history of “science.” There is
no single, univocal meaning for science in a particular space, which rules
out the possibility of locating one over time. Historians have come to be
suspicious of “essentialism”—the notion that science has an essence, that
it can be considered to be one sort of thing, unambiguously identifi able
in every historical era. It is a real inconvenience for the historian bent on
writing the defi nitive master narrative. But science is inevitably altered as
it develops within a constantly shifting set of cultural and social contexts
which subtly shape its meaning. At any one time in history, the scientifi c
world is composed of an intricate quilt pattern of local communities with
varying defi nitions of science, usually in line with their social aspirations.
The challenge is to explore the varied meanings of science in each of
the patterns, to specify them in their local settings, and to identify those
sites of contestation—scientifi c societies, journals, lecture halls, museums,
and exhibitions, to name just a few—where the seams between patterns
have become visible because they are loose, worn, or newly sewn. Made