Knowledge and Empire: The Social Sciences and United States Imperial Expansion
2010; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 17; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1080/10702890903458838
ISSN1547-3384
Autores Tópico(s)History of Science and Medicine
ResumoAbstract This paper focuses on the relationship between the social sciences in the U.S. and the formation of empire. I argue that the peculiar way the U.S. has established a global presence during the 20th century—by establishing a commercial empire rather than territorially-based colonies—has generated on the part of state and corporation an unusual interest in the knowledge produced by social scientists. It has also generated an unusual willingness on their part to subsidize the production of that knowledge. Not only have government and corporation considered the social sciences essential to the project of managing empire. At each major stage in the reorganization of that empire state and capital have underwritten a massive reorganization in the production of social science knowledge. Key Words: Empiresocial sciencesgeographies of knowledgeexpertisehistorical change Notes Related versions of this article were presented at "Creative Destruction: Area Knowledge and the New Geographies of Empire," City University of New York, in April 2004; "The World Looks At Us: Rethinking the US State," Arden House, New York, in October 2004; "Beyond a Boundary: Area, Ethnic/Race and Gender Studies and the 'New' Global Imperative," University of Illinois, in December 2004; and "State Power and Forms of Inequality," a panel organized for the annual meeting of the Canadian Anthropological Association, Merida, Yucatan, Mexico, in May 2005. I thank those who organized these conferences for inviting me to participate and those who attended the conferences for raising very interesting questions that forced me to refine and clarify my argument. Conversations with and/or written commentary from Peggy Barlett, Tom Biolsi, Cheryl Townsend Gilkes, John Gledhill, Zhang Hong, Constantine Hriskos, Evelyn Hu-DeHart, Bruce Knauft, William Roseberry, Parker Shipton, Gavin Smith, Ida Susser, Joan Vincent, and Harry West also proved valuable in improving the article. 1. The United States had been active in establishing spheres of influence for much of the nineteenth century—but especially from mid-century onward (LaFeber 1963 LaFeber, Walter. 1963. The New Empire. An Interpretation of American Expansion, 1860–1898, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. [Google Scholar]). The imperial vision that guided United States expansion before the 1890s is perhaps best reflected in the life and work of Willam Henry Seward, Secretary of State from 1861 to 1869 (Paolino 1973 Paolini, Ernest N. 1973. The Foundations of the American Empire, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. [Google Scholar]). Seward sought to make the United States the greatest commercial power on earth. Toward that end, he pushed for territorial consolidation of what became the continental United States, in large part to control ports on the West Coast that could act as staging points for further expansion into Asia. Seward also arranged for the purchase of Alaska and did everything in his power to construct a United States-controlled canal across the isthmus of Panama—both projects seen as crucial to establishing United States hegemony in the Pacific. He also sought to arrange for United States control of strategic islands in the Caribbean that could protect the isthmus canal and safeguard Latin American markets from European competition. Seward and other politicians of the era sought to extend United States influence in Hawaii and the Philippines, forced Japan to open its doors to United States commerce (in 1854), and tried to remain on an equal footing with the European powers in China. Much of what Seward envisioned did not become a reality until the 1890s and after. 2. During the post 9/11 era a new geography of enquiry is taking shape in the social sciences. Although it is still too early to characterize this new geographic framing in any definitive way, it clearly includes a process of re-territorialization that is replacing the "borderless" 1990s. It is equally clear that the United States government has developed a renewed interest in the management of territory and in monitoring the movement of people, goods, and ideas through space. 3. For critical scholarship on the geography of knowledge of the cold war era, see Chomsky et al. 1997 Chomsky, Noam, Katznelson, Ira, Lewontin, R.C., Montgomery, David, Nader, Laura, Ohmann, Richard, Siever, Ray, Wallerstein, Immanuel and Howard, Zinn, eds. 1997. The Cold War and the University. Toward an Intellectual History of the Postwar Years, New York: Free Press. [Google Scholar]; Cumings 1997 Cumings, Bruce. 1997. Boundary displacement: Area studies and international studies during and after the cold war. Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, 29(1): 1–32. [Google Scholar]; Mirsepassi, Basu, and Weaver 2003 Mirsepassi, Ali, Basu, Amrita and Weaver, Frederick. 2003. Localizing Knowledge in a Globalizing World: Recasting the Area Studies Debate, Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. [Google Scholar]; Miyoshi and Harootunian 2002 Miyoshi, Masao and Harootunian, Harry. 2002. Learning Places. The Afterlives of Area Studies, Durham, NC: Duke University Press. [Google Scholar]; Ross 1998 Ross, Eric B. 1998. Cold warriors without weapons. Identities, 4(3-4): 475–506. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]; Simpson 1998 Simpson, Christopher, ed. 1998. Universities and Empire. Money and Politics in the Social Sciences During the Cold War, New York: The Free Press. [Google Scholar]; Smelser and Bates 2001 Smelser, Neil and Paul, Bates, eds. 2001. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 2, Amsterdam: Elsevier. [Google Scholar]; Szanton 2004 Szanton, David. 2004. "Introduction: The Origin, Nature and Challenge of Area Studies in the United States". In The Politics of Knowledge. Area Studies and the Disciplines, Edited by: Szanton, David. 1–33. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. [Google Scholar]. 4. As will be clear from the discussion that follows, I approach the domain of academia and academic knowledge analytically as one example of a more general process—the production of expertise. In using the term expertise, however, I intend to refer not only to the post-structuralist literature (cf. Foucault 1991 Foucault, Michel. 1991. "Governmentality". In The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, Edited by: Burchell, G., Gordon, C. and Miller, P. 165–172. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]; Rose 1996 Rose, Nikolas. 1996. "Governing 'Advanced' Liberal Democracies". In Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism and Rationalities of Government, Edited by: Barry, A., Osborne, T. and Rose, N. 37–64. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]) but also to reference Gramsci's discussion of traditional and organic intellectuals (Gramsci 1971 Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks, New York: International Publishers. [Google Scholar]). 5. It would also be a mistake to attribute consistency of purpose or perspective to those who managed the philanthropic and government offices that sponsored the social sciences (see Friedman and McGarvie 2003 Friedman, Lawrence J. and McGarvie, Mark D, eds. 2003. Charity, Philanthropy, and Civility in American History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]; Lageman 1989 Lagemann, Ellen C. 1989. The Politics of Knowledge. The Carnegie Corporation, Philanthropy and Public Policy, Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. [Google Scholar]). 6. For an insightful discussion of the radical potential of anthropology despite it being embedded in institutions of the kind described in this article, see Stavenhagen (1971 Stavenhagen, Rodolfo. 1971. Decolonializing applied social sciences. Human Organization, 30(4): 333–344. [Google Scholar]). 7. McBride (1936 McBride, George McCutchen. 1936. Chile: Land and Society, Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press (originally published as American Geographical Society Research Series No. 19). [Google Scholar]) provided a similar analysis of the socio-economic and political structure of Chile. 8. In Anthropology and Politics, Joan Vincent (1990 Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1997. "The Unintended Consequences of Cold War Area Studies". In The Cold War and the University. Toward an Intellectual History of the Postwar Years, Edited by: Chomsky, Noam, Katznelson, Ira, Lewontin, R.C., Montgomery, David, Nader, Laura, Ohmann, Richard, Siever, Ray, Wallerstein, Immanuel and Howard, Zinn. 195–231. New York: Free Press. [Google Scholar]) provides extensive documentation of a subterranean tradition of anthropological scholarship that has dealt with similar themes since the 1870s. The present work is heavily indebted to Vincent's pioneering analysis. 9. Particularly important in this regard was the growing political power and the enormous concentrations of capital that accumulated in the hands of a new, industrial, and financial elite as a result of the "second industrial revolution" (Magdoff 1978 Magdoff, Harry. 1978. Imperialism: From the Colonial Age to the Present, New York: Monthly Review Press. [Google Scholar]; Williams 1980 Williams, William Appleman. 1980. Empire as a Way of Life, New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]), which began in earnest in the United States in the 1870s. Sometimes referred to as "monopoly capital" (cf. Baran and Sweezy 1966 Baran, Paul A. and Sweezy, Paul M. 1966. Monopoly Capital. An Essay on the American Economic and Social Order, New York: Monthly Review Press. [Google Scholar]) or "oligopolistic capitalism" (Jomo K.S. 2003), by the 1890s this new form of industrial organization was associated with economic crisis, unemployment, labor strife, and saturation of domestic markets (White 1982 White, Gerald T. 1982. The United States and the Problem of Recovery After 1893, Alabama, AL: University of Alabama Press. [Google Scholar]; Williams 1969 Williams, William Appleman. 1969. The Roots of the Modern American Empire, New York: Random House. [Google Scholar]). It was in this context that a commercial empire overseas, which was seen as having the ability to solve domestic economic problems, took on such enormous importance (LaFeber 1963 LaFeber, Walter. 1963. The New Empire. An Interpretation of American Expansion, 1860–1898, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. [Google Scholar]). 10. Some sense for the sea change (if the pun may be forgiven) in the attitude of the United States government toward the world beyond its borders between, say, 1880 and the early 1890s may be glimpsed in the following; the defense of United States interests abroad after the Civil War was of so little consequence that the government had not even bothered to re-build its navy. As a result, by 1880 the country was in possession of "a flotilla of deathtraps and defenseless antiques" (LaFeber 1963 LaFeber, Walter. 1963. The New Empire. An Interpretation of American Expansion, 1860–1898, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. [Google Scholar]: 58). In the context of growing industrial crisis, however, Congress authorized major funding for a new, world-class navy. Beginning in 1883, but especially after 1890, the Congress approved construction of a fleet of great battleships (Sprout 1939 Sprout, Harold Hance. 1939. The Rise of American Naval Power, 1776–1918, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]). This fleet of offensive, first-strike weapons was to play a crucial role in establishing the United States as a global presence. 11. As many scholars have pointed out, these bureaucratic machines produced categories that bore little resemblance to pre-colonial principles of organization. Although in many cases colonial subjects came to identify with the categories of their colonizers, in others they translated these alien categories into terms that were more meaningful to their own situations, into visions of empowerment, emancipation, or revenge. The long-term consequences of this process of this process of translation have been unplanned, unexpected and often tragic. 12. Many authors have noted the reticence of the United States to establish, retain, and administer territorial dependencies and have contrasted United States imperial practice with those of the other capitalist countries of that era—Japan, and those of Western Europe (Cooper 2006 Cooper, Frederick. 2006. "Modernizing Colonialism and the Limits of Empire". In Lessons of Empire. Imperial Histories and American Power, Edited by: Calhoun, Craig, Cooper, Frederick and Moore, Kevin W. 63–72. New York: The Free Press (coordinated by the Social Science Research Council). [Google Scholar]; LaFeber 1963 LaFeber, Walter. 1963. The New Empire. An Interpretation of American Expansion, 1860–1898, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. [Google Scholar]; Smith 2003 Smith, Neil. 2003. American Empire: Roosevelt's Geographer and the Prelude to Globalization, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]; Steinmetz 2006 Steinmetz, George and Kevin, W. Moore. 2006. "Imperialism or Colonialism? From Windhoek to Washington, by Way of Basra". In Lessons of Empire. Imperial Histories and American Power, Edited by: Calhoun, Craig and Cooper, Frederick. 135–156. New York: The Free Press (coordinated by the Social Science Research Council). [Google Scholar]; Williams 1969 Williams, William Appleman. 1969. The Roots of the Modern American Empire, New York: Random House. [Google Scholar], 1980 Williams, William Appleman. 1980. Empire as a Way of Life, New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]). As Gallagher and Robinson (1953 Gallagher, John and Robinson, Ronald. 1953. The imperialism of free trade. The Economic History Review, n.s., 6(1): 1–15. [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) show for the British Empire, and as Cooper (2005 Cooper, Frederick. 2005. "States, Empires and Political Imagination". In Colonialism in Question. Theory, Knowledge, History, 153–203. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. [Google Scholar]) argues more generally, however, the imperial practices of any given power almost invariably combine a range of strategies—from direct administration of contiguous territorial blocs, to administration of scattered colonies and dependencies, to spheres of influence established by the constant threat (and repeated demonstration) of military might. As this implies, and following Schmitt (2003 Schmitt, Carl. 2003. The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum, New York: Telos Press. [Google Scholar]), imperialism is best understood as an "authoritative ordering of space" on a global scale, in which hegemons use a variety of strategies to extend their influence beyond their immediate borders (see Lutz 2002 Lutz, Catherine. 2002. Making war at home in the US: Militarization and the current crisis. American Anthropologist, 104(3): 723–735. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], 2006 Lutz, Catherine. 2006. Empire is in the details. American Ethnologist, 33(4): 593–611. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). 13. The foundations derived their financial base from the huge profits earned by the most successful capitalist entrepreneurs of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In virtually all cases, however, the actual decisions made about how monies were to be used quickly passed from the foundations' founders into the hands of trustees or advisors who were drawn from the intellectual, professional and business elite of United States society. As one might guess from the kind of research they sponsored, the majority of these individuals were motivated by "reformist" impulses—by the desire to improve the living conditions of those forced to bear the brunt of industrial life and at the same time to stabilize the social order as a whole (see Berman 1983 Berman, Edward H. 1983. The Idea of Philanthropy. The Influence of the Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller Foundations on American Foreign Policy, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. [Google Scholar]; Fosdick 1952 Fosdick, Raymond D. 1952. The Story of the Rockefeller Foundation, New York: Harper & Brothers. [Google Scholar]; Friedman and McGarvie 2003 Friedman, Lawrence J. and McGarvie, Mark D, eds. 2003. Charity, Philanthropy, and Civility in American History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]; Lagemann 1989 Lagemann, Ellen C. 1989. The Politics of Knowledge. The Carnegie Corporation, Philanthropy and Public Policy, Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. [Google Scholar]). 14. The Phelps-Stokes, Rosenwald, the Peabody and Slater Funds, and the Heanes Negro Rural School Fund focused on providing the infrastructure of Black schools and colleges. This was also a major focus on the General Education Board (GEB), "a philanthropic 'trust' backed by the vast wealth of oil magnate John D. Rockefeller" (Finkenbine 2003 Finkenbine, Roy E. 2003. "Law, Reconstruction, and African-American Education in the Post-Emancipation South". In Charity, Philanthropy and Civility in American History, Edited by: Friedman, Lawrence J. and McGarvie, Mark D. 161–178. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]: 168). The GEB, together with the Peabody and Slater Funds, worked together to ensure that Blacks participated in society in a subordinate role, primarily by providing them with "industrial" education (Finkenbine 2003 Finkenbine, Roy E. 2003. "Law, Reconstruction, and African-American Education in the Post-Emancipation South". In Charity, Philanthropy and Civility in American History, Edited by: Friedman, Lawrence J. and McGarvie, Mark D. 161–178. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]: 169–170). 15. The "social science" that the major philanthropies sought to bring into being in the opening decades of the twentieth century should be understood in quite broad terms. Officers of the Rockefeller Foundation, for example, considered biology to belong to the social sciences (Bulmer and Bulmer 1981 Buck, Peter. 1980. American Science and Modern China, 1876–1936, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]). This blurring of what is considered conventional boundaries between different branches of knowledge and the effort to re-classify them was undoubtedly related to the Foundation's vision of public health as part of a package of interventions, most of which were more properly social in nature, that would help instill in non-modern people the mental and behavioral discipline necessary to participate in the modern world. Symptomatic of this orientation was the following: The foundations and boards established with the Rockefeller fortune actively encouraged interdisciplinary work in virtually all the social science endeavors it sponsored and consciously sought to break down disciplinary boundaries (Fisher 1993 Fisher, Donald. 1993. Fundamental Development of the Social Sciences. Rockefeller Philanthropy and the United States Social Science Research Council, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. [Google Scholar]: 59). 16. This is not to say that the foundations were in conflict with the nation-states in which they operated. To the contrary; the goals of the foundations and the nation-states in which they worked were often quite similar. 17. One example will help illustrate the manner in which the new industrial elite sought to help manage and control social and political unrest. Starting in 1882, and continuing into the first decade of the twentieth century, the railroad industry subsidized the construction and operation of 113 YMCA centers, to the tune of over $100 million dollars (Andrews 1950 Andrews, F. Emerson. 1950. Corporation Giving, New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press. [Google Scholar]; Brandes 1976 Brandes, Stuart D. 1976. American Welfare Capitalism, 1889–1940, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]; Heald 1960 Heald, Morrell. 1960. The Social Responsibilities of Business, Company and Community, 1900–1960, Cleveland, OH: Press of Case Western University. [Google Scholar]; Williams and Croxton 1930 Williams, Pierce and Croxton, Frederick E. 1930. Corporate Contributions to Organized Community Welfare Services, New York: National Bureau of Economic Research. [Google Scholar]). In these centers, men of working class, immigrant, or displaced backgrounds were provided a gathering place where they could engage in a variety of "healthy" pursuits and forms of self-improvement. These ranged from activities designed to discipline the mind and spirit (originally, bible study and prayer meetings; later, law, business, and engineering classes) to those intended to discipline the body (competitive sports of various kinds; see Winter 2002 Winter, Thomas. 2002. Making Men, Making Class: the YMCA and Workingmen, 1877–1920, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]). 18. Rose's memorandum was written to convey his views about education to the trustees of the General Education Board, a major Rockefeller philanthropy. 19. The efforts of the philanthropies embraced a number of geographic regions, from southern and eastern Europe (Hewa and Howe 1997 Hewa, Soma and Hove, Philo. 1997. "Introduction". In Philanthropy and Cultural Context. Western Philanthropy in South, East, and Southeast Asia in the Twentieth Century, Edited by: Hewa, Soma and Hove, Philo. 3–17. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. [Google Scholar]), to Africa (Berman 1980 Berman, Edward H. 1980. "Educational Colonialism in Africa: The Role of American Foundations, 1910–1945". In Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism. The Foundations at Home and Abroad, Edited by: Arnove, Robert F. 179–201. Boston, MA: G.K. Hall & Co. [Google Scholar]; Fisher 1983 Fisher, Donald. 1983. The role of philanthropic foundations in the reproduction and production of hegemony: Rockefeller Foundations and the Social Sciences. Sociology, 17(2): 206–233. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]), to Latin America (Cueto 1994 Cueto, Marcos. 1994. Missionaries of Science. The Rockefeller Foundation and Latin America, Bloomington: Indiana University Press. [Google Scholar]), the Philippines (Sullivan and Ileto 1997 Sullivan, Rodney J. and Ileto, Reynaldo C. 1997. "Americanism and the politics of health in the Philippines, 1902–1913". In Philanthropy and Cutural Context. Western Philanthropy in South, East and Southeast Asia in the 20th Century, Edited by: Hewa, S. and Hove, P. 39–64. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. [Google Scholar]), Sri Lanka (Hewa and Howe 1997 Hewa, Soma and Hove, Philo. 1997. "Introduction". In Philanthropy and Cultural Context. Western Philanthropy in South, East, and Southeast Asia in the Twentieth Century, Edited by: Hewa, Soma and Hove, Philo. 3–17. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. [Google Scholar]), etc. 20. From the end of the Civil War (1865) onward there was a gradual shift in higher education in the United States away from the predominance of the small college, with its focus on a fixed Classical curriculum and rote memorization. Increasingly, university education at a core group of more research-oriented institutions was based instead on "cognitive rationality," on "knowing through the exercise of reason." Between 1890 and 1900 "cognitive rationality" emerged as the dominant value in a core group of elite universities (Geiger 1986 Geiger, Roger L. 1986. To Advance Knowledge. The Growth of American Research Universities, 1900–1940, New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]: 9). The shift was a function of many factors acting in combination. Prominent among them was the establishment of the system of land grant colleges in 1862, the growing desire to make higher education more practical, and the advances in science and scientific investigation as developed especially in the context of the German research university (Geiger 1986 Geiger, Roger L. 1986. To Advance Knowledge. The Growth of American Research Universities, 1900–1940, New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]: 9–10). These were the broader processes into which the foundations tapped. 21. The new social science that the foundations sought to bring into being thus blurred the boundary between "applied" and "pure" research. 22. The General Education Board, a Rockefeller financed foundation, contributed approximately $60 million dollars to the endowments of a select group of universities in the opening decades of the century (Coben 1976 Coben, Stanley. 1976. Foundation officials and fellowships: Innovation in the patronage of science. Minerva, 14: 225–240. [Google Scholar]: 231). The philanthropic sponsorship of higher education did not occur in a vacuum. Just as research universities grew in size during this period, and in the number of students who attended them, so did the fund-raising abilities of these institutions. In addition to the foundations, two other sources of additional funds were important: (1) individual (wealthy) public donors and (2) alumni of the institutions in question (Geiger 1986 Geiger, Roger L. 1986. To Advance Knowledge. The Growth of American Research Universities, 1900–1940, New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]: 43–45). 23. Rockefeller funds (in the specific form of the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial) contributed heavily to the Institute for Research in Social Science at the University of North Carolina, as part of the Memorial's program of creating and strengthening regional social science centers of excellence (Bulmer and Bulmer 1981 Buck, Peter. 1980. American Science and Modern China, 1876–1936, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]: 390–392). 24. The latter institutions were funded by the General Education Board and the International Education Board, both Rockefeller-funded foundations (Coben 1976 Coben, Stanley. 1976. Foundation officials and fellowships: Innovation in the patronage of science. Minerva, 14: 225–240. [Google Scholar]: 231). 25. Frederick T. Gates, an ordained Baptist minister, and John D. Rockefeller Sr.'s most trusted advisor on the philanthropic use of Rockefeller funds, played a key role in orienting his mentor's fortune in the direction of public health. Gates was the person who convinced Rockefeller of the potential of this field to alleviate human suffering (Buck 1980 Buck, Peter. 1980. American Science and Modern China, 1876–1936, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]: 243, note #6). 26. As with the growth of the research university itself, philanthropic sponsorship of graduate education took place in the context of a general increase in the number of students attending the country's leading research universities (Geiger 1986 Geiger, Roger L. 1986. To Advance Knowledge. The Growth of American Research Universities, 1900–1940, New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]: 12–13). From the 1890s onward, more and more families from society's middle ranks had -sufficient income to be able to spare the labor of their young adult sons. The increasingly career-oriented nature of university education made it an avenue of (modest) social mobility for these families (Geiger 1986 Geiger, Roger L. 1986. To Advance Knowledge. The Growth of American Research Universities, 1900–1940, New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]: 13–14). 27. Examples include the fellowships offered to Chinese students by the Rockefeller Foundation's China Medical Program, which allowed Chinese students to study medicine in England and the United States; the RF grants to the London School of Economics and Political Science, which funded students to engage in graduate study at LSE; the International Institute of African Languages and Cultures fellowships, also provided by the Rockefeller Foundation, which also provided funds for graduate study in social anthropology at LSE; the RF Humanities Division grants of the 1930s; the SSRC graduate fellowships; and the Southern Fellowshipprogram of the SSRC. Between them, these programs provided funds that made it possible for literally hundreds of students, domestic and foreign, to receive graduate training at one of the select universities chosen by the foundations to re-make medicine the social sciences (e.g., see Cueto 1994 Cueto, Marcos. 1994. Missionaries of Science. The Rockefeller Foundation and Latin America, Bloomington: Indiana University Press. [Google Scholar]: xi; SSRC 1934 Social Science Research Council. 1934. The Social Science Research Council. Decennial Report, 1923–1933, New York: Social Science Research Council. [Google Scholar]: 82–84). 28. The anthropology program at the London School of Economics and Political Science and the University of Chicago's departments of sociology and anthropology were among the schools especially favored by the Rockefeller fortune. 29. Prior to receiving its Royal Charter, the RIIA was known as the British Institute of International Affairs, when it was founded in 1919. In addition to receiving funding from Rockefeller, the RIIA also received financial assistance from Carnegie (King-Hall 1937 King-Hall, Stephen. 1937. Chatham House. A Brief Account of the Origins, Purposes, and Methods of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, London: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]). 30. The LSRM, a Rockefeller-funded foundation, was the most important source of funds for social science research during the 1920s (see Bulmer and Bulmer 1981 Buck, Peter. 1980. American Science and Modern China, 1876–1936, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]; Fisher 1983 Fisher, Donald. 1983. The role of philanthropic foundations in the reproduction and production of hegemony: Rockefeller Foundations and the Social Sciences. Sociology, 17(2): 206–233. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar], 1993). 31. By this time the LSRM had been absorbed into the Rockefe
Referência(s)