Maurizio Ferraris in his book Documentality: Why It Is Necessary to Leave Traces has argued that it is essential for all social systems (science, law, and the like) to create inscriptions or written traces in order to survive. One of the largest such social systems, of course is state bureaucracy “the state’s first succumbing to bureaucratic documentality and then to informatics documentality” (p. 287). According to Ferraris, informatics documentality is a way in which sovereign power is extended over a larger number of people.
The documents that I have been studying are largely nineteenth century scientific journals such as the Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Journal of Science and the Journal of the American Chemical Society. In those journals, one might argue that professional scientists institutionalized larger cultural ideas. In several previous posts, I have suggested that within the system of scholarly communication created in the late nineteenth century, industry dominated. For nineteenth century American scientists more generally and for chemists in particular, their world was heavily influenced by the needs of a rapidly industrializing nation. These professionals tied their own futures to the needs of these industries, and often wrote in ways within their journals that would serve the needs of industry.
Why are such historical developments important in thinking even about the modern scholarly communication system? Over time, throughout the twentieth century, the government became more involved with the work of scientists, and currently, federal funding through the National Science Foundation or other federal agencies continues to dominate the higher education landscape. If indeed there has been such a heavy industrial influence for over 100 years, what does that say about the purpose of the scholarly communication system? More importantly, if indeed the system needs significant reform, should the tie to industry be one of the things that is reformed? Though history cannot perhaps answer these questions, it can, I think, help to identify these questions that certainly need to be addressed.