Journal History

1989: birth of the biannual Journal, Scienza & Politica. Per una storia delle dottrine, founded by Pierangelo Schiera and Aldo Mazzacane. The first director was Giovanni Faustini.

1999: Scienza & Politica changes publisher (Clueb Bologna) and is coordinated by Pierangelo Schiera. The new series is connected with the Association of Roberto Ruffilli.

2011: Scienza & Politica becomes an online open access publication and is scientifically accredited, with double blind peer review.

2012: Scienza & Politica joins the Alma Digital Library services at the University of Bologna.

2013: Scienza & Politica is classified class-A for the scientific-disciplinary sector SPS 02 for the Area 14 valid for ASN. The Journal published a new series, Scienza & Politica Supplement with double blind peer review. Between 2013 and 2018 the Journal has published 7 Supplements.

2015: Scienza & Politica is co-directed by Maurizio Ricciardi e Pierangelo Schiera.

Presentazione — V.1, N.1 (1989)

What we are inaugurating is not a journal, with the ambition of completeness or representativeness, of either disciplining or systematic nature. This brief introduction, as well, is neither a political-academic nor a scientific manifesto. This journal is just an – hopefully periodical - opportunity to illustrate and, if possible, to explain – to ourselves also – the work that a group of friends has done for some years and that hopes keeping on doing for the next ones. The group, which is heterogeneous and very varied, has met for some years at the Italian-German Historical Institute in Trento, thanks to the contribution of the National Research Council (CNR). So far it has mainly concerned a research on “Costituzioni sociali, teorie dello Stato, ideologie in Germania” (Social constitutions, theories of the State and ideologies in Germany) directed by Pierangelo Schiera, which lasted from 1982 to 1988, and an ongoing research on “Cultura giuridica e scienze sociali in Italia e in Germania nel secolo XIX” (Legal culture and social science in Italy and Germany during the 19th Century), directed by Aldo Mazzacane. It is now being developed a project for a third research (concerning issues on social and constitutional history of higher education and scientific organization in Italy after the unification) the request for which is going to be forwarded within the deadline. It is pointless to detail here all the scientific results achieved by the members of the group over these years: the CNR Bulletin is in charge of giving this kind of information in the future (however, these results have already appeared in several series of books of the Italian-German Historical Institute published by Il Mulino). Nevertheless, it is necessary to highlight that these results have mainly been achieved individually, as the coaction force of the group is – alas – very weak. Over the years, this has resulted in defections and new acquisitions, according to the change of the general and particular conditions of the research. My impression, however, is that this way of working in group left both a quantitative and a qualitative mark. That means which, as a sort of communis opinio has been developing among us, we gradually started to share it, both on the methodological level and on that concerning research subjects and procedures. Thus, the purpose of these pages is that of being a container of this opinio: firstly, to make ourselves believe that our work will come out in a more programmatic way as opposed to how has been so far; secondly, to give the others our contribution, in the tacit hope that we will receive falsification or validation in return, useful to go on all the same. The cover of the little book “Scienza & Politica. Per una storia delle dottrine” shows helmeted Athena (the symbol of Science) sitting in a definitively melancholic position. In my opinion, this icon represents the justification for our research: the questioning about the reasons for the “melancholy of the science”, that is, why and how the science oscillates, in its results and in its own procedures, between the triumphalism of omnipotence and the removal of compromise. In other words, our theme of research is about the complicated and multiple-meaning relationship between science and power, particularly, taking into account the double function of the latter: that of leadership and that of obedience (in the sense that science serves to make the leadership more cogent and the obedience stronger). For this reason, we declare our option for a “history of doctrines”. By this, we mean that our intention is not to deal solely with “science”, but with those views of the science that are translated into principles to convey socially: precisely, into “doctrines”. However, we do not intend to study only those doctrines related to the political issues (on the philosophical and ideological level or on the technical and constitutional one). Instead, we are interested in trying to detect and decode the inevitable “political” impact doctrines have within any field of interest or action they are, due to their constitutive “social” function (through the school, cultural and ideological transmission). It goes without saying that we will pay greater attention to those doctrines concerning the field of the so called “social science”: in this case it is straightforward to identify the paths that we have just mentioned. In addition to this, we do not have any methodological or programmatic purpose. Our main concern is to succeed in giving evidence of the possibility for collaboration and mutual comprehension among researchers with different background and education. Should that lead to a common, even plausible, discourse, then we will have spent well our time.

Pierangelo Schiera