For this blog post, I decided to use IceRocket to find other blogs related to the ideas and history of the Royal Society of London and the Enlightenment.
One of my favorite blogs I found was a blog from Australia that posed an interesting question. The blog essentially asked, “How did the way that nations/countries publicly funded their intellectual movements affect the way that those intellectual movements progressed?”
In the blog, the person explains that the Royal Society of London (the prime example of the British method of funding) started out as a centrally-funded organization, and then eventually was left to fend for themselves (e.g. a Laissez Faire approach).
The French approach, in contrast, included much more government involvement and government funding in their intellectual movement. However, the blogger also points out that after the French Revolution and the subsequent cut of government funding, the pace of intellectual growth was cut as well.
In the post, the blogger didn’t draw too many conclusions in terms of effectiveness of each method. However, he did indicate that the free market environment of Britain, gave Britain an advantage for capitalizing on scientific research that scientific societies were creating and developing.
I think some other interesting and related questions are the following: How did/does the way countries funded/fund their intellectual movements affect the health and success of scholarly societies that are organized? Would the Royal Society of London have attained nearly the success they obtained without initially being funded by their government (i.e. the King)?
What implications might that have for us today? Especially in the way governments fund intellectual growth and development?
No comments:
Post a Comment