Lea Beiermann, PhD candidate at FASoS, works in the History Department and is a member of the MUSTS research group. Her NWO-funded PhD project looks at the history of microscopy in the mid-nineteenth century. In her blog, Lea deals with how microscope-using scientists started to share and preserve their slides during the mid-nineteenth century, and the kind of work that went into that.
It is a warm afternoon at the end of July 1957 in the centre of Paris. Close to the main building of Sorbonne, a careful observer can notice the formation of large groups, consisting approximately of 80 people each. Men and women wearing badges and speaking in foreign languages move around with the expressions of being slightly disoriented, impressed, and curious that our observer has often recognised on the faces of the tourists flooding the streets of Paris during the summer months.
In the following days, the same groups will be seen on small boats cruising the Seine, inside the Louvre, and in the gala of the art-deco concert hall of Salle Pleyel. They will take long evening walks in Montmartre and admire Parisian monuments illuminated by light shows. Not being limited by the urban ambiance of the French capital our groups will go hiking in the forest surrounding the Royal Palace of Fontainebleau and then stroll around the village of Barbizon, famous for its art movement.
Their week in Paris will end with a luxurious evening banquet in Versailles under the presidency of the French Minister of Foreign Affairs. In the Orangery right in front of the palace, they will enjoy L’Impromptu de Versailles, a play by Molière performed in Versailles for the first time since Molière’s own age, allowing a sense of the revival of the Grand Siècle.
Our careful observer would not be impressed by most of these rather common, middle-class, touristic activities – except the Versailles banquet, embodying the fulfilment of a tourist’s ultimate fantasy of an intimate and direct sneak peek into a glorious era for France. He would probably be more surprised to know that most of these people were scientists who spent their mornings in Sorbonne attending and giving paper presentations about chemical research, and that the funds spent on their travel from faraway places, for their accommodation and leisure was provided by national scientific associations, research institutions and the French state on the occasion of the XVIth International Congress of Pure and Applied Chemistry. Or that the extra expenses and organizational efforts to provide leisure to the participants of the Congress and their spouses travelling alongside them were seen as justified, even necessary for the advancements of chemistry as a discipline but also for the development of solidarity and cooperation between members of an international ‘chemical community.’
Large international scientific gatherings like the XVIth Congress with its approximately 3800 participants were not uncommon around the middle of the 20th century and still exist today. Conferencing, constituted by travel, socialising, and sharing presentations and discussions on research for a defined period of time, has in fact been a steady part of scientific practice since the late 19th century. However, travelling and gathering restrictions brought forward by the pandemic, concerns about the carbon footprint of conferences, and the development of digital infrastructures of telepresence have recently intensified voices sharply critical of conferences and particularly their touristic dimensions: they are seen as environmentally destructive and easily replaceable by more inclusive, and less time-consuming digital alternatives.
Similar criticisms have been voiced in the past. The president of the organization committee issued the following advice to the attendees of the XVIth Congress during the Congress’ opening ceremony: “I have time and again heard divergent opinions voiced about the forms of international gatherings and their respective efficiencies. In this connection I beg to advice you never to broach this subject at a friendly meeting with colleagues, as you might run the risk of dumping the general high spirits. […] There are even those who are pessimist enough, wondering about the usefulness of congresses to regard them as mere pretexts for travelling, festivities and mutual congratulations.” [1]
Why then did travelling, festivities and mutual acts of congratulations remain a part of scientific conferences? Travelling allowed the participants to leave behind established personal and professional routines, relationships, and patterns of interaction. Removed from their daily lives at the XVIth Congress they consumed together, enjoyed aesthetic pleasures, and could wonder in a standardized manner. These acts of consumption were planned based on already existing structures of mass tourism popular during the 50s which aimed to make travelling affordable. Leaflets and coupons, pre-planned packages of meals, mass transportation and group tour guides were all carefully planned and even included somewhat different price ranges for similar activities: there were more and less expensive excursions and banquets on offer to ensure that all scientists would be able to attend them and experience the Congress leisure irrespective of their social class. The group was thus perceived as a cohesive entity with class and professional hierarchies of their community softened during these activities.
The immersive touristic appreciation of Parisian culture allowed the French government and chemical society to promote their country’s heritage to an international audience, but also assumed, projected, and affirmed a shared bourgeois identity based on cultural appreciation. Both the chemists and their spouses were given the time and opportunity to interact, and build friendships and networks of communication over long distances.
The presence of the spouses ensured that these connections were rooted not only in common professional and scientific interests, but also in interactions between their more private personas and family lives, creating a more extended and intimate community revolving around scientists. Through shared experiences, leisure, and a general emphasis on the things they had in common, large conferences, and particularly their social programmes, functioned as the ground nurturing scientists’ desire for connectivity and the reproduction of their professional identities and relationships.
Can time devoted to enjoyment, common identity building, and the cultivation of a scientific community based on interpersonal connections be really qualified as useless for a profession reliant on long-term collaborative work, inspiration, and a constant exchange of ideas?
Focusing on these important goals of the conferences’ touristic and social activities also allows us today to reflect on how to achieve the same effects in more inclusive and environmentally friendly ways – rather than dismissing altogether these functions and the large gatherings of scientists that enabled and fostered them.
[1] Delaby, R. Address Delivered at the Opening Session of the XVIth International Congress of Pure and Applied Chemistry, July 18, 1957, International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) Records, 1919-1965, series XVIII, box 146, folder 5, Othmer Library, Science History Institute, Philadelphia, PA.
Georgiana Kotsou publishes history blog on scientific conferences | FASoS Weekly
[…] her latest contribution to the History Department Blog, Georgiana Kotsou discusses the role of tourism in international scientific conferences as an […]