Our task this week, before turning (in)to animals, is to figure out what science has to do with ecocriticism. Should be pretty simple, right?
Please post your questions, comments, and/or laments that spring break is over under this thread.
thanks,
kevin
PS don't forget to read Haraway's essay on situated knowledges--this is replacing the Latour selection listed on the syllabus--if you lost your copy, I can e-mail you another, just drop me a line.
6 comments:
March 25, 2008
John S. Sonin
Eng. 423—Maier
Discursively Dissipating Disperse-ment
Glen Love, David Abram, and Lawrence Buell, allying with the fiction writing icons of John Steinbeck, Kim Stanley Robinson, C.S. Lewis, et.al., are heroically at war with the likes of Jonathon Levin, Greg Gerard, Dana Phillips with the fictional collusions of Earnest Hemingway,… (heck! I can’t think of any other major authors at that could be construed pessimistic at this moment—probably a good thing for my desire to have stress-free cognition) et.al. in the eternal conflict that I’m hoping can be waylaid by our new ecocritical approach to…mimesis. I’m sick of the phenomenological attitude. Everything’s connected and what I do here makes a dispersing impact everywhere else.
Gotta run for the bus. Maybe I’ll elaborate tomorrow before 3:30. In the meantime, here’s a verse.
The Rabble, Babble and Fabled
Ever notice how society resembles a babbling brook?
It’s awash with its rabble,
it veers then it crooks.
A faction, the dreary bunch, brittle as dried leaf
when washed from their rank
they flow in gloomed grief.
Then we have the shallows, always at odds.
Contending only they
know the will of their gods’.
Babbling with each other, they fight withering with time,
gurgling amidst stream
then beached to rot and turn lime.
Others fasten to flotsam, falsely secured as moored boat.
Though unanchored snag others
just wafting afloat.
Yet the majority just flow
content towing the line
in a life shamed by our cultural crime.
But these babble are cleansed for they know not their dirt
In the indirect thief from others
Who must then live in meager hurt.
Then there’s the few seeing for real
not faulting the flotsam
but instilling sensuous repeal
These “heroes” dare deviate
And send wander our brook.
Their fabled glory uncovers
Society’s sanest moral outlook.
As we wash back to the sea!
By John S. Sonin
Okay. Where to begin? How do we cogently approach these different approaches to science, theory, ecology, objectivity, and how it all relates to ecocriticism? It is a tall order indeed, since many of them jab at each other while at the same time cite similer sources to come up with somewhat differentiating claims. The criticism are wide and in many cases extremely divisive. For all the witticism and valid points that Phillips brings up in The Truth of Ecology, he is a literal loving ass. By this I mean he takes examples of social/constructionist views, which in many respects needs criticism and critiquing, and capitalizes on it not only as a source of humor but as if the “below the belt intellectual punch” is in some way a dramatic and overwhelming point. For instance, when commenting on Woolgar’s Science; The Very Idea, in which Woolar states
“Although electrons, particles and so on are credited with various attributes, they are constituted as incapable of giving opinions, developing their own theories and…producing their own representations. THE NATURAL SCEINCE DISCOURSE THUS CONSTITUES ITS OBJECTS AS QUINTESSENTIALLY DOCILE AND CAN ACT UPON THEM AT WILL” [Capitlization added] (qtd. in Phillips 101)
To this observation and claim, which no doubt could use some improvement, Philips pipes in with his witty biting humor:
“Unfortunately, scientists couldn’t afford to wait until electrons found their own voices, discovered that they had their own opinions, and began to produce ‘their own representations’ in order to see if those were any better than the theories about electrons that had been worked out by physics.” (Philips 101).
One point for Philips sarcasm and a flagrant penalty for his overly narrow and misrepresentation of the social and cultural discussions that are revolve around science. I don’t claim that electrons or atoms have voices, such a claims is pretty much ridiculous, but how ‘we’ go about researching, understanding, theorizing, teaching, and utilizing the components of these concepts does, I believe, imbue these ‘realities’ so to speak, with a voice of their own. Just as we are ourselves influenced by outside forces and interpretations, so to are objects. Indeed we are both objects and projections within a indeterminate matrix of determinants and possibilities.
While social constructivism in the extreme, as Philips rightly points out, distorts real objects while at the same time narrowing the modes in which we can critically articulate social influences on real things, it does, I think, hit on some key issues that all societies must grapple with. This is the interplay between so called scientific ‘discovery’, which may not be such a great word to use here, and its interpretation and use within society and culture.
There are several issues and thoughts that came to mind as I read through the rest of our readings this past week (note I read Phillips first, while laying in a snow cave just outside Skagway – a surreal experience, let me tell you). Within Haraway’s article, though striking some key points and criticisms against social constructivism and its detractions from real issues and concerns, her use of ‘vision’ as a explanatory metaphor and vantage point to approach “situated knowledge” is simultaneously cumbersome and to a certain degree bizarre as when she comments upon the proliferation of “visualization technologies,” in this world of “militarinism, capitalism, colonialism, and male supremacy,” she says that:
“Vision is this technological feast becomes unregulated gluttony; all seems not just mythically about the god trick of seeing everything from nowhere, but to have put the myth into ordinary practice. And like the god trick, this eye fucks the world to make techno-monsters” (Haraway 581).
I understand the importance of being able to situate knowledge in order to critically analyze its roots and also to hold societies responsible for their interpretations and actions, but, in risk of sounding like the criticisms I laid upon Philips, how are our visualization technologies, like submergible cameras for deep marine life study, some how comparable to ‘fucking’ the world? I guess if Haraway means that by wanting to see or understand we are in essence “fucking” in a way, then maybe this is acceptable, but than what are we to say about curiosity? Or other human ventures that seek to “see” or understand the way of things? Perhaps I’ve missed the point or perhaps Haraway has made an overly generalized, and to a degree untenable, observation about our technologies.
That being said, I don’t believe that technology is the win all save all, or that our gadgets and gizmos are not deployed for debauched reasons for profiteering without regarding for individuals, societies, and let’s not forget the environment. However, like pretty much all objects, we get involved with, it is not simply the properties of them that are potentially insidious but their employed utility and conception - an interpretation if you will of a real bonafide text. This is not to say that this objective text is not real, any text is real if we can see it, touch it, smell it, or use it. For instance, gold, in this strange interpretation I am getting at, is a real object with real properties, which in essence makes up a text that we can interpret as valuable, as some how bestowed with wealth through its rarity (constructed or real) and the labor that goes into procuring it. It is the interplay here between real physical things and their interpretation that justifies tearing away at mountain sides, or enforced labor situations, or the destruction of potentially fragile habitats.
I guess what I am getting at in this convoluted tirade is that, unlike Haraway’s narrowness of interpretation of how knowledge is founded and acted upon (which I realized I haven’t really talked about), scientific knowledge, in particular, is a full flux of social interperatives and initiatives, as well as reasonably assured facts (though this is not always the case, and to a degree Haraway points towards this, she, however, oversimplifies how ‘we’ as a society and individuals work out knowledge).
In essence, although likely up for change, I would say that the development of scientific knowledge happens in this way (and no doubt am I being reductive and overly simplistic):
1) Societal, cultural, and individual initiative and interest collude to produce or manufacture knowledge through predictive theories.
2) If theory proves to be predictive or justifiable, that particular knowledge wields objective status as well as societal, cultural, and individual influence over actions and policies.
3) If a particular piece or kind of scientific knowledge is continually “proven” to be predictive, societies, cultures, and individuals interpret the objective text – detrimentally or positively – Until and pretty much only IF, the theory is proven to be EITHER un-predictive or overly detrimental, adjustments are made accordingly.
It is important to note that while this over generalized process here seems to perpetuate the idea that the scientific method somehow is infallible, that is not my intention, nor understanding of how the acceptance of scientific knowledge works. Indeed knowledge is situated within a complex array of forces, which undoubtedly contribute towards the acceptance or rejection of a particular form of scientific knowledge – whether it is predictive or not.
Okay. I’m Done.
Wow. The investigation on the role of science in ecocriticism brings up a lot of questions. I think one of the main queries to address is the diverse ecological expectations between scientists and literary critics (or environmentalists, historians, etc). I think that the non-scientists are more interested in the broad theories or ideologies that ecology may provide such as: interdependence, holism, system relations (I couldn’t tell if holism and system relations were the same thing or not), equilibrium, etc. So that these broad theories can “provide guidance, too, and not just guidance of a scientific kind…[but] to depend on ecology as a moral compass” (49), as Phillips accuses historian Worster as seeking. To me, this is reminiscent of Leopold, who throughout A Sand County Almanac refers to nature as a book that we can read and learn from and provides a direct example of the interdependence of species, including our role in it, in Thinking Like a Mountain. I do think this can be a good thing. However, it is not the fault of ecologists if literary critics, environmentalists, hisorians, etc. take these terms to back up their own environmental agenda with scientific credibility without staying on top of the latest research and relying on abstract analogies and metaphors that they do not fully understand. I think really, ecologists just want to create a better understanding of what happens in the natural world. Generally, they are unconcerned with applying this to society or trying to figure out how we got ourselves in this environmental predicament. Instead, they want to understand it so that they can document, fix, prevent those environmental catastrophes. Hmmm… this is interesting because I’m starting to see a similarity in expectations between science and non-science people. They both are providing guidance in a way, aren’t they? They both seek the future of the environment. However, non-science people like their words and ideas and ethics, whereas science people are like- ‘Do this! We have proof that it helps (for now).’
In comparing Glen Loves “Science, Anti-Science, and Ecocriticism,” to Donna Haraway “Situated know ledges: the science question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective,” all I could think of is the idea of world view. I agree with Love when he claims that most humanity students only have a partial understanding of western civilizations and its world view. Donna Haraway makes this same claim and she argues that partial perspectives of world view only serves the Patriarchal political ideology by hiding the domination of woman. If literary theory is supposed to help us understand and solve problems then scholars are going to have a better understanding of science because it is born out of western civilization and its world view. A partial understanding of anything does not give a whole picture of the world. Haraway argues that Partial Perspective can be manipulated to give a picture of the world that validates domination of woman.
Andy Lounsbury
26 March 2008
Let me start by saying the Clarke is a Latour/Serre groupie, and that Love rocks for using a Dave Barry quote in an ecocriticism article.
My biggest question is: what is it science critics hope to achieve in the so called Science Wars? There doesn’t seem to be any clear cut goal to all the science bashing, and it’s even questionable as to whether all the “science bashers” are all bashing the same thing—some of them want to do away with science and the scientific method, some want to demystify it, and others want to change its applications. I guess I’ll have to work through each of these individually.
The anti-scientists who want to do away with science and the scientific method, in my opinion, are deluded. I can’t remember who said it (and I don’t feel like flipping through about 200 pages to find it), but the quote was something along the lines of “show me a n anti-scientist at 30,000 feet and I’ll show you a hypocrite.” That pretty much sums it up. Getting rid of science means getting rid of just about everything we use on a daily basis, from cars to toothpaste.
The ones who want to change science’s applications I think are also a bit deluded, though not nearly as much. While I agree that a lot of science now is geared toward profit, I don’t really think that matters. If someone finds a cure for AIDS or an alternative to oil or a solution to global warming, I really don’t care what the motivations were. There are, of course, less noble aspects of science, such as weapons development and nuclear weapons. I definitely think those applications should be done away with, it’s just not going to happen anytime soon.
Finally, there are the critics who want to demystify science—this I also disagree with. I think science should be kept where it is—in universities and the general scientific community. Making scientific knowledge as easy to obtain as e-mail means that anybody can say anything and claim to have a basis in science, which can be anywhere from mildly humorous to flat out dangerous.
Matt Boline
The debate between science and anti-science is actually the debate between German Nazi-ism and American Democracy. Although McCarthy's "red scare" sought to draw lines of distinction and fear between Communism and Democracy the two are actually the same thing. As you will hopefully understand that while these two very different forms of government are seeking the same end result... They both want what to make their societies strong and better off than they once were.
There is my stab at the beginning to an end of an English paper that would get a good grade according to Love.
I found it strange for his article to make claims that the "soft sciences" aren't really interested in fact or methods that rely on factual evidence to support claims. Today philosophers, sociologist, anthropologists and historians are scientists. They are social scientists and every bit as much credence, if not more, than their colleagues in the "hard" sciences. The thing that science misses out on is human understanding. An ecologist can do all the work and research that they want on the inputs into the ground water in the Columbia River and the effects that it has on the fish in the river and the humans that also interact with the river but, they cannot begin to address problems like this without a good team of social scientists, who also understand the impact of pollutants into the waterway. The data collected by scientists are very important but, are not as set in stone as Love suggests. We need to perform a marriage between the "hard" and "soft" sciences in order to make scientists understand the human element and for the social scientists to have the date needed to have an impact on their human subjects.
Both of these opponents seek to expand the knowledge that human beings have, right? But, which knowledge is more imperative? As a social scientist I have to say that I think things like the space program are a huge wast of time, money and energy. When in a time of recession in our economy and on the verge of social upheaval we, as a country, could and should be spending this time, money and energy more morally. Investing in education programs, socialized medicine, and social security have far better short and long term effects in my mind for the well being of humans in the united states. Also investing this brain power on more efficient and eco-friendly power sources also seem to me like a better solution for passing the time. Who cares if there are aliens out there, there are people in need here. This is where the science vs. anti-science debate becomes world war II science is the Nazi regime and they are going to kill us all...
Maybe a bit dramatic, but Glen Love told me I would get a good grade by talking in these terms!
Post a Comment