Friday, 18th of August, 2006

Fascinating. Bruno Latour, scion of “science studies”, is worried enough by the Right’s co-opting of much of the discource of “critique”, “Theory” or whatever you want to call it, that he’s asking whether maybe its time is over:
Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern
And he sounds almost entirely reasonable. Unfortunately it’s all too easy to get the idea from his and others’ writings in general that they are skeptical all the way down about facts, evidence and objective reality. Here he writes:

While we spent years trying to detect the real prejudices hidden behind the appearance of objective statements, do we have now to reveal the real objective and incontrovertible facts hidden behind the illusion of prejudices? And yet entire Ph.D programs are still running to make sure that good American kids are learning the hard way that facts are made up, that there is no such thing as natural, unmediated, unbiased access to truth, that we are always the prisoner of language, that we always speak from one standpoint, and so on, while dangerous extremists are using the very same argument of social construction to destroy hard-won evidence that could save our lives. Was I wrong to participate in the invention of this field known as science studies? Is it enough to say that we did not really mean what we meant? Why does it burn my tongue to say that global warming is a fact whether you like it or not? Why can’t I simply say that the argument is closed for good?

Fascinating.

2 Responses to “Detour”

1. seasickDan says:
   October 25th, 2006 at 9:34 pm

   Good to hear. The simple human need to stop global warming was the reason I never felt comfy with Latour when I studied at Uni in the early 90s. And who would have thought that within a few years, Murdoch attack dogs like Andrew Bolt would be using Latourian pomo relativism to undermine climate science, human rights and just about anything else worthwhile? Its a classic proof that civilisation is a thin protection against brute power (of coal corporations etc). “Irony” don’t even get close! But it would be silly for the Left to get into paroxisms of mea culpa over this. We never had *that* much influence. The rabid right just took the ideas on because they have so few of their own deep thinkers, are shameless opportunists and make boring pop culture. Hell, pomo science studies was interesting, heady stuff. It was just a shame it pretented to be all So New and True. Perhaps if it had just located itself in the history of ideas with a bit more modesty, the narrowness could have been avoided?

2. Peter says:
   October 25th, 2006 at 10:04 pm

   Well indeed. I don’t exactly want to engage in Lefty mea-culpism, really, and I think those on the Right who’ve whinged about how the Left are running things (at least the universities) have always been talking out their asses…

   But I think inasmuch as pomo science studies or pomo anything else have aided and abetted the general flight from reason, I don’t think they’ve really ever been a friend of progressive politics. When I was at Uni I was distressed at the frequent ignorant anti-science of the greenies, who felt that science was the enemy because it was the cause of all the problems, rather than being the most important tool in the fight - because it’s through science that we find out the facts about global warming, pollution in general, the importance of biodiversity - all of it.
   It seems to me, although I’m sure it started a lot earlier than I became aware, that the Green movement has embraced science even as the scientific establishment has become more Green. I’m certainly enjoying reading widely in the scientific blogsphere, and whether it’s just my preferences or just the way the blogsphere works, I’m finding most of the science blogs are also very lefty.
   And people are realising that the fight against ID and creationism is in many ways the same as the fight against climate scepticism - because it’s about the defense of truth and reason, defense of the biosphere of our minds as well as our planet’s biosphere; and with their simple-minded ultra-relativism, the various strands of Theory presented the reactionary Right with a wonderful gift, by pulling the carpet out from under the progressive movement’s feet, by muddying the waters and taking away the real righteousness: the righteousness of being right and being able to prove it.

   Thanks for dropping by, Dan!