Reduction and Discourse

"What we lose in matter through the successive reductions of the soil, we regain a hundredfold in the branching off to other forms that such reductions -- written, calculated, archival -- make possible." (p.55)

Circulating reference has been something that has often been discussed in class, and I am aware that this concept might be a little worn out. However, I feel that this passage from Latour explains a lot when trying to understand the connection science has to discourse in the cultural sphere. To put it in "mom" terms science engages in reductions of everything studied -- everything is broken down into minute parts in order to understand each part's function in order to understand how the whole operates. What results is discourse in language that defines what is being studied. In short, to reduce things in scientific research is to gain in discourse.

When I was researching the scientific aspects of how grass fed beef stacks up against corn fed beef I came to realize that it was the reduction of the study to genes and biological evidence that garnered our discourse on what type of feeding was better for humans and cows alike. I read many articles that described biological functions of the cow's stomach when eating corn or grass, and how the cow's digestive system played a pivotal role in deciding whether corn or grass was healthier for the cow. In these articles it seemed as though it started with what is produced when the cow is eating corn or grass, and instead of immediate conclusions being drawn from the products of corn and grass fed cows, studies began the process of reduction from the point of production. Internally, what happens when the cow eats grass versus corn? Before the slaughter of the cow, what biological processes occur that produce the difference in the quality of meat between corn fed and grass fed? These are questions that were tackled in most articles I read, and these types of questions led to the reduction of the cow itself to minute scientific parts -- the study of processes in the stomach, of processes in the intestines, of processes that result in disease or failure of health in the cow, etc.

From these reductions public, political discourse was born. Because the scientific reductions were made I was able to read conclusions on what meat was actually better for humans, and what feed was better for the cows. More so, because those reductions were made many websites and interest groups were able to shape their discourse concerning the matter, and that discourse leads to conclusions concerning aspects of culture that are beyond scientific biological processes. Reductions to biological processes allowed for journalistic discourse on the effects of grass fed/corn fed beef in economic language, language concerning commodification of the meat, and has helped shaped public conscious concerning whether or not grass fed beef is ultimately a better and healthier meat for humans that corn fed beef. This is how I have come to understand Latour's passage above -- In dealing with the gap between empirical data and public discourse, the reduction of the matter of study to scientific, biological data produces meaning in discourse that can reach into many aspects of culture beyond scientific study.