“We would
recoil in horror at the mere suggestion of having them socially explained, whether
we deal in poetry or robots, stem cells, blacks holes, or impressionism,
whether we are patriots, revolutionaries, or lawyers, whether we pray to God or
put our hope in neuroscience. This is why, in my opinion, those of us who tried
to portray sciences as matters of concern so often failed to convince; readers
have confused the treatment we give of the former matters of fact with the
terrible fate of objects processed through the hands of sociology, cultural
studies, and so on” (17).
This quote caught my eye
because it is applicable to all of what we have talked about in class. In “layman’s terms,” we all have things
which we believe to be true. And it is
natural that we don’t want those beliefs to be analyzed and written off as just having
a social cause. Well, duh. Latour, in this quote, is arguing that people do not want their
beliefs to be questioned and given a social origin because they have seen other
beliefs questioned by sociology and cultural studies, and think that their own
beliefs will be undermined like previous ones have been. A prime example of this was the idea of
Eugenics: once it was given a social rather than scientific cause, the idea was labeled as a made up to legitimize the then current social ideology. No one wants to consider the fact that their
beliefs could end up the same way.
Because all of the
issues raised in class have been controversial and have several sides, they are
really all applicable to the concept that Latour is exploring. Each one of us came into the class with
beliefs about the topics we covered, and it’s uncomfortable to admit we all could
be wrong. The gender discussions we had
in class were a great example of the struggle between biology/science and
social causes. I found it incredibly
interesting to read Ann Fausto-Sterlling and hear about how the medical field
addresses ambiguous genitalia. Their science told them that there were two
sexes so they “fixed” those that didn’t fit the social norm. The question is: to what extent is that science-based
or social-based? And there is no
question that most people are somewhat threatened by the fact that their belief
surrounding the concept of gender is being critically examined. Who knows, in the future years, the idea of
the male/female binary could be an antiquated “social” belief and unsupported
by science. What does that say about all of our other beliefs?
There are a few parts in the chapter about circulating reference that really hit on this point about: is it the job of science studies to socially explain science? Latour of course is like no! That's totally besides point.
ReplyDeleteEverything is socialized. So what? No longer matter of facts are concerned with Latour's proposition. Matters of fact can be disclaimed as social constructions. That just leads us to dead ends and once again so what? Seeing what these facts/objects and such are trying to get at, their matter of concern that they raise, and how they are apart of the collective which is of concern is now what is important to Latour. Here is his the site of intervention.