The blogosphere is alight with the story of a (former) professor at Dartmouth named Priya Venkatesan. Teaching is a tough job and I have the highest regard for some of the amazing teachers I’ve had the privilege of learning from over the years. Priya, however, is apparently not quite in that class (pun intended).
The WSJ provides one summary of the case –
Priya Venkatesan taught English at Dartmouth College. She maintains that some of her students were so unreceptive of “French narrative theory” that it amounted to a hostile working environment. She is also readying lawsuits against her superiors, who she says papered over the harassment, as well as a confessional exposé, which she promises will “name names.”The trauma was so intense that in March Ms. Venkatesan quit Dartmouth and decamped for Northwestern. She declined to comment for this piece, pointing instead to the multiple interviews she conducted with the campus press.
<
p>What praytell were these unruly students doing to our poor teacher? And, aside from her personal ethnicity, is there a desi angle to the story?
<
p>First, it appears that the students in her class shared a good chunk of my aversion to the PostModernist deconstruction of Science –
Ms. Venkatesan lectured in freshman composition, intended to introduce undergraduates to the rigors of expository argument. “My students were very bully-ish, very aggressive, and very disrespectful,” she told Tyler Brace of the Dartmouth Review. “They’d argue with your ideas.” This caused “subversiveness,” a principle English professors usually favor.Ms. Venkatesan’s scholarly specialty is “science studies,” which, as she wrote in a journal article last year, “teaches that scientific knowledge has suspect access to truth.” She continues: “Scientific facts do not correspond to a natural reality but conform to a social construct.”
In my book, folks like this deserve much of the same scorn as Creationists. One finds a benevolent God having begat a weird brand of science; the other a malevolent Rich / White / Old / Male power structure. All the while, neither seem to have problems with the products of said science ranging from airplanes, to the Internet, to medicine.
A few students’ course evaluations are online and highlight a toxic classroom environment –
If she teaches here… don’t take this course. Period. She defines a terrible prof, she is offended when people ask questions about her lectures and does not grade/give feedback on papers. Grade based solely on if she likes you/ you writing reflects her “sophisticated” ideas.
…Aside from the fact that I learnt nothing of value in this class besides the repeated use of the word “postmodernism” in all contexts (whether appropriate or not) and the fact that Professor Venkatesan is the most confusing/nonsensical lecturer ever, the main problem with this class is the personal attacks launched in class. Almost every member of the class was personally attacked in some form in the class by either intimidation or ignoring your questions/comments/concerns. If you decide to take this class, prepare to NOT be allowed to express your own opinions in class because you have “yet to obtain your Ph.D/masters/bachelors degree”.
And, one particularly brave student sounds like he had enough. Priya – to her credit – tells the tale in a blog interview –
[Priya:] I made the argument that in many cases science and technology did not benefit women, and if women were benefiting science and technology, it was an aftereffect. It was not the goal of science and technology.
…But there was one student who really took issue with this–and he took issue with this, and he made a very–I’d call it a diatribe, and it was sort of like, well–science and technology, women really did benefit from it, and to criticize patriarchal authority on the basis that science and technology benefited patriarchy or men, was not sufficient grounds for this type of feminist claim. And he did this with great rhetorical flourish; it was very invective, it was a very invective sort of tone. And I think what happened afterwards was that some people–I can’t name them, and I don’t know how many there were, but it was a significant number–started clapping for his statements. It was a very humiliating moment to my life; it was extremely humiliating, that my students would clap against me,
Priya goes on to describe how that student caused her to have some sort of breakdown that sent her to the (womyn-friendly?) hospital and miss a week of class. Personally, if I could find that student, I’d contribute to his college beer fund.
What took the crap to a level beyond a run-of-the-mill student teacher disagreement, however, was Priya’s truly bizarre response. She threatened a lawsuit in widely circulated emails to her class –
Dear Student:
As a courtesy, you are being notified that you are being named in a potential class action suit that is being brought against Dartmouth College, which is being accused of violating federal anti-discrimination laws. Please do not respond to this email because it will be potentially used against you in a court of law.
Priya Venkatesan, PhD
<
p>And she’s already promised a tell-all book –
[I’m] writing a book detailing my experiences as your instructor, which will ‘name names’ so to speak. I have all of your evaluations and these will be reproduced in the book.”
<
p>The Desi angle? As Harvard’s Crimson reports, that card was introduced by Priya –
Last week, a few students in the Dartmouth writing class “Science, Technology, and Society” received a nasty shock. When they checked their inboxes, they learned that their professor, Priya Venkatesan, was planning to sue them for discrimination. Later investigations revealed that she also planned to sue the College and several faculty members, not referring to any particular episode, but mentioning the “hostility” she felt during her time as a professor and saying that “maybe it has something to do with my ethnicity or my gender.”
Let’s be clear – there absolutely are real instances of ethnic and gender discrimination in the world. However, Priya’s screed is a fantastic example of the “race to the 3rd rail” caricature of the argument. When racism/sexism becomes a reflexive, defensive rush for cover, it raises the burden of proof for other folks in other cases where the argument might actually hold merit. Still, I suppose for Priya Venkatesan, PhD, there’s a certain consistency in claiming ethnic/sexual victimization when so much of her teaching is basically about… well… victimization.
[PS – it’s worth noting that the lawsuit appears to have been dropped…]
I wasn’t being prescriptive about what the blog should be about, just suggesting a name change, given what it has been about all this while! There should be some connection between the title and content, no? 😉
Hold behold there is World War II, there is Princeton Geologist who is a submarine commanders, and starts discovering intriguing sea floor features. He starts thinking about mantle convection, but still it is all poetry (in his own words, geopoetry): was Harry Hess
ow, there is this graduate student at Lamont Doherty Lab, Columbia University who is curious enough to match magnetic data on either side of mid-ocean ridges – and guess what, he finds a symmetry, and that is becomes one of the greatest discovery of modern earth sciences, and sets the stage of paradigm shift: was Fred Vine
I agree. Real pity that the original post itself started the thread with its graceless mockery of Priya and implying that her condition was a logical endpoint of studying postmodernism. And then engaging in censorship of critical comments to boot.
It doesn’t matter that the person (or other agent) carrying out some implementation or approximation of the scientific method is flawed. The process has been self-correcting. The general application of the scientific method is observation-hypothesis-prediction-check (I stress that this is only a description, and not a definition). If anybody makes an error in any one of these steps, it will eventually be seen. The point of the scientific method is not that it will give correct answers immediately, but that if it was wrong, then it will correct itself eventually. This has happened for pretty much every major branch of science, from vacuum-abhorring Aristotle, through Isaac “absolute frame of reference” Newton to our trajectory of geocentric-heliocentric-galactocentric-nothingspecial understanding of Earth’s place in the Universe. Then again, to paraphrase Asimov: “people were wrong when they said that the Earth was flat, and people were wrong when they said it was a sphere. But if you think that these two ideas are equally wrong, then you are wronger than both!”
I don’t know if you’re referring to a specific incident here, but as long as whoever did the OHPC process (even if unconsciously) also communicated the results to others, I don’t see any reason why they should not be credited. There are many old practices around the world (like chewing willow bark for pain and fever) that survived simply because they were effective, even if it was not improved and widely exploited until the 19th century (aspirin) or its mechanism was not known until the 1970s (deactivates the COX enzyme, which is needed to make thromboxanes and prostaglandins, which play a role in sensitizing nerves to pain). My point is that the early practitioners whose thinking may have been something like “Observation: Ogg chewed a willow bark and his pain went away. Hypothesis: Willow bark has cooling humours. Prediction: Others who chew willow bark will also recover from pains and aches, while those who don’t chew willow bark will have pains and aches for a longer time“, which, even if it was unconscious, even if they had nobody to learn from, even if it took several iterations to develop, even if we now have the luxury of knowing their hypothesis to be wrong in every detail, was still a valid application of the scientific method, discovered by accident, and reinforced by itself. It didn’t need anybody to define it before it was used, and it effectively built on its own success. In a way, that answers your question on who gets to define the scientific method. In real terms, nobody. However you encountered it, if it makes sense to you, use it.
Personally, I rely on it solely because it’s a method that doesn’t care if its use negates its past record – it only makes it stronger! But teaching only the results without creating an environment where the results could be poked, tested and generally played with, that’s a sure path to dogma. (For a tragic example from Hindu astronomy, read this).
Or you can just run over the dogma with your karma.
86 · Manju said
OHMIGOD!!! The pomos are taking over!
Smirk? At the placebo effect? The placebo effect is one of the most fascinating phenomenon in the entire universe. Can’t say I have much respect for these researchers.
I’m sorry but I’m not going to respond to #245 as you again create a strawman (but pingpong has responded with whatever I wish I could have said) and I simply do not have the energy to go into Locke and others and the zilch they have produced.
Sorry didn’t mean to be entirely dismissive of Locke et al. That was just a vengeful reaction to the suggestion that ayurveda, chi energy therapy etc. are all about the placebo effect and do not involve knowledge and skills honed over centuries.
256 · Divya said
at your alternative treatments (obviously they think the placebo effect has explanatory power since they [my colleagues]* use it to account for the your increased perceived well-being after your tai-chi-alternative-energy-etc or whatever session).
mostly true? true by whose standards? divya’s? don’t use the t-word without a cogent argument (and proof to back you up) in place. it’s not a bit of rhetoric, it’s basically inflammatory polemics.
i am just quoting this and this again (to emphasize the dismissive nature of your posts. it is then hilarious that when people respond to those posts that you accuse them of making a strawman of your position. i mean look at the outrageous (and laughable**) assertions you have made).
and if you read popper that much, why can’t you point out the problems with inductive reasoning that pingpong has used as examples in his post. pingpong, i generally agree with you, but something to consider seriously is the alternative characterization of the scientific method, ie problems with inductive reasoning (your willow bark example) and popper’s response and the critique of that position as well.
** see prakash at 253
I saw this story this weekend on FOX News (their Wall Street Journal Show). Not good. Another brownie ripped on that station.
nice link. where i work, they found that male scientists were taking advantage of paternity leave and their requests to stop the tenure clock were being granted much more easily by review committees. on the other hand, female scientists almost never took their entire maternity leave and made fewer requests to stop the tenure clock which were being denied at a higher rate (because they were being advised by their colleagues not to do so). a woman scientists, who is the wife of a colleague won a major research prize while she was pregnant, and was still discouraged by her very senior supervisor to not stop the clock for a year (she is high-achieving and young!). regardless, she did and her request was granted. meanwhile, at the institutional level, women researchers are being urged to take maternity leave without fear of repercussions. i know you’re joking, but just for clarification, the work you linked to is in no way pomo scholarship. standard econ. but thanks for bringing this important (if tangential) issue up anyway.
Real difference comes from proposing theories and new ideas, defending them, and capturing intellectual leadership. To do that, you have to read widely, think critically, and question fundamental assumptions. Defending science blindly just shows that you don’t know much, or haven’t thought about, the fundamental assumptions underlying science, you are just another follower.
I am not defending science or scientists. Accepted scientific theories can be approximate or just plain wrong. Scientists approach the topic of research based on subjective factors and are sometimes wrong about conclusions. What I am defending is the scientific method. It has had great success as a method for developing theories about ourself and the environment we live in and testing these theories. We have found that, as a method, it also removes the subjectivity of a scientist. Using the scientific method, scientists propose theories and new ideas, defend them, and capture intellectual leadership. Scientists also read widely, think critically, and question fundamental assumptions. Data is interpreted incorrectly, data points are excluded in double blind trials for fame, fortune or for any reason. The scientific method outs the truth. Examples are cold fusion, Uri Geller, planetary position in the sky and it’s influence on human behaviour etc. IanHackingFan refers to Peter Galison’s work as evidence of PostModernism at work. I cannot see his work as divorced from the physics of the experiments or the size of the experiments that he reports on. His work on the nature of reality with respect to visual (cloud chamber) and logical (proportional counter) can be understood within the context of science itself as he himself notes. We know a lot about ourselves and our environment. However, there is a lot that is unknown. In fact, as we uncover new results in mathematics, sciences and logic we see that they are not what we expect and in fact some even run contrary to what the majority have assumed to be true. These results use logic and mathematical definitions that when translated to words mean different “things” to different people. However, these results mean exactly the same thing to people reading the proof or reviewing the data.
254 · pingpong said
i agree that science has these features, but it is not to say hypothesis testing and argumentation and refutation have not been used in other disciplines as well(econ/philosophy). it is true that peer review and replication allow us to test hypotheses rigorously, but so do other disciplines. second, it is unfair to contend that other disciplines are dogmatic due to methodological reasons. they also have vigorous questioning of results/arguments/premises/conjectures and back-and-forth argumentation. knowledge is refined in science, but also elsewhere. moreover, other disciplines (eg ethics, literary criticism) are concerned with entirely different questions, so to say they do not look like science is to state the obvious. it is unhelpful, and moreover, parochial to criticize them solely on those grounds. how absurd would it be if critics of literature decided the merits of two books by devising an RCT? that would answer a different question, namely, what book does a certain cross-section of the public like — rather than the book with superior literary merit. even though their discipline does not imitate science, would i call literary theorists dogmatic? no. and even if i did, it would be wrong to do so on the grounds that their methodology is different from science.
Okay port, this will be my last interaction with you ever since there’s something about you I find a bit dishonest. This is not the first time I get the impression that you seem to simply turn your position around to suit your convenience. Maybe there was some miscommunication. Whatever. But the rest of your post is just a rant specially since I totally am aware of my hyperbolic stance, took the pains to point it out, and even wrote a separate post about it. But you just had to go frothing at the mouth over it didn’t you. I will concede, however, that I am not capable of writing a post as cogent as pingpong’s. That’s a pity.
263 · Divya said
maybe you have a hard time understanding me? obviously, i was trying to indicate that some scientists might use placebo effect as an explanation of why you feel better rather than the intrinsic benefit of the process itself. of course, they would have to be able to give an account of why/how placebo effect is distinct from intrinsic benefit rather than a component of the medical mechanism. what was was meant to be an aside is being blown out of proportion. not unexpectedly.
the pleasure is all mine. i’ve found you to be unnecessarily abrasive, ill-informed, and dismissive. the last of the 3 adjectives i’ve mentioned before. you can stop reacting to me, but i will continue to object to your venomous rants as and when i see fit. btw, pingpong responded to someone else, and not my querying of your nutso assertions. his earlier post (with the willow bark example) wasn’t doing clarificatory work for my benefit.
Sure, but how about if I say: “Nah, don’t like this version of reality, I will wait for the next update, would perhaps suit my preferences more”?
Duh, looks like you don’t understand English. The sentence in my link clearly says Galison and company (the Stanford school) is very different from pomos. They are still anti-realists, though. At least by the standard definition of realism.
I believe the technical term for this argument is “Love Me, Love My Dog”. Sorry, love ya (scientific method), but the dog (realism) stays outside.
BTW, if any of the mutiny folks are reading this, how about a post on this?
Note to self: Preemptively declare own argument ridiculous so that you can declare opponent unhinged and dishonest (but only a little) when they respond to any part of it. Scientific or not, this method is AWESOME.
Define “superior literary merit” and you can apply the scientific method. My cat applies the scientific method to survive. Touched the electric cooking range top – it’s hot – burns – no walking on it when warm. He has developed his theory of the electric cooking range.
To me a theory not only explains but also has predictive capacity. So, literary “theory” maybe be better defined as literary analysis.
Port:
OY VEY! I was not saying that anything outside the mainstream sciences is dogmatic. I was only saying that building a sacred cow out of known results (in any field, even mainstream science), and creating an environment where only the results are passed on, will result in dogma. I apologize if the impression I conveyed was otherwise. If anything, I was attacking the practice of a teacher merely passing on information to students without fully understanding the information themselves, and discouraging students from questioning the information, which kind of situation is not specific to any single field.
For instance, I have had the following conversation in high school physics —
Teacher: Einstein showed that E = mc^2. Me: How did he see that? Teacher: Because he was Einstein! If everyone were that smart, we could all see it.
Yeah, thanks for that obscurantism, Sherlock. Why are you of all people teaching physics?
But equally, I have had this conversation in high school English —
Teacher: This work of Shakespeare’s is considered one of his best comedies. [several unfunny pages follow] Everyone: What is so funny in this that people call it a comedy? Teacher: It was not a tragedy, so it’s a comedy.
It wasn’t until several years later that I discovered that they didn’t have women in the acting profession, so the man-in-drag-pretending-to-be-a-woman-who-is-masquerading-as-a-man factor may have helped a huge deal. But without that context (which I now doubt the teacher knew about), calling Twelfth Night a comedy (to teens more used to slapstick, not to adults who can appreciate irony) was perceived as a blind assertion, mixed with an appeal to authority. “Experts in English have called it a comedy. Who are we to disagree?”.
The main reason why I’m annoyed with Priya Venkatesan is not that she is not working in her chosen field (though I admit I do get a little jumpy when someone claims that objective reality doesn’t exist). Rather, it is that her actions indicated that she wanted her students to accept her statements at face value, and she got distraught when her statements were questioned. It’s the assumption that her authority would enable her to assert anything without opposition that I find so destructive.
And what have you contributed illogicus, other than just coming in here to drip sarcasm. Let’s see how long you’d be able to keep your cool.
Exactly. Tell me your preference. I shall test it and see if the earth conforms. Scientific method.
267 · amaun said
sorry my IQ is at the level of your cat, so why don’t you define it and tell me how your scientific study will be conducted. tell me how you would rank ‘as you like it’, ‘the frogs,’ and ‘four quartets’ in your study and enumerate their weaknesses and strengths. what was the author thinking? social impact? you know, standard concerns of aesthetic judgment. and do, discuss. good job anthropomorphizing your cat there. but did you cat develop a theory, or an aversion based on repeated negative stimuli? you know, a guy called pavlov was much better at observing and theorizing about his cats. maybe you want to check him out. for a strict definition of theory, see here.
oh, and you just observed one cat. what was the power of your study? did you consider alternative hypotheses about why kitty doesn’t want to be on the range? how significant is your result? please be randomizing – where is your control group? let’s just call what we do scientific. very original methodology.
I’m not dripping sarcasm, just being inspired by the high standards and spirit of science here to logically extend and apply arguments.
268 · pingpong said
seconded. thanks for your comment — i agree with what you say in 268. and it sucks to have terrible teachers — whether physicists or humanists. drain the life out of a thriving subject and kill it for the students. elizabethan history is totally fun btw. gotta run!
I was agreeing with you that the job of a literary critic is not scientific.
But in the meantime “facts” are being based on that experiment’s outcome. The pomos just want to remind everyone that all facts are not 100%, not completely known.
And then there’s that great line Maria says: “bring thy hand to the buttery bar and let it drink” Bawdy ol’ Shakespeare!
Port, I agree the problem of inductive reasoning has always been a huge deal. I don’t know if my thoughts on this subject are along the right track, but I generally go along with the development of Quine’s idea of confirmation holism, and the larger idea of instrumentalism. I fully accept that conjectures, hypotheses, theories and evidence could change in future, and I also think that proofs (as in mathematical or logical chains of reasoning) are eternal once their truth has been established. I once recall Feynman saying that it’s perfectly OK to propose a hypothesis that the Earth is pushed on its orbit by angels, as long as one also describes how the angels move (“angel dynamics”), in a manner that is consistent with itself and with known observations, and all of whose side-effect predictions can also be verified, by experiment if necessary. Where I seem to differ from many relativists is that I believe our ability to understand and predict the universe will grow until we understand all of objective reality, while not everyone believes that is even theoretically possible.
Addendum to #277:
That said, the existing set of theories and evidence that we do have till date do a fairly impressive job of describing the universe. In that respect, a significant change in our existing theories will probably require a significantly unexplainable observation.
Where I seem to differ from many relativists is that I believe our ability to understand and predict the universe will grow until we understand all of objective reality, while not everyone believes that is even theoretically possible.
For me, the statement would read “…until we understand most of objective reality.” The reason I say most is that there are more elementary particles in the universe than elementary particles that we have interacted with or in us. So, even though the universe’s numbers are finite, our numbers are less.
This is a very interesting debate with a lot of moving parts: PoMo, Science, Oprresion & Bigotry, Free Speech, Law, and not to add another twist:
applying science to literary theory.
for example:
It’s worse than that 🙂 Beauty in folklore is usually associated with goodness whereas plainness or ugliness is associated with evil.
About the beauty thing though, other than it’s aethetic appeal, perhaps it has some evolutionay advantage as well.
Twisted Tale actually means Tenure Track, didn’t you know?
Of moving parts and the beauty ideal: Some female artists have explored this beauty myth, leading to bizarre consequences.
umm, this (part of the argument) is a strawman — literary scholars have observed this bias in non-western sources as well. i’ll take a look at this later, but these sort of ‘cute’ studies are a dime a dozen these days, and most of them do very little novel analysis. and intense stress on beauty is pretty common feminist trope since god know when, hardly what you might call ‘pomo.’
just took a quick glance at the piece you linked to — this guy’s experiment to disprove the ‘author is dead’ was absurd. while i personally not with the ‘author is dead’ school, this guy is not one i want on my side. readers (his experimental subjects) are embedded in a particular society so of course it is not surprising they judge literary characters similarly. where is the control group (presumably humans who’ve grown up in an entirely different social milieu but are are of the same age and gender? queer theorists would question gender as an absolute category but that is another matter?)? this guy’s science technique looks shady, and of course, his take on literature seem similarly misguided. he reminds me of rorty’s claim: “each generation tries to subject all disciplines to the model that the most successful discipline of the day employs.”
284 · portmanteau said
Yeah, i think that was poorly worded. His point was that the universality of the beauty myth means its not a myth, or not a social construction at all, rather something that’s linked to nature, which of course undermines relativist dogma. but he is right that the focus of literary theory is western literature, b/c to deconstruct non-western literature to is to open oneself up to the very charges of cultural imperialism, that you posses the very hidden bias and are part of the very unseen power structures, that your methodology is supposed to reveal.
which brings us back to the original conundrum explored earlier in this excellent thread: relativists need to exempt themselves from their own theories.
portmanteau, you must not be a good feminist.. or whatever the word for a female dog is.. because you didn’t respond correctly to the whistle. The important part was not that patriarchy is universal, but the concluding sentence “Its ultimate roots apparently lie not in the properties of any specific culture, but in something deeper in human nature.” (Im)Morality is absolute and unavoidable. Our genes make us do it, see?
He would be right if the statement were true. Given the importance of postcolonialism – whatever you may think of it, and its impact on literary criticism, the statement unfortunately isn’t true. So, he is wrong.
287 · Dogwhistler’s mother said
that’s the exception that proves the rule. postcolonialism deals with, well, colonialism…identity vis a vis western domination. so the literary theorist can deconstruct the text to reveal western hegemony, that’s easy an unproblematic, but can they see the hegemony outside the context of the colonized mind. ergo, the twisted tale of joseph massad.
277 · pingpong said
i wouldn’t discount angel dynamics so much, pingpong. a triumph of modern engineering that defies gravity and features a special cushioned memory lining. and i am told it works quite well.
289 · portmanteau said
Bad, Bad feminist Port. It takes a dog to hear a whistle.
You don’t understand kitty-think. A relativist would have.
291 · amaun said
i have subjective access to only one kitty (ie mine and she is very happy, thanks). i won’t presume to speak for all the others. many owners of kitties, however, have told me that people presume they know kitty-speak, when they actually don’t get it at all (both pussy-speak and pussy).
i suspect you may be making this tragic mistake also. just ask (and maybe ye shall receive).
ps: for semantic and philosophical clarity (so as to remove terminological confusion), it is a good idea to read the bit on normative and descriptive relativism in wikipedia, as well as these entries, especially the bit on nozick and margolis in the relativism article.
Looks like there’s light at the end of the tunnel, if we’re to believe David Brooks’s trendspotting. It’s funny how people manage to see Buddhism in all ends of the spectrum, from foofy french theory to hardcore science. This is encouraging though, unlike the foof.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/opinion/13brooks.html?em&ex=1210910400&en=a45f9ebfe3a33b82&ei=5087
That’s old news, Brooks is late with his reading.
People “manage” to see Buddhism because most new theoretical ideas rip-off from Buddhism, it is probably the most influential philosophical system among scientists and philosophers.
There are two separate issues here. Dr. Venkatesan’s conduct/behaviour and the issue of science studies. From what I have read about what transpired, it would seem that she could do with some help, be it academic counselling or just some mentoring.
On the issue of science and technology studies (STS), a number of saracastic comments have been made. The term “social constructivism” has been taken to imply that STS scholars are relativists who deny the reality of the real world, of nature, natural laws, technology etc. While there may certainly a few fringe scholars who might fit this label, most STS folks are not on a mission to denigrate or debunk science. On the contrary, showing that social factors influence the conduct, trajectory and the content of science, does no in any way deny the reality of science. Nor do STS scholars claim to show that social factors alone account for science. However, they do want to demonstrate the social, economic, political, commercial, professional etc. interests cannot be totally de-linked from the practice of science and technology. Thus, why at certain points of time, solid state physics and not genomics becomes a “hot” field of research or vice versa, is not a matter of “scientific interests” alone, although such interests are certainly significant. In this age, no scientific and technological research can be carried out without massive funds. This is a truism. Not everybody gets those funds and there’s intense competition for them. Which area/field of science gets funded and which does not, is not simply an outcome of “scientific interests” alone, but a complex mix of commercial, scientific, professional, economic, political, professional rivalries, jealousies etc. Thus, whatever may have been the case in the past, it is simply not true that scientists simply pursue certain projects for the sake of “science” alone. If this were the case, they would be hard pressed to find the funds for engaging in research.
As for the claim that “social constructivists” deny the reality of nature, the material world, natural laws, consider an analogy. Consider the practice of cartography or map-making. Maps REPRESENT the natural world (and the political/social world when it comes to political maps), but they can never ever, represent everything. If they did, the whole notion of a map would be pointless, because the purpose of maps is to isolate and separate out elements that are of INTEREST to someone else. So, we have physical maps, political maps, maps of the subway system, maps for golfers etc. Even if we merge all these maps together, they would still be maps that isolate some elements of reality from all the rest. A map that represented EVERYTHING would be quite useless to anyone. And the reason maps are made, is not simply because a bunch of people love to make maps, but because there is a social interest in highlighting some aspect of reality while ignoring others that we are not interested in. Thus, maps are “social constructed” ie. they represent specific social points of views. But they are not simply “social constructs” as they do represent concrete, objective realities. A map of the subway that misrepresents reality, would be worse than no map at all. Hence, just because maps are socially constructed, does NOT mean that they are totally subjective. But at the same time, they are socially constituted, because people decide to make maps for specific social reasons. Of course, users of map are not bound by the original social reasons and they can use the same maps for very different reasons. Much of the history of map-making is precisely the social interests of navigation, conquests etc.
Try the analogy of map-making on science. Science represents maps of the natural world. Scientists select out issues that are of interest to them and their sponsors and represent them in the form of claims, theories, scientific knowledge, technology etc. If they were to map out EVERYTHING, it would not make sense. Why do scientists decide to study X and not Y? A host of complicated factors that include biography, socialization, commerce, economy, politics etc. But despite the dominant image of science, few scientists, at least in this day and age, can just do whatever they want, “for the sake of science” so to speak. Who will sponsor their research? What will be the pay-offs? Who will have access to the patents etc. etc. These are SOCIAL factors that come into play. Hence, just like map-making, a number of social factors go into the construction of science. However, this does NOT mean that science is nothing more than social construction or myth-making. If this were the case, there would be no need for funds, labs, experiments etc. Given the play of these social factors that cannot be avoided, since scientists and other humans do not live in a vacuum, science studies promotes, not the fantasy of relativism, but of taking into account the social factors that are part and parcel of the human activity called science.
Someone above said: Do social constructivists really believe that technologies such as the internet etc. do not exist in reality? Obviously not! For a masterful account of the social factors that went into the “construction” of the internet, I recomemend Janet Abbate’s highly readable (as in no esoteric French literary theory) Inventing the Internet (MIT Press). As is well known by now, Vinton Cerf, Roger Kahn and the two others were scientists, BUT they were social activists too. They were in the thick of protests in the Vietnam War. While designing the TCP/IP protocol, they had a number of technological choices/alternatives. One of the non-technological reasons they chose the particular TCP/IP protocol was precisely because socially they were committed to an open architecture that could not be centrally controlled. Now, of course, they had to contend with technological constraints too, ie. just because they were committed to a particular social world-view, would not automatically mean that they could design anything they wanted, as if the world is totally pliable and not limited by certain natural and technological constraints. But within those constraints, a particular architecture was chosen. Think of any technological innovation, and it is not hard to reflect on the complex mix of social, technological, natural factors that are a part and parcel of the world we make and remake, using science and technology. How is it possible to pretend that there is a particular sealed domain called “science” and another, the “social world”? Scienec and Technology Studies facilitates this point of view and its practitioners do not intend either to denigrate or pooh pooh the notion of objectivity nor the idea that the natural world is for real.
(The map-making analogy comes from two sources: Philip Kitcher, Science, Truth and Democracy (Oxford University Press, year?) and Thomas Gieryn, Credibility on the Line: The Cultural Boundaries of Science (Univ. of Chicago Press, year?)
295 common sense: relevant post with great further reading suggestions. thanks.
Yes, good work, common sense.
Though I think the map analogy is misleading, as it assumes a static reality and a correspondence model. The pragmatics folks are more interesting.
In general, I don’t buy any view that holds that there can be an absolute foundation/rock-bottom, out there or within. For one, life would be rather boring if that is true! 🙂
Bye folks, it was interesting being here, now I gotta do some real work! 😉
Portmanteau and IanHackingFan,
Thanks!
yes, i did not intend to defend a static reality! whatever is being mapped, is being continously tranformed, both on its own, and sometimes due the very actions facilitated by maps, be the in the form of real maps or scientific knowledge. That is why we need new maps all the time and no map, scientific or a map-map, is forever! IanHackigngFan, thanks for pointing out that unintended gap!
I did also forget to add a couple of relevant and eminently readable references (ie. no snooty obsession with so-called high theory, french or otherwise) (re: IanHackingFan!)
Ian Hacking, The Social Construction of What? (Harvard Universit Press, Year??)
Ian Hacking Representing and Intervening (Cambridge University Press, Year??)
Ian Hacking Historical Ontology (Harvard University Press, year??)
Divya 41:
“”What I find sleazy about the postmodernists is their attempt at classifying science as just another construct. In fact science is a discovery and understanding of what is already there.””
Divya, sure scientists try to get at “what is already there”, but what is already there is not static but always in a flux. Not in such a flux that we cannot ever get a handle on it, but in a flux enough to make any knowledge claim provisional (not FALSE), until we get a further fix on new transformations….and even these fixes are coming from particular angles and social interests….and so the process goes….
as it assumes a static reality and a correspondence model. The pragmatics folks are more interesting.
How do you define static reality? How is it defined within philosophy? french literary theory? Is it defined as existence outside of human cognitive abilities? or, like a bar of gold in a vault?
If you say assumption of existence outside of human cognitive ability is incorrect then you need a theory that explains light from stars 100 million light years away since humans did not evolve when that star was created. Are these stars not really that far? What about dinosaur cognitive ability? A meteor came and wiped them out. Maybe static reality is defined as existence outside of any sentience.
What if it is defined as an unchanging object (bar of gold)? Scientific tests have determined that every object is changing all the time. Bar of gold has vapor pressure. Electrons are in orbit. Nothing is static.
How do you define the term correspondence model? So on … Words are confusing and do not mean the same everywhere. Is this the confusion that literary theory is trying to address?