[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
not the two cultures again!
---------------------------------------------------------
· · · · · · A E C F O R U M - "M E M E S I S" · · · · ·
· · · · · · · (http://www.aec.at/meme/symp/) · · · · · ·
---------------------------------------------------------
Greetings to all:
The list has indeed been quiet lately, though perhaps 'disquiet' would
be a more appropriate term. For my part I have been reading the postings
and finding that I have less to say. So now I'm going to try to say that
'less', because "I don't post, therefore I'm not" (to paraphrase
Descartes).
In the first period of discussion we determined, however hazily, just
what we might collectively mean by Meme. But to my eyes the unresolved
underlying question continues to be: Can human culture be said to be in
any way 'evolutionary'? It seems that among the participants there is
polarisation: Given ones position on that question, ones position on the
array of questions which surround it (and are the meat of this
discusssion) can be easily determined. If so, this is indeed a sorry
state of affairs. Seemingly, we have made no progress in the
reconciliation of culture and technology since the time of CP Snow.
The bifurcation in this discussion is that some of us seem to believe
that 'science' can have some objective purchase on culture, to be able
to put it 'under the microscope' so to speak, while others of us believe
that science is immersed in culture, and is subject to the washes, flows
and trends of culture. This bifurcation is made more complex by the fact
that in the twentieth century, 'science' itself has been perhaps _the_
major validating narrative in western culture.I would like to explore
for a few paragraphs, the idea that science is a cultural construction,
to see how that might have some bearing on our discussion.
If one examines any aspect of cultural history (and I include both
'science' and 'politics' in this category), we will see that projects
are validated by recourse to cultural narratives, originating outside of
(and necessarily before) the aspect of culture in question. These
validating narratives may derive from religion, philosophy, social
traditon, even science.
A powerful narrative in many parts of the world has been Patriarchality.
By employing various patriarchal narratives, men have for generations
forced women into secondary, demeaning and menial social roles. These
narratives have (inevitably) influenced the direction of scientific
research. I assume to most of us on this list, such narratives are
baseless fictions, but for generations they encouraged, even dictated,
the subjugation of women. (Likewise there exist similarly chauvinistic
racial and ethnic narratives.)
A case study in the cultural construction of scientific narratives is
"The Egg and the Sperm", in which Emily Martin shows that patriarchal
narratives shaped the results of 'scientific' research into human
fertilisation, constructing a narrative in which the sperm is powerful
and conquering and the egg is passive and receptive. It can be argued
that this scenario has been disproved due to advances in research
techniques, but Martin points out that the technology and techniques
needed to contradict that patriarchal narrative was available in the
1900s.(Signs vol16#31 1991).
The narrative of the 'Natural Order' is a particularly subtle one,
informed as it is by such diverse and conflicting sources as Darwins
writings and the Bible. It has been used for all manner of purposes, the
prohibition of certain types of pleasure being a clear present example.
The usefulness of the construction 'nature' to justify almost any act
was explained in the recent post by Critical Art Ensemble (july3):
>On one hand, nature is viewed in a very gentle sense as moral and pure,
and >thereby good. Hence that which is natural is also good. On the
other hand, >when perceived through the evolutionary ideological filter
as a realm in >which only the strong >survive the bloodbath of life,
nature becomes abject, >dangerous, and amoral. >Hence, that which is
natural (sovereign) must be >repelled.
The point I am drifting toward is that 'evolution' is in our case a
validating narrative. It is an idea imported from another field to
validate a certain argument. It has yet to be proven that 'evolution'
has any scientific validity on the plane of the social, let alone that
ideas propagate according to the laws of genetics. Both ideas remain
_literary_devices_ , metaphors. I have yet to be persuaded that they
have any more truth value, with respect to our context, than the old
colonial notion that black people don't have souls. Yet _that_
validating narrative allowed that black people could be slaughtered like
animals, with a clear conscience.
As there are 'affinity groupings' amongst ideas, so there are isomorphic
relationships between ideas. An idea arising in scientific discourse
might map onto or endorse a particular political position. It behooves
us therefore to consider just what kind of social acts and policies our
particular scientific position might ally us with,
_whether_we_intend_those_alliances_or_not.
There has been some consternation (even some ridicule) since the
beginning of this discussion over the spectre of eugenics and social
darwinism. Some of the more scientifically oriented and/or utopian
contributors have objected that the occurence of anti-social acts in the
past, which have been validated by such ideas, does not mean that our
current concerns bear any relation to such historical events (though any
fair minded person would have to admit, I believe, that the possibility
does exist). To my mind such objections miss the point.
Can we hold Darwin (for instance) responsible for the use or misuse his
theories were put to? Perhaps not, but we must acknowledge that he
himself was socially constituted. Had he been able to to ask himself:
"what does it mean to be proposing the 'survival of the fittest' in my
social moment?", he may have altered his theorisation. Had he been able
to distance hiself from the intellectual 'realities' of his time, he
have might have asked: "what in my theorisation is entirely consistent
with the values of my culture (or subculture)?" We see by this
conjecture that science is _inevitably_ culturally constructed, by
virtue of the fact that scientists are products of their culture.
But scientists are encouraged to believe that science is 'immune' to
culture, and so they are discouraged from developing the kind of
reflexivity that would allow them to concede the social repercussions of
their acts.
So where does that leave us in the consideration of our subject? We
should be encouraged to place our particular concern in historical
context. Historically, ideas associated with the theory of evolution are
(it seems inevitably) appropriated by (despotic) power in order to
validate anti-social policies. We must acknowledge that exactly
_because_ science is such a powerful validating force in our culture,
there is no such thing as pure research.
I must make very clear that, contrary to what might seem from the
writings above, I am not anti-science, and of course am not only
enthralled by A-life, complexity theory etc, but am actively involved in
such practice. However, such interests must always, I believe, be viewed
in the larger context of the social, a context which often does not
offer the reassurance of the simplicities of scientific fact.
Simon Penny
Associate Professor of Art and Robotics
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh PA USA
----------------------------------------------------------
· · · · to subscribe to the Forum just mail to · · · · ·
· · memesis-request@aec.at (message text 'subscribe') · ·
· · · · · · · send messages to memesis@aec.at · · · · · ·
----------------------------------------------------------
