Anthropology of Science and Technology: Key Concepts through Images
The anthropological study of science and technology seeks to study people who are marginalized. These people are those with little to no power, who practice science differently, who do not use or have access to the same technology as those in power. The anthropology of science and technology recognizes that all people are part of the puzzle, too. Their knowledge and practices play a role in the formation of science and technology.
In “Is Science Multicultural?” by Sandra Harding, modern science can have non-Western origins such as European alchemy, Indian and Arabic mathematical ideas, and achievements like gunpowder and the ruder from China (1). People who have been or are marginalized have influenced Western science. In “Circuits of Labour” by Qiu, Gregg, and Crawford, they argue that there are many more ‘circuits’ than requires examination in the production and labour of technology. They explain that this framework allows for various traditions, concepts, and politics to be explored in the study of technology and labor (2).
Sources:
- Harding, Sandra G. “Is science multicultural?: Challenges, resources, opportunities, uncertainties.” Configurations 2.2 (1994): 301–330.
- Qiu, Jack Linchuan, Melissa Gregg, and Kate Crawford. “Circuits of labour: A labour theory of the iPhone era.” tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 12.2 (2014): 564–581.
- https://ethnicseattle.com/2017/10/08/race-ethnicity-genealogy-nationality-making-difference-literally/
The anthropological study of science and technology is about looking at more than just nature or just culture — it is about looking at both, or using a naturecultural framework. This framework allows for various disciplines and points of view to come together to create a more holistic study. Banu Subramaniam introduces this idea in Ghost Stories for Darwin. One of many examples of a naturecultural framework includes different ways of telling the story of science such as the story of three girls in India who work collaboratively in order to produce a nuanced study of wildflowers in their community. They become well-versed in multiple disciplines and work together. Through this story, Subramaniam demonstrates the value of interdisciplinary work and a naturecultural framework. Further, Anna Tsing identifies the importance of studying complex topics through a naturecultural framework in The Mushroom at the End of the World. She explains that there is a nature-culture knot in many studies, such as different ways to smell a mushroom or different ways to examine history (2).
Sources:
- Subramaniam, Banu. Ghost stories for Darwin: The science of variation and the politics of diversity. University of Illinois Press, 2014.
- Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt. The mushroom at the end of the world: On the possibility of life in capitalist ruins. Princeton University Press, 2015.
- https://www.thclabs.org/miscellaneous/culture/us-them-the-nature-culture-divide/
The anthropological study of science and technology places an importance on language and discourse. Language reflects cultural influences on science and technology. Language can also influence who can understand science or technology, who has power to make decisions and impact things further, who has a voice, and more. In “The Egg and the Sperm,” Emily Martin shows how culture influences language around reproductive science. When discussing the egg and the sperm, certain cultural stereotypes are attributed in textbooks, research articles, and more. For instance, the egg is described passively with terms like “swept” or “drifts” and the sperm as active with terms like “penetrates” and “delivers” (1). Language demonstrates the influence of culture on science even if it claims to be “culture-less” (Traweek). In “Geeks, Social Imaginaries, and Recursive Publics”, Chris Kelty discusses how the transformation of technology depends on who creates it, who has access to it, and how it is built through groups that determine the language to describe technology (2). The government and others in power can shape language and discourse in technology and use their power to censor, promote, and intimidate (2). This shows that language and discourse, and those who create it, has a lot of power as do those who define it.
Sources:
- Martin, Emily. “The egg and the sperm: How science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male-female roles.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 16.3 (1991): 485–501.
- Kelty, Christopher. “Geeks, social imaginaries, and recursive publics.” Cultural Anthropology 20.2 (2005): 185–214.
- https://www.npr.org/2013/12/13/248190652/spoken-and-unspoken
In this course, we discussed knowledge production in terms of who produces it, how it is produced, and what influenced that production. This topic is important to the anthropological study of science and technology, yet one form of ‘knowledge’ or something that may influence knowledge production which ties together both science and technology was never discussed. Additionally, we studied how people use science and technology, how they interact with it, how they define it, and more. This topic is also important to this study, yet one way in which people use science and technology has not been discussed in this course. This topic, for both knowledge production and human interaction with science and technology, is science fiction. Creators of science fiction use, create, and may even remake knowledge. They envision how people would interact with new types of science or technology, how they would be made, how they would be used, and more. Further, it has been studied in order to learn about capitalism, culture, and knowledge (1). Studying science fiction would allow for the study of many key points of the anthropology of science and technology.
Sources:
- Pels, Peter. “Enchanted reason: Science fiction, print capitalism and the magic of anthropology.” Anthropology Today 33.2 (2017): 10–14.
- http://www.museumofsciencefiction.org/featuredartists/
