Final Project — Anthropology of Science and Tech through images
Separation of disciplines
One of the key concepts throughout this course has been how “Western science” compartmentalizes and separates disciplines making communication and understanding between fields in research production and analysis the exception rather than the rule. The image above is just a funny cartoon i found that comments on the structure of academics and how different fields perceive themselves in relation to others. What this cartoon and our readings have pointed out is how interconnected all these disciplines are and the potential/need for interdisciplinary work. Banu Subramaniam talks about this separation in academics in her book “Ghost stories for Darwin”, the first chapter starts with her saying “ An academy with separate and distinct disciplines has carved knowledge production into unique objects of studies and methodologies, obscuring the teeming life between the worlds of natures and cultures” (Subramaniam, 27). Her book talks about the structure of academia as she develops her idea of nature-cultural analysis — an interdisciplinary approach recognizing the symbiotic relationship between nature, its analysis and framing, and culture. One specific site in particular need of an interdisciplinary approach is in coding. Tara McPherson argues in “U.S Operating Systems at Mid-Century” that there was a connection between the structure of operating systems developed in the 60’s and wider social concepts around race and segregation. Her specific argument is up for debate but her closing arguments about the need for changes within social sciences to participate in interdisciplinary work are useful. She concludes by saying “In extending our critical methodologies, we must have at least a passing familiarity with code languages, operating systems, algorithmic thinking, and system design…We need new hybrid practices: artist-theorist; programming humanists; activist scholars;theoretical activist; critical race coders… Critical theory and post-structuralism have been powerful operating systems that have served us well; they were as hard to learn as the complex structure of C++…They are also operating systems in desperate need of updating and patching. They are lovely, and they are not enough. They cannot be all we do” ( McPherson, 35). There is a lot of potential and need for interdisciplinary work, especially when select approaches are currently having a disproportionate affect on society, but it will take a change to the current separation of disciplines and narrowing of focus within areas of study.
Science is not objective
The picture above is of the second atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki to end WWII — the pursuit of this technology and how it has shaped our world is a good example of the most important concept of the Anthropological study of science and technology. If there was one lesson to take from this class, one key baseline understanding of the Anthropology of science and technology someone would take away from any of our articles it is that “science” (Western science) is not some perfectly objective, natural undertaking and neither are scientist in the way most people think. This can be broken down into a lot of different influences that challenge this “objectivity”- the historical development of “western science”, how this general framework actually manifests in specific places in time, how specific research questions and practices reflect this general framework, how scientist personal background influences research structure and how the culture of academia selects for particular perspectives, people, and practices — the list goes on. In “Is science Multicultural” Sandra Harding outlines various influences on what has come to be “science”. As one example she talks about how specific social conditions influenced what “science” focused on and why saying, “A third source of skepticism about conventional claims for the unique efficacy of Western sciences arises from an often-repeated argument in the postcolonial accounts: European sciences advanced because they focused on describing and explaining those aspects of nature’s regularities that permitted the upper classes of Europeans to multiply and thrive, especially through the prospering of their military, imperial, and otherwise expansionist project… This is not to deny that Western sciences can claim many great and, so far, unique scientific achievements. Instead, it is to argue, contrary to conventional views, that scientific “truths,” no less than false beliefs, are caused by social relations as well as by nature’s regularities and the operations of reason” (Harding, 7). While the achievements of “western science” cannot be discounted it is clear that how it has developed, what questions are asked and how the answers are interpreted cannot be separated from the social context. The social influence on “objective” science is evident in Emily Martin’s “The egg and the Sperm: How science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male-female roles”. She points out how “… the picture of egg and sperm dawn in popular as well as scientific accounts of reproductive biology relies on stereotypes central to out cultural definitions of male and female” (Martin, 485). She is talking about the idea of a heroic male sperm cell coming to the aid of a passive egg cell — an accepted account of the process which runs counter to what we know about how they interact and appear to clearly be reflections of social imaginary’s. Both in the long view of the development of Western science and in individual research projects and analysis the social context cannot be ignored and any idea of an objective detached science is not only incorrect but hides important variables which influence our understandings.
Many Sciences
The image above is of monitoring equipment being moved around on an Inuit sled — using traditional environmental knowledge in unison with “scientific” approaches has become more common in rapidly changing icy environments. I think one of the most important lessons in the Anthropology of science and technology is the understanding that Western science is not the only form of knowledge out there and recognizing other forms of knowledge production can greatly increase quality and scope of research. Laura Nader points this out in “Anthropological Inquiry into boundaries, power, and knowledge” saying, “The many observations of rationalities other than Western rationality point to the conclusion that scientific attitudes and methods of validation are not unique to a cognoscente of the West…In human-plant interaction, indigenous people carry a knowledge from which Western scholars have much to gain (Nader,8). In “The mushroom at the end of the World” Anna Tsing uses not just scientific understanding and categorization but the varying culturally contingent relationships and perceptions people had with this mushroom to develop a more full nature — cultural understanding of its place in the world and what it can teach us about concepts of history and interaction. Valuing knowledge systems outside of traditional Western science is definitely a key lesson of the Anthropological study of Science and Technology.
Generational Differences: The Elderly and Technoscience
Every generation, at least since the industrial revolution, has probably been struck by the technological advances they see in their old age and they’re relationship to these advances; how they accept them vs hold onto older technologies, how and why they learn to use new technologies, how their relationship to new technologies is viewed by them and younger members of society and the role this plays in performing identity, ect, is not the central narrative when we think of how technology affects a society. However, i feel like with technological advances over the last 20–30 years being so dramatic and playing such a transformative role in how we present ourselves, interact with others, learn, and interact with the world around us in general, these are some interesting questions to look into more. In one scholarly article from 2005 focused in Germany the authors talk about some of these questions. Based on limited data they say “ The elderly, who communicate mostly within the same age cohort of retirees and who have a similar educational background, have no professional incentives to use the Internet, which has a lot to offer to young and well–educated people (chats, games, films, music, etc.) but provides less to offer for the elderly” (Gerd and Stegbauer, 2005). They talk about how the lack of work incentive, social pressure, helpful design, and habitual thought processes discourage internet use by the elderly and conclude that along with lack of formal or informal learning contexts that “…the social network of the elderly does not provide sufficient support for those who want to become familiar with the Internet. Most sites meet the needs of experienced young male users, whereas the need and interest of elderly women, the majority of the senior potential, are not targeted. Generally, for the elderly the Internet has a different collective significance than in other generations.”(Gerd and Stegbauer, 2005). These conclusions are vague and based on limited data but, I think, call for more attention to be paid to these questions. If we’re interested in how we use technology and how they change and are changed by social contexts, how these changes affect the group least likely to adopt them is an interesting place to look.
Paul, Gerd, and Christian Stegbauer. “Is the digital divide between young and elderly people increasing?.” First Monday10.10 (2005).
