It is interesting to note that every time a philosopher gets closer to an object of science that is at once historical and interesting, his or her philosophy changes, and the specifications for a realist attitude become, at once, more stringent and completely different from the so-called realist philosophy of science concerned with routine or boring objects. (p. 234)
This passage really resonated with me because it reinforced how the history surrounding a scientific object can be melded with that object to form something new: a sort of super object that only exists alongside its historical context. This new creation is what Heidegger refers to as a “thing.” We’ve already seen this in Pandora’s Hope with Pasteur and his lactic ferments. Although Pasteur and the bacteria that cause lactic acid fermentation might be seen as two individual objects, those two objects granted historical context to each other and thus became inseparable. They became one thing.
A similar phenomena has occurred more recently with the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Before the tsunami/earthquake combo that hit Japan a year ago, the power plant, just like any other nuclear power plant, was a routine and relatively boring object, supplying power to the surrounding people. It was analyzed through the lens of generic scientific realism, e.g., how the power plant showed our knowledge of the atom was real and how we could harness that knowledge. Criticizing these matters of fact/science associated with Fukushima Daiichi does not lead to anything fruitful since there is little deeper meaning beneath the generic scientific realism.
However, everything changed on March 11, 2011. The once ordinary object was granted historical context. This included not only the tsunami/earthquake that triggered the disaster, but also how the disaster was handled by the Japanese government in the following days, weeks, and months. Fukushima Daiichi was no longer just a power plant; the object was wed with historical events into a thing. Once a matter of fact, the disaster turned Fukushima Daiichi into a matter of concern. Fukushima Daiichi became synonymous with the disaster and people began analyze the government’s response to the disaster instead of the generic scientific realism that used to be associated with the object of Fukushima Daiichi. The Japanese government was criticized for not having an independent board of scientific advisors. TEPCO was accused of not sharing enough information about the true scope of the disaster. However, these criticisms, based on matters of concern rather than on matters of fact, have served to gather the thoughts of numerous people and to organize them into discussions on improving preparedness. And that is what we should be aiming for.
I had never quite thought of this idea in this way before. Obviously historical events make objects become important and well known, but I had never looked at is as becoming indistinguishable from the opposite event/object it occurred with. Now that I do it makes perfect sense even looking back at small moments in my life how I automatically group them together.
ReplyDeleteI was also enthralled by the idea that an object could become a "thing." I really like when you said "a sort of super object that only exists alongside its historical context." When you think of Holocaust what do you think of? If someone said Black Holocaust what would you think the same thing, or know instantly what it was, or be confused? My friend (who would kill me if she saw this) saw a sign for the Black Holocaust Museum in Milwaukee and turned to me and said, "Not to be racist or anything, but I really didn't think there were that many black Jews." My sister and I started laughing, but, honestly, the word Holocaust in much of our society has become synonymous with what happened in WWII. Holocaust became a "super object that only exists alongside its historical context." There are so many great points in your post, and I agree with them.
ReplyDeleteWe're all, of course, on the side of 'things'--because they're matters of concern, and matter. But L (I think) would like to make all objects into things. Or better: to get rid of the distinction. In later work he talks about ACTANTS, thingy things, some of them with names like Jesse or Robin, but also things like MRI's or glyphosphate. EVERYTHING is linked up. Active. Agentive. Really matters of concern.
ReplyDelete