"My argument is that a certain form of critical spirit has sent us down the wrong path, encouraging us to fight the wrong enemies and, worst of all, to be considered as friends by the wrong sort of allies because of a little mistake in the definition of its main target. The question was never to get away from facts but closer to them, not fighting empiricism but, on the contrary, renewing empiricism." (231)
It is easy to see in our class that we defiantly have this critical spirit on us. Throughout the semester the class has been filled with its fair share of snarky comments. We have been taught since we were young to question and criticize as a way of discovering the truth, but it seems that this has also hurt us because now we have problems believing in anything. The danger is that now we are too afraid to state what we believe because the idea will be cast down by someone else to get the upper hand because as Latour so accurately states "the critic is always right!".
Latour is trying to encourage people to go and experiment, to go and get evidence to find truth. Not saying that being critical is all bad, but there needs to be a balance, and there is a way for critiques to build instead of cast down. When there is too much doubt cast on different ideas and discoveries then we will not know what to believe in. Where will that leave our reality?
The main example my mind keeps coming back to of where criticism has taken over is with global warming, climate change, whatever you want to call it. I have no idea who to trust or what facts to believe or even form my own opinion on what is actually good for our earth. This is a topic I always try to avoid because I feel that I don't know enough about what statistics you should actually believe. What part of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth should I trust and what is a stretch from the truth? Would it really solve everything if everyone went out and bought a Prius? Because I was quick to overhear someone say but did you know that the battery in a Prius is actually really bad for the environment. etc. I am all for trying to reduce the amount of waste and carbon footprint I leave on this earth but should we really be in a state of emergency? (or State of Fear)
I wish that in this example especially we would get back to finding the facts and working together instead of against in order to solve this problem. That people could work together to find a solution and build with criticism instead of subtract and doubt. It seems to me that we are fighting the wrong enemies. With all of the criticism surrounding the issue I find that it is very hard to find something to believe in. I do not want the critic to always be right I want the truth to be right, I am all for empiricism.
Your blog post certainly touches on the underlying flaws that the critical spirit can have. Taking this class has been interesting for me because I feel like throughout most of the semester I want to approach the subjects of sexuality, food, the environment or whatever else we discuss with clear cut answers. However, this class has made it evident that there aren't just two sides, a right and wrong, or black and white contrast to an issue. When you mentioned climate change and not knowing enough to know what statistics to believe, I immediately think of a perspective that looks at climate change as a matter of fact. Taking a global climate change class this semester has taught me that really this is not a issue that can be summed up with statistics, graphs, or quotes. Climate change has to take into account a whole slew of issues that don't just include carbon emissions or temperature change but also examines changes in precipitation, cloud cover, wind currents, topographical features, and more.
ReplyDeleteI think Latour is right that "My argument is that a certain form of critical spirit has sent us down the wrong path, encouraging us to fight the wrong enemies ....... the question was never to get away from facts but closer to them, not fighting empiricism but, on the contrary, renewing empiricism.", and I definitely agree with you saying that now we are having troubles believing in anything. It is not just that sometimes we do not have both side of information, but the "fact" that we choose to believe in keeps changing, a lot of things are uncertain. Like Latour questioned, what are we after?
ReplyDeleteWhen you say Latour is suggesting us to go and find the evidence, I feel like these days people only find "truths" and "evidence" online and the problem is here: how are we going to make sure that's right and that's wrong? Looking into several sources is always better, although they may be still uncertain at this moment, at least we can make sure that it's "right" at this time.
Speaking of the issue of global warming/climate change, I myself think that critiquing it is not going to get us anywhere, we have to take actions. And when we do take action, solving or easing the problem of global warming/climate change should not be the only thing on our minds, we should keep in mind that as a citizen of the Earth, we all ought to take good care of it.
I like the idea of building something. But I think that deconstructing, tearing down misconceptions, assumptions, and motivations, is a form of building. Yes you take something that was standing and demolish it, but what is left is something new in its own right; a new idea, a new way of viewing, even if that way is doubting. It does both.
ReplyDelete