“And, yet, I know full well that this is not enough because, no matter what we do, when we try to reconnect scientific objects with their aura, their crown, their web of associations, when we accompany them back to their gathering, we always appear to weaken them, not to strengthen their claim to reality. I know, I know, we are acting with the best intentions in the world, we want to add reality to scientific objects, but, inevitably, through a sort of tragic bias, we seem always to be subtracting some bit from it.” (237)
Constructive criticism is encouraged in academia, but do we know what it actually means? We usually associate criticism with our right to free speech, but where does it get us? In the science world, peer reviews are a crucial component of the final publication. Despite their good intentions, they were born and designed to make the author second-guess their claims. And in the end, they are careful to mention that “future studies are needed,” or emphasize the fact that their findings are too interconnected in a complex mechanism to be set in stone as “real.” The whole world, in fact, has so embraced the “critical eye” that nothing is every set in stone and that everything is relative. One idea, theory, solution, novel finding propelling one step towards reality is critiqued down, intentionally or unintentionally, back to where they left off. Why is this so? One problem Latour analyzes, and which I will attempt at explaining, is that critique proceeds via a dual set of “gotchas,” referring to his two critical gesture moves.
I will try to explain Latour’s critical gesture moves through the topic of global warming.
Critical Gesture Move One:
a. Believers accept that concepts do things: global warming is a natural flux in temperature observed since the birth of Earth
b. The critic unmasks the belief by saying that these concepts are merely projecting the believer’s wishes: climate crisis advocates blaming global warming on human causes
c. The believer realizes that it is themselves (the people) who are causing things and then further project other causes: people join Al Gore and the climate crisis advocates, people believe that they have “power” through “free will” to prevent global warming
Critical Gesture Move Two:
a. The believer feels empowered by the first gesture’s exposure to “free will”: people start the “green movement” and try to change governmental policy
b. The critic unmasks the belief by saying that they cannot do anything of their own accord because, in fact, society, capital, and other complex things are at work: global warming skeptics (Michael Crichton) assert that global warming is an interest-driven hoax
c. The believer realizes that these other complex factors are unwillingly determining their actions, and they are stuck in a situation in which true “free will” is unachievable: the term global warming crisis is dying; today it is renamed as the more neutral and ambiguous topic of global climate change
Conclusion: Who wins? Nobody; there is no new concept, no new things; just critique upon critique. This is what Turing refers to as the “sub-critical mind.” Our thought process is sub-critical, and this is why Latour believes that criticism is proving harmful to society by perpetuating and forever maintaining the status quo.
As I read this article, I couldn’t help to think that this sort of harmful criticism is exactly what happens in our CSCL 3331 class. In fact, when Robin asked us to apply the concept to a real problem, I was wondering if he wanted us to reflect on the potential dangers of what goes on in our seemingly productive and compelling discussions every Tuesday and Thursday mornings.
In our first unit, we discussed how medical disorders are a result of taking something in nature (S. cerevisiae) or controlled by God (Mother Teresa) and realizing and creating a “cause” (yeast fermentation/uncategorized bleeding disorder). In class, we critiqued articles attempting to explain why this came about, and what implications this has. In the second unit, we focused on the problem of sex categorization. Once again, we started from the biology, the belief in nature of hormones and gonads and built up to the people’s creation of what constitutes a male and a female. We critiqued the works of Oggaddam and Fausto-Sterling and their attempts at defining reality. In the third unit, food consumerism was analyzed again from our belief in natural concepts (unami, the 5th sense) leading into the influences of subsidies, economics, and society on appetites. We critiqued Pollan’s attempt at solving the “national eating disorder.” Do you see a trend here? Our entire semester was a reiteration of critical gesture moves one and two. But did we get anywhere new? Did we actually come up with changes? In response to these ideas presented, did we “give rise to less than one idea in reply?” Yes. We were critiquing sub-critically.
This is a problem. And I see why Latour is worried. Critique is no longer progressive, it doesn’t add or multiply, but subtracts and divide topics away from a real solution. But what worries me more is the fact that I was taught and trained to think this way at school. Constructive criticism had always been encouraged since my first days in the classroom, but it was a concept that was never explained to me. Teachers told me to critique from my point of view, but I am realizing that this may be a part of the problem. Yes, my point of view is important, but to make progress, I need to understand his/her point of view just as well. An example which depicts this is on the topic of abolishing Female Genital Mutilation. Only when we understood their perspectives to “become again things, mediating, assembling, gathering many more folds (248)” were we able to see fundamental real change.
Please do not misunderstand me; I am not saying that this entire class was pointless. Just mere knowledge of this fact, exposure to these topics, and awareness establishes the fundamental base towards changes in the direction of critical attitude. And for this, I am grateful for just being able to attempt at answering your blog question. Thank you for helping me see why you are worried.
I wrote about the exact same passage in my blog post, and came up with what I feel like are similar conclusions to yours. Your first paragraph about peer reviews and critique within the sciences is especially poignant to me. Even when a study does conclude with what may be deemed good or proper results, there is always a disclaimer. More research needed, helpful to review other studies on topic, etc. There is this sense of science as being an unbiased process, then in the results potential errors or considerations are pointed out. Everything surrounding a particular issue is so complex, how do we sort through it all to get to the "real"? Do we relentlessly scrutinize and critique, and as Latour suggests obscure the very thing we are trying to understand? Or is there a way we can trace the good and give constructive criticism, bringing understanding to a higher level with a sort of synthesis as the result? I guess I don't really know, but good, though-provoking blog post.
ReplyDeleteI realized that i touched on that when i wrote on my idea. Every idea that is publish is always criticized even if years and years of research has been invested into the idea. People feel the need to criticize it especially if it is against their preconceived notion before they approached the idea. Then again science is supposed to be an unbiased process but everyday we are faced with situations where scientific ideas have been overturned either due to false biased publication or insufficient. For example on the project about Vaccination we explained how a renowned Doctor in London made an observation that his patients who had Autism also had MMR vaccination and he concluded that vaccinations made people Autistic. He went further to publish his idea creating and radiating fear throughout the world.
ReplyDelete