Latour

Latour, Bruno. (2004). The Politics of Nature. U of Harvard P.

In this book, sociologist of science, Bruno Latour tackles the question of how nature and people interrelate. Responding to past critics, Latour argues that Western ideologies of "the social" have relied on a division from nature (viz., Rorty's critique that Philosophy has tried to reflect nature as a mirror reflects light). However, this leaves "the social" divorced from and alien to "the natural." Yet we know humans (and anything else for that matter) can never exceed or transcend nature. We are always already part of it.

So what does this mean? First, Latour defines "political ecology" as those areas of inquiry that try to formulate policies, understandings, and judgements on human relations with the natural as well as those inquiries that see human politics as ecological in their own natures. It is a dually-defined term. And then he says that such things need to "let go of nature," because "nature" is a very problematic term no matter how you cut it.

In Western thinking (ala Rorty, Kuhn, et al), science has always been able to converse with nature and discover its truths. However, it was like a priestly caste that has special, arcane and esoteric prescriptions by which only those initiated to the caste could speak on nature's behalf to the Assembly Hall of human society. All else was left out... and that is a lot, as our readings demonstrate!

So, let's look at Rachel Carson's Silent Spring in this light.

• How do you see the reactions against Ms. Carson adhering to Latour's critique? 
• How do you see the prose of Ms. Carson adding to the Discourse of science?
• Are there points of tension or incompatibility between Carson's descriptions and the "truths" of science?
• If Latour is right, then what is both promised and risked in opening the conversation to those who have little or no understanding of (let alone interest in) science?

Feel free to take a close reading of a passage to answer one or more of these questions and formulate a response.

Rorty

In his classic text, pragmatist philosopher Richard Rorty explains how epistemology has tried to faithfully mirror reality (or, "nature"). Philosophy of the twentieth century was seen as a concern for knowing and being able to discuss "truth." Language was always getting in the way, though. As Rorty's title even indicates, metaphor and other tropes often intrude onto any objective representation of reality, warping and distorting it. By abandoning objectifiable and universal claims to a foundational truth upon which to build a systematic understanding of the universe and our place in it, Rorty argues, we instead "dissolve" philosophical problems rather than solve any grand questions.

In the passage provided, Rorty explains and draws upon the work of the philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn. Kuhn's own radical argument was that science proceeds not through patient and careful addition of testing and discovery, but through an oscillation between "normal" testing and experimentation and "abnormal" crises Kuhn calls "paradigm shifts."The classic example here is the Einsteinian/ quantum revolution in physics. Where Newtonian physics guided everything for centuries, encounters with subatomic particles and electromagnetic wavelengths produced results that confounded explanations based on Newton's laws. Still, these were dismissed initially and chalked up to human error. It took Albert Einstein and his cohort of physicists to convince the scientific establishment of the day that these confusions could be cleared up by simply changing the ways we thought and spoke about sub-atomic particles. In other words, scientific discourse had to change from a Newtonian one of discrete balls of matter interacting to an Einsteinian one of potential quanta flitting about the universe. Moreover, scientific discourse was a matter not of an autonomous and pre-existing realm of knowledge, but was, rather, a result of hundreds of years of human history and debate since at least Galileo. That history and debate was how scientific discourse comes to us as a social construction.

Now, what do you think? Is science just a social construction? How can we test this theory? And once we do test it, how do we adjudicate between different kinds of knowledge in the debate over environmental use, policy, ethics, etc.? If it turns out that science is as much a social construction as religion, then religion has as much legitimacy in the debate as science. [Why, hello, President Santorum! You say mountain-top removal is a gift from God and we should pass a law to that effect? Oh, well, your discourse is as legitimate as any scientist's!" (that link just underscores my point, now doesn't it?)].

Respond to these questions after you have read the Rorty piece (pay special attention to pp 331ff, where he really gets going).

Welcome!

We will use this site to post our comments on the supplementary readings for graduate credit in English 5186, Environmental Literature. The readings are as follows:

• Rorty, Richard. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1981, 322- 333.
• Latour, Bruno. "Why Political Ecology Has to Let Go of Nature." from Politics of Nature. Harvard, Harvard UP: 2004, 9 - 41.
• Olson, Charles. "Human Universe." from Selected Writings. Ed., Robert Creeley. New York: New Directions, 1966, 53-66.
• DiChiro, Giovanna. "Nature as Community: The Convergence of Environmental and Social Justice." from Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. Ed., William Cronon. New York: W. W. Norton, 1995, 298-320.
• Haraway, Donna. "A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century." from Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature (New York; Routledge, 1991), pp.149-181.

I will post a discussion prompt for each reading and each graduate student needs to not only use the comment box to compose their own response to the prompt, but should also engage in a discussion with other students about their responses and arguments.

By "compose," I of course mean a textual explanation of questions, concepts, thoughts, etc., but I also intend to be open to the full capabilities of technology. So, links, images, wav files, non-linear forms, etc. are fair game. I will not count them as more or less than well-reasoned arguments. However, I will look for the kind of intellectual rigor and rhetorical sophistication that befits graduate students.

By "engage in a discussion," I refer to questions, dialogue, and genuine seeking to understand. This is not a numbers game of "ask X questions per post." It is more qualitative in seeking to clarify for yourself or another the stance taken up by colleague. Derogatory, hurtful, or disrespectful comments will not be tolerated, will not count toward graduate credit, and may lead to removal from the course.

 If you have any questions, feel free to respond on the blog or via my email.

Have fun!