The authors of the introduction to the fourth edition of the Handbook of Science and Technology Studies offer an overview of some fundamental paradigms in the STS field today. The “co-production of epistemic, technological, and social orders” and the “situatedness of knowledge” are two major aspects of how STS scholars think about how science, technology, and society intertwine at multiple levels. Following a similar approach, Bruno Latour unveils the ways modernity has created a set of mechanisms that separate nature and culture, humans and non-humans, technology and society.
How can we use these frameworks for the study of the The Mhesvi fly and the Vedzimbahwe at the beginning of the 20th century in Africa (Chakanetsa Mavhunga, 2018), and the importance of the coal industry among communities in the Appalachia region in the United States today (Mullins, 2015)?
Any situation involving the use, creation, or study of science and technology has parts rooted in other disciplines, whether it be politics, history, culture, philosophy, or religion. Science and technology studies (STS) aims to connect those portions to better understand science and technology and how it affects our world.
Bruno Latour describes his approach to STS, calling science and technology a “Gordian’s knot” of knowledge. Latour proposes that we must reconnect that knowledge, consider all parts not merely one single part. For instance, the politics or social connotation of science is equally as important as the science itself. How does one part affect the others? How and why dos the connection exist? We must also bridge the gap between hybridization, integration of old and new knowledge, and purification, the eradication of old technology for the newt. In the instance of the Mhesvi being studied in Africa, analyzing both the current phenomena, namely the death caused by the insect, and the knowledge of past African dealings with the insect, are crucial In the Appalachian coal mines, science is eradicating the former way of life to make way for Western civilization. It is important to hybridize the cultures involved, Appalachian and Western, and to establish a communication between the groups of learning. When science begins to eradicate the knowledge of the past, as western scientists do when they arrive in Africa to study the insect, further understanding is lost. Rather than building upon the foundations that many disciplines rebuild the entire structure of knowledge.
Felt, Fouche, Miller, and Doerr, following a similar approach, propose a solution in a handbook, a mapping of a phenomenon that strives to study all of a subject. This handbook is difficult to compose, it is a complex compilation of a subject framed in multiple perspectives. It cannot be linearized, as most disciplines would strive to make a topic, but it is a web of knowledge. A handbook answers questions such as how and why technology was made and what it means moving forward. For the African Mhesvi study, it is necessary to examine the insect as well as the method and purpose of the study and the context in which it is being conducted, such as geographical, historical, and cultural connotations. The insect is real, but how does it interact with its environment? Why is this study important to the world? All of this information is contained within the handbook. In Appalachia, two schools of thought, environmentalists and native culture clash, and in the end, “all knowledge is local and reflects the specific historical moment, cultural context as well as the network within which it is made” (Felt, Focuhe, Miller, Doerr). Rather than instituting foreign ideas and practices as the environmentalists did, it is important to consider the context in which the situation is taking place within. What is the local past, present, and future? The knowledge is, as the authors say, must be communicated from one group to the other.
The study of science and technology is not linear as the study of a mathematical topic is, but is a compilation of interconnected disciplines. Any topic in science has roots in several disciplines, and all must be studied to fully understand the whole of knowledge. Communication also becomes an important aspect of STSs, how to transfer knowledge and ideas, how to translate the old into the new, and these types of studies are in no way easy, they entail changes of perspective, but the understanding of science and technology guides us to understand the course of human history, where we are and where we are going.
Very interesting ideas Ian, I wonder what happens if we pay attention to how mathematics works in our daily life, or in the life of engineers and other experts? How is it embedded in social dynamics? or How mathematicians ‘co-produce” their knowledge? Would it stop being ‘linear’ and become a “Gordian’s knot”?
I think it is common to view mathematics as something purely mechanical; a field at the opposite end of the spectrum from more creative endeavors. However, because mathematics is rooted in the fabric of countless other studies, such as architecture or design, as well as healthcare, engineering, and social science, it would be wrong to say that mathematics is linear, or that math and the arts are mutually exclusive. This field alters how we perceive the world around us, and can be applied as a language to describe what words cannot. But it is not just created from nothing, and it doesn’t remain isolated in purification. When a dissimilar field uncovers a new problem, idea, or hole in our current understanding of nature, mathematicians work to develop elegant solutions, co-producing new knowledge for application in entirely different fields. By doing so, mathematicians can alter how our societies function and how our culture changes, creating limitless connections between the analytical and the creative.
Here two videos of Mathematician and STS Scholar, Moon Duchin, on her research about Mathematics and Voting rights
A great example of how mathematics can help to create a more democratic political system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnZsnThLeGw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VddLOevo7QY
In today’s world of social media apps, internet blogs, and texting, it is impossible to see that we live in a society entangled with technology. Society influences the technological advancements we make and the technological advancements that we make certainly influence how society functions. After reading the assigned reading, one major takeaway was that there are 2 ways of progressing as a race. One being the current route we are undergoing, known as “work of translation” and the other method being “work of purification”.
“Work of translation” is described as a network connecting scientific advancement with societal constructs such as government, military, even religion.. The authors of the ”Introduction to the Fourth Edition of The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies” put it best when they say that “they [science and technology] were and continue to be instruments of military power, economic innovation, democratic governance, moral judgement, political imagination, and cultural difference”. When science progresses and new technology is created, the ramifications of these discoveries find their way into every other sect of the social world we are in. Science is not only science anymore, technological advancements echo throughout society.
With this reality in mind, it’s much easier to see the faults in society for bringing science into the mix, but at the same time it’s impossible not to. In “The Problem with Environmental Activism in Appalachian”, The author who is part of the coal mining community understands that there is a problem with coal when he states “When it comes to the environment, most Appalachians do want to protect it”. We need to look at science with objectivity as the handbook suggests and act accordingly and to achieve objectivity, we must tear down the barriers the author suggests such as misunderstanding and conflict. The facts are there, the problem is that the facts have become entangled with politics and as a result, become polarized just as the assigned articles suggest, so much so that we’ve ceased to advance as a society.
This mix between societal constructs and science is apparent in “The Mobile Workshop: The Tsetse Fly and African Knowledge Production”. Throughout the class period where we discussed this article, we, as a class, realized that societal pressures at the time (which were prejudiced against the African people) directly influenced the science of that time. Clapperton Chakanetsa Mavhunga writes “He [Harold B. Fantham] considered vanhu vatemamentally unfit but physically fit and therefore good for menial labor, and whites mentally and physically fit and therefore intellectual, scientific, and civilized”. Harold B. Fantham was described as a bigot in the same article and it’s obvious to see that not only the society that shaped him influenced his work but also his work shaped the society of South Africa. We can draw from the handbook again and see that barriers were in the way of objective progress in science and technology, in this case it was racial bias, and science should be conducted in an unbiased manor.
Upon reflection of these two articles, I have the same questions that Bruno Latour poses at the end of his essay, what can we do to prevent society influencing progress. The answer might not be clear or possible but we should approach science with an objective mind and not one with bias that will hinder the forwarding of the human race. That being said, when I look at the real world, given media and vast divisions of cultures, it’s hard to imagine a world where technology, science and social constructs do not collide.
I kept thinking about your phrase Connor: “it’s hard to imagine a world where technology, science and social constructs do not collide.” I completely agree and I wonder if we should stop assuming ‘objective’ science occurs separated from the humans that create it and the social networks where it “works.” And focus instead on how we can make those interrelations more public, democratic, and equitable.
Throughout the history of expansion, there have been plenty of times where the evolution of science and technology has been needed, but sometimes science and technology get mixed in with politics and biased thinking.
When the Europeans came over to the land of Africa, they brought along with them the knowledge that the African tribes needed to help them fix the problem which was the Mhesvi fly. The Europeans brought a lot to the table with their wide variety of knowledge about extermination, and the African tribes knew a lot about the land and have been able to figure out certain strategies to combat against the Mhesvi fly. This could have been a perfect opportunity for the European people and for the African people to work together to find a proper solution to the problem at hand. However, the Europeans did not want to work with the African tribes in an appropriate way. Instead, the Europeans tricked the African tribes into thinking that the two parties were working together, but the African tribes ended up doing all the heavy lifting after the Europeans told them what to do.
There is a similar case study to this situation but is a little more recent than the early 1900’s. The Appalachian coal miners and the environmentalists have been trying to come together and agree about their different beliefs. The environmentalists don’t even try to negotiate terms with the Appalachian coal miners. The environmentalists just tell the coal miners that their “way of life” is wrong and that they need to change it. When the coal miners try to answer back to the coal miners, the media gets in the way and turns the stories upside down.
This is what Latour means when he says that the “ozone hole is too social and too narrated to be truly natural”. The media got in the way of the Appalachian case study and ended up making communication between the coal miners and the environmentalists worse. Latour also said that “the strategy of industrial firms and heads of state is too full of chemical reactions to be reduced to power and interest”. The Europeans treated the African tribes poorly and it was probably because someone with higher authority had their own agenda and just simply wanted to save money and resources.
This is also related to what society is like today. When scientists around the world want to publish new research, they need to be prepared to get ridiculed by the media and anyone else who is not in favor of what they have published. Scientists must be careful what they publish because if the wrong people don’t like what they publish then their reputations could be destroyed. This entanglement has caused scientists to not be able to do their jobs. Society needs to leave the science to the scientists and leave politics and bias thinking out of it.
The role of the media in the creation and circulation of scientific knowledge and technologies is a very interesting point, Alexander. There are many ways how media, as well as politics, have created scientific and technological change in human history (even before the era of mass media), but is it really possible to separate, politics, media, and science? I think Latour and other STS scholars would say no. Historians of science would probably say that in human history there is no such thing as science separated from politics and society. But the important question is, if they are not separated, and have never been separated, what do we do next?
I agree with you in the sense that it is not possible to separate politics, media, and science. In fact, I don’t think there is anything we can do to find a perfect solution to the problem. The only thing that we can do as a society is to mentally prepare ourselves in knowing that bias observations are out there and that we will not necessarily be happy with everything that is published nowadays. We need to understand that being bias towards a particular subject is not progress and that we need to accept the facts and not try to bend the truth in order to receive a personal gain. If we can accomplish this task then I think the media and the politics behind certain issues will not have as strong an effect on science.
Technology impacts the way society functions in day to day life while in change, the needs of society affect what technology is in demand and pushes the boundaries of science and discovery. The STS scholars analyze how technology intertwines with society. “The idea that epistemic, technological, and social orders are co-produced” (Latour 1993) comes from the idea that “in the process of making science and technology, people also make and remake themselves, their bodies and identities, their societies, and their material surroundings” (The Handbook of Science and Technologies). Technology changes the way humans interpret and act upon what transpires in the world around them. STS scholars also refer to the “situatedness of knowledge”, a concept that claims, “all knowledge is local and reflects the specific historical moment, cultural context as well as the networks within which it is made” (Handbook of Science and Technology).
Latour talks about modernity and how it created a division between specialty categories and how they relate to scientific problems. A scientific finding may be challenged by a societal or political standpoint, and it’s important to take all perspectives into account while maintaining knowledge of the original specimen. Being modern is willing to consider the advancements we’ve made, known as “translation”, as well as the realization that we can become more advanced by fully understanding past advancements, referred to as “purification”. “What link is there between the work of translation or mediation and that of purification?…the second has made the first possible” (Latour 12). Full understanding of the past is necessary to advance.
The case studies The Problem with Environmental Activism in Appalachia and The Mobile Workshop can be examined using STS scholars’ and Latour’s theories. With the environmental activism and Appalachian community, there is a connection between the STS theories and Latour’s concept through the way the environmentalists clash with the Appalachians and coal industries. People of Appalachia have adopted coal mining as their identity for generations. Environmentalists are trying to push their ideals onto the Appalachians and change their main identity into one that considers the environment over the coal industry. The Appalachian people are frustrated because the environmentalists refuse to listen to their societal needs. The environmentalists remain focused on only what they know to be true of other regions. As we see in STS scholars’ “situatedness of knowledge”, the natives are connected to the problem in a more systemic way where the way they are living is more dependent on the technology they use and the way they mine coal. Latour’s view on modernity shows us that the situation in the Appalachians cannot get better until all of the different mechanisms working in Appalachia can come together and appreciate what the original ideas and lifestyles of the region have become.
In the case of the Vedzimbahwe, the indigenous people are not listened to. As Europeans began to develop the lands, they believed they had better ways of doing things than what the natives had been doing for generations. This relates to STS scholars’ theory in that the Europeans were trying to recreate the society and identity of the native people through technology, however, the “situatedness of knowledge” allows that the indigenous people had been dealing with these problems, diseases, and situations, for generations, and they had adapted to learn how to live and strive despite these problems. Looking at Latour’s modernity and his thoughts on translation and purification, we see that without understanding what the natives have gone through in the past and the advancements they have made for survival, it’s not possible to move forward in modernity.
This response generally addresses the fact that technology is a driving force behind societal change. The examples within the case study tend to reflect softer determinism, as the context of each situation must be taken into account with the given studies. The response mainly examines the cultural differences that exist between two societies and the barriers that must be stripped down for technology to make a positive impact.
I agree with your group’s reflection, David. Angie presents an excellent analysis of the importance of cultural differences and how thinking about how knowledge is “situated” can offer new lenses to look at issues of technological change and social conflict.
This is a great application of the concept of “co-production of knowledge,” and the “situatedness” of knowledge to the analysis of the cases studies, Angie. I just wonder, would Latour support the idea that “we need to move forward in modernity”? If we take his critics about modernity and its dichotomies seriously, as citizens interested in science and technology, what do we do with this knowledge?
Throughout history as different civilizations interacted there have been varying degrees of trade success and cultural compatibility. These are usually very one-sided conflicts in which the one group forcibly took control due to the more advanced technology they possessed. In the case of the African Tsetse, the Europeans viewed it as inefficient on the part of the Africans for being plagued for so long. This created a superiority complex where Africa was viewed as having nothing to offer, aside from the resources and land itself. In the Appalachian coal towns, the environmentalists are trying to stop the producing of coal to save the environment, but they are threatening the economy and the livelihood of almost everyone who lives there. The Tsetse and Appalachian cases exemplify where different people and groups must bring together their ideas to succeed in something and fail if they do not.
The way that the Europeans and Africans pitifully worked together to solve their problem was by using the Africans familiarity of dealing with Tsetse and the European tactics of exterminating vermin. Although this did not create a real bond between the two groups, when their advancements in science and technology are combined and they listen to each other, progress can be made. This also shows the intellectual social hierarchy in technology and science. The idea of Europeans having the plan and Africans doing the work shows that theory and practice are not equal forms of intellect.
This concept directly connects to the conflicts between the Appalachian coal miners and the environmental activists attempting to stop the use of coal. While the activists have their hearts in the right place, they are not trying to compromise or solve the bigger problems that would be caused by stopping coal production. In a case like this, the two sides need to talk together and seriously try to solve the problem by breaking down the political barriers set between them. The two groups need to see where they fall on the hierarchy and what they can really contribute to finding a solution. In my mind, while theory was above practice in the case of the Tsetse, the Appalachian peoples experience truly is the pinnacle of knowledge on the subject. This experience of having only one real career path and nothing to fall back onto if coal production stopped adds to their plight and desperation to solve the situation responsibly. This felt responsibility is what separates them from the activists, who feel it is their responsibility to save the world yet have no immediate consequences in the case of failure. This pressure causes them to be desperate, which in turn creates another barrier in which they believe the only result that is acceptable is the immediate cessation of the mining of coal. This halts all conversation and potential solutions as it just gets dragged on for longer. In order to solve problems that involve the use of science and technology in the solution, we must find how each group’s contributions can work together and what is truly the main goal in solving the problem.
You’re right James, one of the main ‘lessons’ from the case studies is the importance of understanding how different groups contribute or not to the creation of knowledge, and the politics and social dynamics shaping that process.
I want to touch briefly upon what @jpcopeland said in his opening remarks on Europeans forcibly taking control over Africa and creating a superiority complex. Those ideas refer greatly to the moral and ethical issues surrounding topics such as colonization and imperialism. Although not directly related to Science and Technology Studies, it is important to remember our place, both as scientists/historians, and as the human race, in this world. The things we do, the places we go, although we ourselves might view them without concern, may substantially impact our world or the other groups of people that live in it. For instance, the days of the Hawaiian monarchy saw prosperity and even technological advancement. However, a group of American businessmen overthrew that monarchy for their own benefit; they disregarded the native culture and people and forcibly took control of Hawaiian land for the sake of so-called “modernity.” The history of Hawaii nei is too long to recount here, but if you are interested, I am more than happy to provide resources. When we forget the culture of a place or a thing, we lose sight of the value held within. So, in the instance of the coal miners in Appalachia, we must recognize and embrace the local culture. We cannot impose one system of beliefs or one track of modernity upon another culture.
Compromise was also a key point in jpcopeland’s post. When we communicate across the aisle, when we are willing to change our own perspective for the sake of a better understanding, we gain an awareness of the true nature of a situation. I personally believe that too many individuals, particularly in our current society, refuse to compromise. This is a problem not only in science but in all of society. Political parties, in my eyes, hold to their own beliefs too strongly and refuse to listen and compromise with the other parties, which in turn has led to the apparent inefficiency of our government. Office workers too stubbornly push their own beliefs and limit the reccomendations of others. Today’s world is very “me-first,” and communication and compromise are the solutions to, in my opinion, peace, prosperity, and advancement.
Throughout history, science and technology have allowed our world to evolve into a highly advanced society. However, there have been many cases, historical and modern, where this rapid change in technology has led to conflict between the many opposing mindsets. This was apparent in the cases of the Mhesvi fly and Vedzimbahwe in early 20th century Africa (The Tsetse Fly and African Knowledge Production), and with the current issues between the coal industry and the Appalachian community (The Problem with Environmental Activism in Appalachia). In both situations, science was associated with politics, societal gain, and economic gain, which lead to conflict between the indigenous groups and scientific groups. However, science should instead encompass everything, and not be thought of as an individual force.
Reading the introduction to Bruno Latour’s We Have Never Been Modern, Latour mentions these concerns by saying that “All of the culture and all of the nature get[s] churned up again every day” (Page 2), and that a divide has been created between science and the “collective”. He states that science is not talking about the “social contexts” and “interests of power”, but about its influence over everything on this planet. According to Latour, critics of science have argued that scientific and technological changes have no effect on their lives, but he states instead that “we are talking about the very substance of our societies.” (Page 4) This is identical to the current opinions of the Appalachians, who need to “start admitting that the coal industry has done more damage to the land than anyone would like to admit.” The Appalachian people are upset with previous coal scientists and businesses who lead to their mono-economy, and do not want to repeatedly suffer from these similar problems. However, by accepting environmental science, and disassociating it with political and economical gain, the community can not only flourish, but the conflict between the communities and environmentalists will end.
The introduction to the Handbook of Science and Technology Studies also had many of the same arguments as Latour. It stated that “Increasingly, science and technology permeate the social and material fabric of everyday life” (Page 1), and that their goal is to position science and technology alongside the most important areas in our growing society. The STS is also meant to question who benefits from these technological changes, how will new sociotechnical arrangements stabilize, and how to these new technological arrangements effect how people live. These tactics should have been used when the government of Zimbabwe began to consider the European scientists the “civilized” people and the indigenous people became “savages”. By associating science with social and political views, the peoples view on science was negatively affected, and knowledge became a type of power symbol. From connecting science and knowledge to politics, societal issues, and power, it negatively affected the surrounding communities. Science instead should have been used to combat the issue at hand, which is to protect the people from the Mhesvi fly.
With these readings in mind, it is clear that by associating science with political, economic, and social issues, conflict will arise. However, science should instead be focused on its influence over everything, and not a part of a single societal problem. By giving individuals and communities the understanding of how scientific developments could affect their entire lives, they will more easily accept the surrounding changes in their society. Taking these new ideas into account, the scientific community can better understand the arguments of the community, and more easily introduce new technologies to society.
You have an excellent point here Matt. When thinking about the implications of understanding the social construction of scientific knowledge, it is critical to creating mechanisms, so both the general public and scientific communities understand the entangled links between science and society. A very good question is how do we do that?
I think the main way we could easily represent the connection between the general public and the scientific community, is to develop an easily accessible and intuitive way for both parties to communicate. The current issue in our society seems to be that the stream of knowledge being released from the scientific communities is not reaching most of the public, specifically the groups who are impacted by this knowledge. This knowledge would need to be presented as objectively as possible, while also appealing to the general population to allow for easy reading and understanding. This new or modified form of communication may need to involve forcing new entries related to new scientific developments in newspapers, or broadcasting PSAs related to the potential impactful technologies in the region. As for allowing the public to communicate with the scientific community, many systems are already in place for this. The public can protest and cause controversy over a specific scientific issue, and by doing so the scientific community can re-evaluate their studies to discover news ways that might help to resolve these issues.
… and in that continuous dialogue contribute to a more democratic society
There is an important connection, rather than distinction, between technology and society as seen in the following case studies. The Fourth Edition of the Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (STS) examines how technology and social life mold each other. Similarly, Bruno Latour in We have never been modern discusses the idea that human beings and non-humans are inevitably intertwined. Ignoring the interconnectedness of science and society can be detrimental as seen in The Mobile Workshop and The Problem with Environmental Activism in Appalachia. In both cases, two groups of people had differing focuses, technology and nature respectively, and failed to consider the other side’s concerns.
In the early 20th century the European scientists and the Zimbabwe indigenous people had conflicting opinions regarding the Tsetse fly. The flies drew the attention of the scientists who arrived with no regard to the native practices. To control the flies the researchers sprayed pesticides. They did not cooperate with the natives who were the most impacted by the situation. This demonstrates the idea from the STS as the fields collide. The flies were seen from an experimental viewpoint by some and from a pragmatic one by others. This is how much of society tries to act as Latour explained.
There are disputes between the local miners of Appalachia and the environmentalists studying this region. The miners see their already restricted livelihood threatened by the visiting “out of touch” environmentalists. On the other hand, the environmentalists feel frustrated by the lack of change and the miners inability to conserve the surrounding land. There is already a connection between miners and nature, as the miners “pride and heritage” is tied to coal. Both groups need to approach this issue with regards to humans needs, such as employment, and preserving nature. A loss of coal impacts employment and electricity, whereas, a destroyed environment impacts the ecosystem. Therefore, as Latour stated they are not two isolated problems, rather one.
Categorizing people by their focuses leads to anger and unproductive problem solving as studied in Africa and Appalachia. Latour and STS both studied technology and humans as a unit, and they understood why applying this knowledge is critical.
I would like to take this last sentence, Maylee “Latour and STS both studied technology and humans as a unit, and they understood why applying this knowledge is critical.” And ask, how applying this knowledge is critical for us?
The study of science and technology is one that has demonstrated much about society and humanities ambition for innovation. It analyzes the scientific and technological breakthroughs of the past and uses them to explore the present. However, these innovations do not stand simply in the realm of science or of technology. This idea is examined in both The Fourth Edition of the Handbook of Science and Technology Studies and in Bruno Latour’s “We Have Never Been Modern.” In fact, the common theme is that science and technology are inseparable from social, political, and economic organizations, and this concept is one that must be considered during scientific and technological advancements.
When scientists perform research, these relationships must be reviewed. For example, In The Mobile Workshop: The Tsetse Fly and African Knowledge Production, the European settlers demonstrate a lack of this necessary consideration. They came to study the curious Mhesvi (Tsetse) fly and simply observed as they directed what, how and where studies were conducted. They were not conscious of the inherent relationships they drew and so they felt that their more advanced technologies made them socially and politically superior. This power dynamic is unfounded and can stunt research.
Additionally, people conducting their research or innovating technologies must also consider how its introduction will affect other aspects of life. In “The Problem with Environmental Activism in Appalachia,” the author discusses the current state of the continued coal usage controversy and how they treat the residents of the Appalachian Region. Environmentalists come to the region and attempt to tell the residents how they should live, “as if they’re idiots.” Due to the increased debates of climate change and the scientific discoveries made which encourage cleaner energy consumption, the residents of Appalachia are essentially caught in the middle of a political dispute. But the key reason why a change in coal production is so difficult is because the economy of the region revolves around its coal. If these environmentalists considered how a change in the regions coal production would affect an aspect other than the environment, like the economy for instance, they would be able to make legitiment progress in their efforts.
The similar idea of how science and technology is intertwined with society, politics, and economics is thoroughly explained in both the handbook as well as Bruno Latour’s piece, and it is demonstrated in the case studies of the Tsetse fly and the environmental activism in Appalachia. One takeaway from these connections is that people must be conscious of these relationships with their study, for scientific and technological advancements are made much easier when this is considered. For example, the native Africans could have shared much knowledge with the European entomologists if the Europeans had understood that they’re technological advancements do not make them socially superior. Additionally, a change in Appalachia would be made plausible if, instead of bashing their way of life, environmentalists simply considered other aspects of the region because the transition to cleaner energy would be met with the subsequential downfall of their economy. Overall scientific and technological advancements would be made far easier and better if people understood its complex relationship with society, politics, and economics, and kept that in mind when performing their research and introducing it to the world.
Environmentalists and society are angry at the coal miners because we’ve created a society based on technological determinism and their society is still based on a single technological discovery made in the past. Because they’re dependent on this archaic technology, the Appalachians cannot keep up with the constant evolution of science and technology throughout the rest of the world.
Issy’s group reflection points out the role of technological determinism in our culture and the creation of social conflicts. Now, according to what we have learned, can we just blame “archaic technologies” or the Appalachians? I think Andrew offers a more complex approach. And let’s go further: if we have to lead a multidisciplinary team of experts assessing the socio-technical conflict in the Appalachia region, what would be the first steps?
It is obvious through Ahpanneton’s post that the situation in Appalachia does not revolve around one aspect and instead is intertwined with many facets as technology always has a “complex relationship with society, politics, and economics” (Ahpanneton). Therefore, the best way to solve the conflict in the Appalachia region would be a multidisciplinary team as they could take multiple approaches and perspectives to the situation. The first step of the team of experts could be a number of things. Since it is such a big part of the Appalachian community’s everyday life, the first step could be simply observing the lives of the people while also taking note of the technologies they use. This could help gain perspective from the community’s point of view and allow for review on if the technology they use is still the most productive for their economic situation and the health of the environment. It will be easier to reach common ground when all aspects of the situation are taken into consideration, so the first step to solving the conflict may just to observe and hopefully eliminate any misunderstandings caused by “situatedness of knowledge”.
Part of the issue in this region is the hyperfocus on coal. A beginning step could be to evaluate the possibilities of new industries. What would bring new employment opportunities to this region? What would they be? How could the locals learn the skills new positions require? How can the locals be involved and excited about such an expansion?
These are very good points. I agree, understanding the social and economic dynamics that connect the community to that particular technology (coal) today and in the past is critical. Designing new employment opportunities and skills to be developed in the future is also central. However, I would also like to add the importance of integrating the local community (and their knowledge(s)) in the process of making these decisions (as suggested in Maylee’s last question). This would not only be a good opportunity to invite them to get involved and excited, but also a concrete way to formally validate their knowledge, expertise, and epistemic orders. And in doing so, place these knowledge, expertise, and epistemic orders at the center of the community’s process of change.
When studying cases related to the history of science and technology, there are three important factors that, together, encapsulate the manners in which knowledge has evolved and been utilized over time. They are the validity of knowledge, socio-technological orders, and the history of cultures. The introductory chapter of The Mobile Workshop. The Tsetse Fly and African Knowledge Production by Clapperton Chakanetsa Mavhunga along with the article The Problem with Environmental Activism in Appalachia by Nick Mullins highlight some key ways these factors have shaped the history of science and technology. This brief analysis will explore the ways that epistemology, social orders, and cultural differences exist within both readings.
Epistemology, or the creation and validity of knowledge, plays an important role in both the Tsetse Fly passage and the coal mining article. The people of Appalachia have always been very close to the land they live on and the minerals they harvest. Coal mining is their way of life, their income, and their culture. During their many years of experience, they’ve acquired vast knowledge on the land and coal mines. As outsiders, the environmentalists naturally cannot share the same perspective. In the so-called “War on Poverty” described by Mullins, the environmentalists essentially told the Appalachian people that their way of life and epistemic order was invalid. The same situation can be found in Mavhunga’s book when he describes how the vachena came into Zimbabwe and overrode the indigenous knowledge with their own experimental studies. The validity of knowledge is more abstract than it may seem. Perhaps it depends more on one’s perception of another’s intelligence and less on facts, meaning that if a group feels superior to another group, they will subconsciously invalidate the knowledge of the “lesser group” without even examining it.
The social orders that have formed in different parts of the world have created a sort of hierarchy that determines which knowledge is superior. This hierarchy can be seen in both passages. The Appalachian people feel like the environmentalists think of them as “stupid hillbillies” and are attacking them from a position of power and righteousness. Similarly, the vachena entered Zimbabwe and used the vatema as “flyboys”, making them do all of the dirty work while researchers conducted their studies. The different social orders make it hard for groups to interact and exchange knowledge when there is constantly a feeling of superiority.
The last important concept is that some knowledge is situated, meaning that the culture and history have altered the way that various groups have obtained knowledge. The people affected by the Tsetse come from an area that has for years been unable to obtain the technological advantages of the European nations due to poor socio-economic conditions that trace deep back in time. Clapperton writes that “the history of science in Africa is still made up of social and political histories of disease and medicine. In most of these, vatema are either victims of vachena’s policies or those who must be saved from disease by Europe’s medical advances.” He claims that the Europeans have held back the Africans from advancing, thus situating their knowledge. Over time, societies have drifted further apart, exposing them to completely different sets of situated knowledge… sets that often don’t agree with each other.
In conclusion the two readings bring to light the ways that the key principals of the history of science and technology intertwine when it comes to the cases in the two passages.
Citations
Mavhunga, Clapperton Chakanetsa. The Mobile Workshop: the Tsetse Fly and African Knowledge Production. The MIT Press, 2018.
Mullins, Nick. “The Problem with Environmental Activism in Appalachia.” Thoughts of a Coal Miner, 30 Dec. 2015, thethoughtfulcoalminer.com/2015/12/30/the-problem-with-environmentalism-in-appalachia/.
There can be a comparison drawn between Manifest Destiny as mentioned in the “Does Technology Drive History?” article and the case studies involving Africa and Appalachia. In the book on technological determinism, it is pretty clear that Manifest Destiny was the result of attempting to progress America’s technological development. As you mentioned in your analysis “Perhaps it depends more on one’s perception of another’s intelligence and less on facts, meaning that if a group feels superior to another group, they will subconsciously invalidate the knowledge of the “lesser group” without even examining it.” this implies that if a group feels superior, their feelings of superiority are likely driven by their perception of intelligence and technological advancement. In the case of Manifest Destiny, Americans thought it was acceptable to move west seeking further progress for their technology, even if it destroyed and stomped on the native people. This can also be seen in the case of the miners in Appalachia, environmentalists, as you said, viewed the miners as “stupid hillbillies”. As a result, they feel it is okay for them to push their technological agenda on the miners.
Patrick’s group present a very good comparison. It is also interesting how Mullins talks about ‘neo-colonial relations when describing the social tensions in the Appalachia region. I wonder if the idea of technological determinism became naturalized through different colonial experiences across time and space? If so, is there a hidden history of colonialism and technological determinism? How do we build a new history of democracy and postcolonial societies along with a new the role of technology in society?
I agree with you in the statement that technological determinism as we know it today became naturalized through colonial experiments that later turned into many of the modern nations of our world today. When Europeans colonized a new area their goal was to make the new settlement a reflection of their larger society in Europe. In arriving they discovered that the society and culture of the region weren’t compatible with theirs. Since European society has always been very technology-based it makes sense that they would attempt to drive technology in these new regions forward as a way of extending their influence and improving the technology. Many of those colonies that were successful, kept these ideas of technological determinism and advancement integral to the development of their nation and society. This is particularly seen in the United States, where technology is everything.
I wouldn’t say that there is a hidden history of colonialism and technological determinism. But I would say that feelings of superiority amongst people due to certain factors(sometimes technological advancement) have always existed and generally resulted in a competition for better technology or domination of one group by another, Thereby creating a role for technology in a society that is much more central to its beliefs.
In order to build this new history, we have to look at society differently than the European colonizers had. We have to understand situated knowledge in order to properly put everything into perspective. Technology would still drive a lot of societal change, so in that sense, its role wouldn’t change much, however it would be able to be put into perspective among other things that also influence society in equal ways. This would create a more understanding and democratic society.
Very interesting reflection here! Thank you for sharing it!
Many paradigms in the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS) are useful in the study of cases of scientific and technological related problems. These analogies are demonstrated in We Have Never Been Modern by Bruno Latour, and in the Introduction to the Fourth Edition of the Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Many of these broad frameworks and models of the STS field can be applied and connect to past and modern conflicts in the scientific and technological world.
The Introduction to the Fourth Edition of the Handbook of Science and Technology Studies states that “science and technology have evolved to be among the most significant forms of human activity and inseparable from social, political, and economic organization. They were and continue to be instruments of military power, economic innovation, moral judgement, political imagination, and cultural difference” (Felt,Fouche,Miller,Smith-Doerr 1). Direct parallels are drawn between these thoughts and feelings, and the events of both the introduction to The Mobile Workshop. The Tsetse Fly and African Knowledge Production, and The Problem with Environmental Activism in Appalachia, allowing for a greater understanding of the dynamics of both of these cases.. The divide between Europeans and Africans portrayed in Clapperton Chakanetsa Mavhunga’s introduction to his book could largely be seen as deriving from the gap in technology and the resulting dichotomy in their cultural development. This difference in technology put the Europeans in a position of power, and put the African people at a disadvantage. A difference in culture is also apparent in the article/blog by Nick Mullins, between the coal mining community of Appalachia and the environmentalists. Coal mining defines society in Appalachia; responsible for their whole economy, thus their culture as a whole. Mullins describes how “environmental organizations have become the uppity, elitist outsiders that Appalachians have distrusted and despised for generations” (Mullins), essentially saying that their culture drastically differs from that of Appalachia, and that they are “outsiders” to them. The disparity between the cultures and perspectives of these two groups is responsible for their inability to cooperate with each other and work towards a solution.
The Introduction to the Fourth Edition of the Handbook of Science and Technology Studies also emphasizes the point that “in the process of making science and technology, people also make and remake themselves, their bodies and identities, their societies, and their material surroundings” (Felt et al., 1). This structure of analysis is very similar to Clapperton Chakanetsa Mavhunga thoughts in his book, where he says “I seek to reclaim my own humanity through an insect—seemingly innocuous, inconspicuous, grossly underestimated…” (Mavhunga 19). These make very similar arguments, and follow the same structure, allowing for a better understanding of the overall message. Scientific research reforms the identity of oneself when looking deeply at the implications of the results of the research, and comparing it to yourself.
Finally, the case from The Problem with Environmental Activism in Appalachia could be compared abstractly to socialism. Bruno Latour, in We Have Never Been Modern reflects how “while seeking to abolish man’s exploitation of man, socialism had magnified that exploitation immeasurably” (Latour 8), meaning that while socialism was intended to help people, it did the opposite. This is mirrored in the case of coal mining in Appalachia. Environmentalists looking to shut down coal mines have good intentions to clean the environment, yet lack the proper perspective and understanding to fully solve the problem and find an appropriate solution. While they may mean well, these environmentalists in fact are doing more damage to their relationships with the miners; ultimately negatively affecting the potential of change.
This is an excellent quote Colin: “in the process of making science and technology, people also make and remake themselves, their bodies and identities, their societies, and their material surroundings” (Felt et al., 1). I wonder now, how we -in the making of new knowledge about how science, technology, and society interact- can remake ourselves, identities, and material surroundings?
I think in the making of of new knowledge about the interactions between science, technology, and society, we gain different perspectives than we previously possessed. We gain a knowledge of how science and technology influence society in different ways, and also vice versa; how society can influence science and technology. This knowledge allows us to look at science and technology in a different light. We can gain a better understanding of how technological and scientific advancements have been influenced subjectively by society, and as a result look at discoveries more cautiously, knowing how they may have been influenced and stated in ways that are meant to get a certain reaction. This can also change how we go about our daily lives, and make us realize the implications that different discoveries and innovations can have not only in the fields of science and technology; on society as a whole. The understanding of these implications can lead to greater responsibility in what is shared with society.
The STS field is critical for society. Science and technology have such strong effects on the world, that it’s important to analyze and understand all their possible consequences. According to the authors of The Fourth Edition of the Handbook of Science and Technology, members of the STS field focus on how science, technology, and society entwine through the “co-production of epistemic, technological, and social orders,” or through “the situatedness of knowledge.” This mindset can be used to analyze the case on the Mhesvi fly and the Vedzimbahwe people. In the 20th century, the fly’s outbreak was a major public health concern due to its widespread destruction of food, infection of people, and a lack of treatment (Mavhunga). People from all areas of society, as well as from different countries, were interested in finding a solution. The fly issue was eventually brought under control, but not in the way that the Handbook suggests. The Handbook’s method suggests using co-production of knowledge to bring different people and ideas together to solve a problem. This would have made fixing the Mhesvi fly problem much easier, but it simply did not occur. Instead, a situatedness of knowledge, or the way that people were involved, occurred. When the Europeans, or “vachena,” arrived, “they could not personally live with mhesvi…without falling victim to its bite” (Mavhunga 9). Their situatedness was exerting superiority by examining observation reports and determining how to use the gathered information. In contrast, “African men [were] recruited as ‘flyboys’ [in order to] make the regular rounds or inspections of targeted areas” (Mavhunga 9). The Africans’ situatedness was the hands-on work, which the Europeans later studied, revealing why Europeans were so powerful. The Mhesvi fly case shows that people acquire knowledge in different ways, as stated by the Handbook. By analyzing this case with the Handbook’s message of co-production in mind, it can be determined that to make a scientific discovery or develop a technology, individual differences must be brought together.
In contrast, Bruno Latour speaks of modernity as separation. STS has caused a divide amongst “nature and culture, humans and non-humans, technology and society.” Latour’s idea of division applies to the present Appalachian coal industry. Modern environmentalists support a “growing environmental movement against…coal mining” (Mullins) for energy resources. However, this separation of nature and culture, which Latour claims characterizes modern society, isn’t as easy as it seems. In the past, Appalachians were “forced into a mono-economy so [now they’re] dependent on coal mining” (Mullins). Therefore, there’s a barrier between environmentalists and Appalachian people. An environmentally-friendly Appalachia will never occur until the mono-economy is removed (Mullins). This fact aligns with Latour’s other idea of the necessity of hybrids to progress society. Due to the miscommunication that occurs, it’s so hard to enact change- the Appalachians are not anti-environment, they simply cannot survive without their coal industry. Hence, analyzing the coal industry with Latour’s frame of mind reveals how modern life struggles to connect science, technology, and society due to its tendency of categorization as Latour suggests. Science finds new discoveries (i.e. environmentally-friendly benefits), but the technology is not yet there to make these ideas reality for society, ergo separation occurs.
In the STS field, it’s evident that barriers exist; however, these two methods of study provided by The Fourth Edition of the Handbook of Science and Technology and Bruno Latour can help to describe why they exist and how they can be removed to better modern life and thus learn from mistakes made in the past.
WC: 582
Works Cited
“Crisis.” We Have Never Been Modern, by Bruno Latour, Pearson Education, 2000, pp. 1–12.
“The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies.” The Handbook of Science and Technology
Studies, by Ulrike Felt et al., 4th ed., The MIT Press, 2017, pp. 1–4.
Mavhunga, Clapperton Chakanetsa. The Mobile Workshop: The Tsetse Fly and African
Knowledge Production. The MIT Press, 2018.
Mullins, Nick. “The Problem with Environmental Activism in Appalachia.” Thoughts of a Coal
Miner, 1 Sept. 2017, thethoughtfulcoalminer.com/2015/12/30/the-problem-with-
environmentalism-in-appalachia/.
You bring a very important dimension Emma. the ‘situated” nature of knowledge means there are multiple knowledge(s) interacting, being co-produced in response and in conflict with others. What that means for us as producers of knowledge, and as researchers interested in how knowledge and technological change happens?
I think that as producers of knowledge, this means we need to understand the power of communication. In order for knowledge to be produced, we need to think outside of our norm, as we saw in the “Thomas Kuhn’s Concept of the Paradigm Shift, as Described in his 1962 Book ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'” video. This usually includes bringing together people whose “knowledge containers” differ from ours. Professor San Martin mentioned that we usually can only become pros in one area of expertise, so by communicating with others, we can bring multiple knowledges together in order to co-produce a new knowledge.
In terms of researching knowledge and technological change, I think understanding the situated nature of knowledge can be beneficial in helping us to understand why certain advancements did or did not occur in the past. The Europeans who came to Africa to study the Mhesvi fly had more technologies and resources than the Africans. I think this is a reason why colonization occurred; the Europeans used technology to exert their dominance. Recognizing the situatedness of knowledge can also support the claim that technological advancements and advancements in knowledge only occur when communication between people and a transfer of knowledge occurs. We will never make changes if we never think differently than the norm.
In both, The Mobile Workshop. The Tsetse Fly and African Knowledge Production by Clapperton Chakanetsa Mavhunga, and The Problem with Environmental Activism in Appalachia by Nick Mullins, two of the major paradigms science, technology, and society scholars use to analyze technology and society can be used as a framework to further study the case studies. The first of the two aspects that can be applied to get a better understanding of the articles is the idea of the “co-production of epistemic, technological, and social orders” (1 Ulrike Felt et. al). In other words, how society affects technology and knowledge and how technology and knowledge can, in turn, affect society. European society pushed the need to eliminate the tsetse fly and create new technology. Mavhunga goes on to explain that, “Vanhu vatema created numerous stratagems to manage and coexist with mhesvi that vachena later borrowed and deployed to control the insect.” (11 Mavhunga). While the native population had the technology to control the fly, the society didn’t find the bugs to be a pest that needed exterminating. When the Europeans defined the diseased bug as vermin that needed cleansing, they created new technology to target the flies, like pesticides to kill it, or chemicals to sterilize it. Only the new societal need for the technology allowed it to come into existence
A similar way of studying can be used to expand upon Mullin’s article on coal mining. With such a large technological leap, the effects on society are more evident. Once the Appalachian people discovered the coal and started to gain income by selling it, a mono-economy social structure began to form in such a way that the environmental threats against coal became threats against their societies’ structure. Unless the people in power are willing to make changes using new knowledge to help improve their technology, the current advances being made will be ineffective. The reason why new knowledge isn’t flowing through the hierarchy in the coal industry or throughout the environmentalists can be studied using a different aspect of how STS scholars examine the effects of how technology weaves together with society that deals with the “situatedness of knowledge”(1-2 Felt et. al), a type of research that investigates the vastness of indigenous knowledge and how important historical and cultural events can be to the expansion of knowledge. Mullins talks about how as an Appalachian he understands that the environmentalists are trying to do the right thing, but as a local his indigenous knowledge allows him to have a greater understanding of the mono-economy they are so dependent on. After talking about how environmentalists have become outsiders to the cause he states, “A true just transition will never take place until people living in Appalachia are no longer dependent upon the mono-economy of coal. It will take creating new policies that phase out coal while requiring the companies to clean up their messes” (Mullins). While he does admit that the environmentalist are on the right side, they don’t have the indigenous knowledge to expand upon a new technological advancement to allow the society to get off coal. Similarly, when Europeans were researching the tsetse fly, they weren’t the ones going out into the environment to capture the bugs, and therefore couldn’t fully understand the animal’s instincts. The scientists also neglected that the fly population was growing so fast due to its mobility, while if they asked the native population they could have gotten a better insight. By only reading the articles researchers are only scratching the surface of the complex relationship between technology and society.
“By only reading the articles researchers are only scratching the surface of the complex relationship between technology and society” -This is a very good point Dominic. Now, what would be our responsibility as researchers and what steps we might take to go deeper into those complex relationships?
Throughout history, the way that people interact with each other and with the world around them has changed with the ushering in of more advanced technology. Specifically, a pattern that can be seen is that of barriers, or divides growing because of geographical location or ethnic groups, both brought upon by developments in technology. In his work We Have Never Been Modern, Latour speaks on how the what we call the modern age “[seeks] to reorient man’s exploitation of man toward an exploitation of nature by man” (Latour, 8). He goes on to say that the effect of this shift was that “the multitudes that were supposed to be saved from death fall back into poverty by the hundreds of millions; nature, over which we were supposed to gain absolute mastery, dominates us in an equally global fashion, and threatens us all” (Latour, 8). Latour suggests that divides are forming as we attempt to become more modern, both between groups of people, and between people and nature.
Based on Latour’s opinions, there is a connection between the ideas of Latour, as well as those presented in the work The Mobile Workshop: The Tsetse Fly and African Knowledge Production as well as The Problem with Environmental Activism in Appalachia. In the first example, The author talks not only about the problems faced when trying to exterminate the Tsetse fly (relating to humans attempting to master nature), but also how this can relate to times past, where people who are seen as lesser, or as “vermin” are treated the same way as the flies are treated in Africa today, a situation that can serve as a metaphor to represent acts both in the past and acts to come. As an example, one paragraph begins by stating “When people are seen as vermin, the instruments designed for verminous animals also can be extended to them. The Nazi described genocide against the Jewish people as delousing, performing an act of hygiene, removing dirt” (Raffles 2010, 141). This shows the comparison in how people are trying to be rid of the Tsetse fly in Africa, and the Nazi ideas about Jews during the second world war, and brings up ideas about how people treat others that they believe to be lesser than they. This is something that causes instances of social division today, and some examples can be traced back to the influences of developing technology. A connection to this idea in modern life comes from Nick Mullins, author of The Problem with Environmental Activism in Appalachia, who says that Appalachian people “were cast as senseless, violent, uneducated hillbillies making it easier for outside land agents and coal companies to unethically procure [their] mineral rights”. He goes on to describe how many were forced “into a mono-economy so that [they’d] be dependent on mining coal—coal [they] used to own” (Mullins, 2015). This situation plainly shows the division between people after the industrial revolution caused coal companies to take economic control over the region. Over time, this caused a very clear divide between residents of the area and “outsiders”. A clear line can be drawn from this modern day event to similar divisions in the past.
The idea presented and supported by multiple authors that the continued development of new technology and scientific ideas can be shown through the similarities between events and ideas throughout history, such as the situation pertaining to the tsetse fly in Africa. Technology will continue to develop,and, according to the ideas of Latour and other, and this kind of situation will continue to happen as technology continues into the future.
Throughout time, the development of science and technology has played an integral role in the “modernization” of societies. However, the development of such technologies can also lead to the degradation of societies who are not as exposed to the aforementioned “modernization”. It is important to understand that when approaching a situation in which technologies are being developed, there is a certain framework that should be followed to mitigate conflict. History has shown that technologies change the way society interacts (i.e. phones, computers) and recognizing both the positive and negative repercussions of technologies must be accounted for before introducing it to society.
This idea can be seen through the two case studies, one examining the interaction between European colonizers and African laborers studying an insect, while the other analyzes the conflict between environmentalists and coal miners in Appalachia. When examining the first case study, it is shown that the European colonizers exploited the Africans by having them do most of the rigorous field work that left them susceptible to diseases and other injuries. The European’s viewed themselves as the greater entity because they had access to superior technologies which made the Africans comparably look like savages. Instead of taking this approach, the Europeans should have attempted to communicate with the Africans and attempted to translate and understand the issue together. Instead, the Europeans believed their technological superiority would allow them to take over the research and blaze their own path instead of reaching common ground with the African researchers. The European’s rashness in trying to eliminate the pest led to the death of much of the area’s livestock and vegetation. These insensitivities and lack of understanding also evidence themselves within the conflict in Appalachia between environmentalists and coal miners.
The second case study showed that both sides of the argument were very unwilling to compromise, and these attitudes can be attributed to the lack of civility on each side. The environmentalists treated the coal miners as ignorant dolts who wanted to destroy the environment, while the coal miners believed the environmentalists were tree hugging liberals trying to strip them of their jobs. Instead of viewing the issue as such, a better approach would have been to recognize the issue as one that affects the whole community. Rather than remaining obstinate to compromise because of political differences, compromise could be reached if both sides looked at the issue and understood how each side would be affected in the big picture. The environmentalists view themselves as the superior party in this situation, as they had been educated on the damages of burning coal, but their method to communicate this was one of harsh beratement towards the miners. As shown by Bruno Latour’s We Have Never Been Modern, translation must occur, where each side is willing to talk, and from there, purification can take place, where the environmentalists could educate the coal miners as to the dangers of burning coal. This would not be an immediate change, as the coal miners would need to slowly find a new line of work that could support them and their family, but it would be a step towards positive change for both parties.
While the research and development of technology often yields beneficial results, the knowledge gained and approach towards sharing this knowledge of this can often strain interactions between various peoples from different cultures. It is necessary to use a proper approach towards communicating new technologies and not view our levels of knowledge as a hierarchy, as this prevents positive change.
The ideas presented here are examples of hard technological determinism, due to the fact that the conflicts/events in the case studies mentioned all came about due to the development of technology. In the case of European colonization of Africa, and the studies made on the Tsetse fly at that time, the Europeans considered themselves greater due to their advanced technology and superior knowledge. In Appalachia, coal companies took economic control over the region during the industrial revolution to keep up with the growing need for energy as technology grew in the country. These points are good, and we wanted to consider the idea of immediate results as well. As we talked about in class, in our society today, we are often used to expecting immediate results, and things to change “with the click of a button”. But based on the ideas in “Does Technology Drive History” and these historical events, this kind of transition takes more time and communication than modern technology has led us to believe.
-EGMOSAM
In the context of technological determinism, this post relates back to the commentary about advertising exhibited in “Does Technology Drive History” by Roe Smith and Leo Marx. As seen in this book that explains how advertising ploys rely on appealing to emotions and an individuals relation to the subject. In this case depending on whose perspective you look through whether its the “tree hugging liberals” or the “ignorant dolts” the impact of the statements each said greatly changes. Much like the advancements in technology and advertisements used to appeal to the masses.
I think Matt and his group is right in pointing out the importance of time scales. Knowledge and technological change do not only happen as a product of broader social networks and hierarchies (as David argues) but also at different time scales shaped by those networks and hierarchies.
Now, following on Miya’s group comment. Would fighting ideas of technological determinism help to create a better public understanding of how technological change happens? and how we can create these processes more inclusive and democratic?
I think fighting ideas of technological determinism could benefit the understanding of technological as it would put aside some of the ideals that they are striving for and instead bring together in order to have better communication to begin the process of creating a change. In order to make these more inclusive we could work to having less subjective input that might enlighten other to a deeper understanding of what is occurring.
And I’d add, making those subjective dimensions explicit instead of assuming they don’t exist
Science and technology stems far beyond just inventions and new discoveries, but instead can be linked to numerous other topics including politics, culture and economics. This idea that everything is intertwined and interconnected, is also known as the Gordian knot. The Gordian knot is an important framework for being able to better understand the world and the many relationships that occur. Two articles that looked deeper into this idea was the Introduction “To the Handbook of Science and Technology Studies” by Ulrike Felt and colleagues, as well as Bruno Latour’s “We Have Never Been Modern”. Both Latour and Felt and his colleagues looked deeper into the Gordian knot and began to unravel the impacts that these correlations have on one another.
One place these ideas can be put to practice is in Appalachia, where their economy is built around the coal industry. This is a challenging situation as many different people have a million opposing opinions. Environmentalists want to change the way coal is produced while, the Appalachian people want things to stay the same as without it their economy would collapse. In order to create a change, the author, Nick Mullins, suggests government officials, coal associations, and the local people need to come together so they can fight for a common goal. If they fail to do so, Mullins predicts “we will never expect to see any progress”. This is very similar to the ideas presented in the Science and Technology Studies article, or STS. They described how the goal of STS is to “position science and technology alongside, intertwined with, and integral to other important arenas of human activity” (Felt). Going off of this idea, if the environmentalists were able to come up with a sustainable solution that also allowed the Appalachian people other ways of making a living this would be a solution that would benefit all parties. Instead of trying to do everything on their own they should come together to allow for the greatest amounts of change to occur.
Another example of uniting to solve a problem is seen in Zimbabwe. The mhesvi fly has been a point of fascination and intrigue for many as it carries deadly diseases and is extremely difficult to combat. In order to study this fly Europeans had to enlist the help of the local Vedsimbahwe people to do the actual research for them. In doing so the Europeans used their political power to create activities and design experiments for others to then execute. This relates to Latour’s book in which he explains how we all are trying to “crisscross the divide that separates exact knowledge and the exercise of power” (Latour). By crossing this divide, as Latour puts it, we are able to learn from those around us to then solve a united problem. Instead of trying to act as if everything is unrelated, we should rather break free from these constraints to grow as a society rather than individual groups, as the Europeans and Vedsimbahwe people did.
The ideas presented in both the handbook of STS and Latour’s book bring up similar points in the interconnected aspects of everything in the world. The Gordian knot While it might seem like things are separate there is always something linking them back together. Once we realize this, is also when the most change will be able to occur.
Soft determinism is in play in Appalachia, where society has rejected the solution even though the tech to fix the problem exists. In relation to the “Gordian Knot,” the situation is not just science based but relates to people’s day to day life. Advertising on the part of the coal companies has produced the culture, very similar to the examples of advertising in “Does Technology Drive History.”
I would like to follow up on Adam’s group comment. Taking into consideration Kailana’s analysis, isn’t expecting that technology will “fix” the problem of the Appalachia region another way of technological determinism?
I agree with Adam’s comment that soft technological determinism is present in this case because the region must implement these changes, and is resisting to do so. Therefore society is the driving force, and not technology. To answer your question, though, simply expecting technology to fix the issues in the Appalachian region would demonstrate hard technological determinism. As it suggests waiting for technology to advance the region’s current socioeconomic state. Therefore thinking of technological development and its implementation as an autonomous force, of sorts. In regards to this implementation, I completely agree with Kailana in that the complex relationships between the science and technology behind environmental activism and the social, political, and economic state of the region must be considered if legitimate change is to be made.
Our world is shaped by the past and is being shaped by present events now. The history of our world and the direction it is headed is undoubtedly linked with science and technology. This is the main point being expressed in the Introduction to the Fourth Edition of the Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. However, when looking at the world from a modern perspective we put things into categories such as politics, science, and the environment. We think them separate because it is a part of how we differentiate ourselves from the past. Latour explains the modern mindset or the modern critical stance as an established “partition between a natural world that has always been there, a society with predictable and stable interests and stakes, and a discourse that is independent of both reference and society”(Latour 11). Bruno Latour explains that a society that has a modern mindset can’t objectively study themselves because to do so they would be inherently not modern. They would be able to draw no distinction between themselves to the people of the past. It is important to understand this modern mindset of purification and translation in order to understand why it is not a proper mindset to have when trying to understand the world in an effective manner.
In the case of The Mhesvi fly and the Vedzimbahwe, European colonizers were attempting to understand a region that was foreign to them through science and technology. The natives of the region had knowledge about the environment, specifically the fly. The Europeans were also very interested in studying the fly. However, they sought to study the fly in their own way, using the Natives and their knowledge as a framework for their own science. What could have been a collaborative effort between two cultures attempting to see the bigger picture, failed due to the European’s modern mindset. The world of the Europeans had been very different from the Natives due to the impact technology played in developing European society. The Natives seemed to think in networks, paying attention to the relations between seemingly separate topics. Europeans looked at the world from the perspective of a more technologically oriented society and as a result, judged the Natives as premodern. This is how the Europeans studied them as if they were a past society. Due to this difference, Europeans disassociated their society from that of the natives, allowing the Europeans to “justify” their immoral behaviors towards the Natives. These events left long lasting bitterness in the region. This is an example of the dangers of strictly modern thinking.
Similarly, in the case of the miners in Appalachia, we can see the effects of modern thinking. In reality, science, technology, society, politics, and the entire world all influence each other. However, since modern thinking indicates people think in narrow perspectives we begin to understand how the conflict arose. Science and technology brought about all the jobs in the region and years later science and technology confirms that the coal-dependent economy of the region is adversely affecting the environment. Environmentalists only subscribe to one perspective, the environment. They assume that everyone views the world like them, or should(similarly to the Europeans). The residents of Appalachia have the same problem but aligned opposite the environmentalists. They are only seeing from the scope of the economy/their jobs. Neither group seems capable of seeing the larger picture, nor do they connect technological developments throughout history with their issues. If they looked at their history, they may find it easier to translate their own thoughts and reach a common ground.
I agree with pjomullan that our past shapes the knowledge and events in the present and future, but they go on to say that modern thinking has lead to a narrow perspective on how to do things. Is modern thinking inherently narrow or is it also based on the past and how the society was created and what it values? Or will the new values of society narrow its thinking towards that subject and miss the interconnected subjects? Going along with Latour’s thoughts on modernity our thinking will never be modern, but is in a constant state of having been modern at one point. By that way of thinking, a future way of looking at knowledge in all the complex intricacy’s would be the most modern way of thinking, while the narrow points of view would be an out-dated form.
Overall I find this post brings a unique light to the topic, but I am not sure I entirely agree with it. Towards the end of the second paragraph, you seem to be saying that Latour would classify, “the Europeans attempting to ‘justify’ their immoral behaviors,” as modern. I disagree with this interpretation of Latour’s idea of modernity and feel it does not apply to this situation. I believe Latour’s ideas of modernity fit more into the idea that as time passes you can see how you were modern in the past, but it is never something that is set in stone. This idea clashes with the term of “modern thinking” that was used a couple of time throughout your post. On a different subject, I really like your idea of a possible cycle that could happen in Appalachia. When you see how the new technology that people thought would be used forever took over the entire economy, it is easy to see how a similar thing could happen again in the attempt to give them a new economy.
In the Introduction to The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, and We Have Never Been Modern, both sections focus on the use of knowledge, and role knowledge plays in advancement. In Bruno Latour’s piece, he explains how knowledge and its use is a mere political game, and for the world to be properly modern, knowledge must be properly employed. In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, the authors explain how this field of learning interprets knowledge, and how it is viewed and used alongside human advancement and development on a global scale. Through the lens of Bruno Latour and the scholars of Science and Technology Studies, we are able to develop an approach to the similar discussions in The Mobile Workshop and The Problem with Environmental Activism in Appalachia. The opinions of the authors of both works explains how through following the correct use of knowledge, society and advancement can coincide with each other, without causing power problems, as well as hierarchies.
Bruno Latour’s point on the way knowledge is a mere political game applies to the Mhesvi Fly dilemma, as one of the points spoken on in the Mobile Workshop, is how this problem was originally one relating to only the people of the Vedzimbahwe, but England, seeking importance and strength, tackled this problem, and did not share this knowledge. As Latour states, “Whatever label we use, we are always attempting to retie the Gordian knot by crisscrossing as often as we have to, the divide that seperates exact knowledge and the exercise of power – let us say nature and culture” (Latour, 3). This goes to show how Latour’s opinion on how knowledge can be a political game for power, as well as helping influence dehumanization. The world has been untying and retying this knot, in multiple attempts to separate knowledge from power, but seemingly to no avail. In this case, knowledge is used improperly, as England didn’t offer help, but rather created their own share of power and importance because of their quick developments. Through the lens of the authors, this knowledge must be spread and shared to keep society, power, and advancement in an even and healthy state.
Through Science and Technology studies, the authors explain how the aim of S&T is to assist humans alongside their development in the world, yet it’s mainly used for personal development, and creating a hierarchy over societies. As the authors of The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies state, “At the same time, STS scholarship emphasizes that in the process of making science and technology, people also make and remake themselves, their bodies, and identities, their societies, and their material surroundings” (1). This quote relates to Appalachia vs. Environmental activists, as the United States recreated energy use, unintentionally establishing a hierarchy over coal miners. As the author of The Problem with Environmental Activism in Appalachia states, “Though most environmentalists have their hearts in the right place when it comes to helping other people, I’m afraid they’ve done a poor job of translating it to the public. So when the knee-jerk reaction of coal miners and their families is to identify environmentalists as “out of touch,” I am not entirely surprised”. Environmental Activists , following the flow of advancement, essentially state their “higher state of being” compared to those of the coal miners.
In totality, both articles allow the general public, such as the readers, to view things such as the Mhesvi Fly and Zimbabwe, or the Coal Miners in Appalachia in a different way, and see how knowledge can be used properly, or improperly.
I wonder what would be a good example of the proper use of knowledge?
A proper use of knowledge in the way described in my response is mainly for the use of advancement of all, not just for the benefit of one place or people. My main example of this in my response was of the Mhesvi Fly. This is because England figured out a solution to combat the flies, but kept it to themselves. If this knowledge was spread to Africa, it would actually have use, and improve the lives of many, many people, as opposed to just England keeping the solution for themselves for knowledge and powers sake.
I think this can also connect to the article pertaining to coal mining in Appalachia. Coal companies exploited the region for the vast riches under the mountains in the form of coal, oblivious or ignorant to the effect that it would have on the region and its people. The uses for coal in bringing energy to the country was a fantastic use of knowledge, however it had a negative effect on the Appalachian people, creating a mono-economy in the region that has been in constant decline, causing high poverty rates. Like you had said, the proper use of knowledge is for the technological advancement of all people.
Science and technology has come a long way since the cavemen roamed the face of the earth, but it has also brought along with some formalities. Within these two readings we can see that society, science, and technology are intertwined. In the, Introduction to the Fourth Edition of the Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, we get an inside look at how Science and Technology studies (STS) displays how much technology affects humans daily lives. STS goal is to “position science and technology alongside, intertwined with, and integral to other important arenas of human activity.” (Felt 2) This sort of ideology would have been perfect to use within the Appalachians during the coal debate. In the Appalachians, a debate was growing over saving the environment and to stop mining coal. With the help of science and technology a resolution could have been made, one that took into the beliefs of both the miners and the environmentalists. This is a perfect example as to why we should apply the framework laid out in Handbook of Science and Technology. If we analyze a society, then use this information to make technology that fits to the needs of a growing society, then we wouldn’t rush technology into a society not ready to handle it.
This handbook and most other handbooks have a point of view that humans should learn from. This handbook analyzes and organizes the past views of different cultures, in order to predict the future ideas and problems of them. Based off of the past, this handbooks draws boundaries but with an open mind, inviting new approaches to be made. This allows for room to predict the uncertain future of what humans will chose in life. Environmentalists should take notes of all these ideas from the handbook, to come up with a new idea on a eco-friendly way of mining coal; when the Appalachian miners are ready for it, they can accept it. These two different cultures must adapt to an open mind that is willing to change, like the Handbook of Science and Technology. The handbook has gone through four editions and has changed over time, we all could learn something from this handbook and the changes made.
The world today is ever changing with new phones, computers, and changes in software, so it is impossible to be modern with a world updating so fast. Within Latour’s reading it states “[…] the divide that separates exact knowledge and the exercise of power – let us say nature and culture.” (3) This kind of concept can be applied to the problem faced in Africa over a fly that’s killing animals and people in that country. The lack of communication between the natives and the foreigners, creates a wall that knowledge cannot flow through. This difference of knowledge creates a separation of power; the foreigners feel as though they are entitled to dominate these “dumb” natives. Latour has noticed that humans take three different kinds of paths; naturalization, socialization, or destruction. Latour explains how someone on the naturalization path must stay away from some on the socialization or destruction path. This statement by Latour is wrong, because if we all traveled on the same path it would create a world that is much more powerful together. Everyone has different views, so by combining all of them everyone could learn something new and we would become a more knowledgeable community.
In essence, human’s need to understand that society is intertwined with technology, but this doesn’t mean we should keep updating our technology every day. We must be willing to change and learn together.
Just a small question -isn’t the statement that there are societies not ready to handle specific technologies deterministic? What are the assumptions of the statement and how a different approach might help?
We cant just change societies in a snap of someones fingers and everyone has computers. A society going from minimal technology to a modern one, could change the culture of a society and therefore have an impact on the world. Some societies aren’t ready for cell phones, if you gave an iPhone to a child in Zimbabwe, they wouldn’t know what to do with it. We must start with a slow growth in the evolution of technology in these societies so they can adjust to it. One of the assumptions is that naturalization, socialization, and destruction must stay arms length apart from each other. I think another approach that could be taken is that these three things can intermingle with each other. To much of one thing can be bad so if we combine these things then we would end up with a much better outcome in any situation.
I think that cmlafortune is highlighting some very important point that is often missed. Often times people will assume that they might have the higher quality of life therefore others should fall in line or adopt their way. However, this is dangerous thinking. As pointed out earlier this can cause more problems than fix the one attempting to be fixed.
I agree with Miya. The assumption that there is only one way to “technological advancement” or that there are societies that are “ready” or not ready for these advancements is very problematic. Something that we have learned here is not only how technologies are always mediated by their social contexts where they are produced or consumed, but also that this means that there is no only one global path for technological development. That’s the (democratic) value of thinking about the ‘situated’ production of knowledge and technology
“Over the past two hundred years, science and technology have evolved to be among the most significant forms of human activity and inseparable from social, political, and economic organization” (Felt, Fouché, Miller, and Smith-Doerr, 2016 p. 1). As society becomes more technological, long-standing orders are uprooted to make way for today’s more advanced paradigms. Now it is important to understand that this change is necessary. After all, it is human nature to progress—to make life more efficient and sustainable. Technology is undoubtedly a useful tool that helps accomplish this, however the effects of modernization cannot be overlooked.
In The Mobile Workshop: The Tsetse Fly and African Knowledge Production, Bruno Latour’s “purification,” the separation of humans and nonhumans, can be seen. The author Clapperton Chakanetsa Mavhunga tells how European colonists attempted to eradicate the Tsetse fly from Africa. The Tsetse fly was a nuisance, as Mavhunga points out; an estimated 4.5 billion dollars in crops was lost and Gopé, a deadly disease with no available cure, infected between fifty and seventy-thousand people every year due to the fly. However, the colonist’s means of controlling the Tsetse fly were destructive. Harmful pesticides were used, forests were cut down, and people were forced to relocate their homes. Europeans also discredited the vedzimbahwe (the main African group effected by the fly) of their scientific knowledge of the fly and presented everything as their own findings. No attention was given to the “situatedness of knowledge,” the knowledge relative to the vedzimbahwe (Felt, Fouché, Miller, and Smith-Doerr, 2016).
Latour also writes about how modernization can create polarization between nature and culture. This “translation” modernity (Latour, 1993) can be observed in the coal industry and the Appalachian community in the United States today. As Nick Mullins points out in his blog, “coal mining families” (culture) “are not very receptive to environmentalists” (nature). Mullins concedes that many coal miners do understand the negative effects of coal, how mining is ruining the mountains and how the burning of coal is harmful to the environment. In other words, they understand the situatedness of the environmentalist’s knowledge. He does however point out that environmentalists really do not offer any practical alternative energy source. Environmentalists also fail to recognize the economic dependence many Appalachian families have on coal mining. As mentioned in the fourth edition of the Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, “STS is sensitive to the moral economies that guide scientific research and technological development as well as to the various sociotechnical modalities through which ways of knowing and living get arranged.”
Both Mullins’s blog and The Mobile Workshop: The Tsetse Fly and African Knowledge Production demonstrate the effects of modernization. Modernity cannot be forced; it cannot be aggressive. To mesh technology with society, it must be accepted by society first, and then gradually integrated. More attention must be paid to the “co-production of epistemic, technological and social orders” (Felt, Fouché, Miller, and Smith-Doerr, 2016), especially as technologies such as autonomous cars, big data, and artificial intelligence become more prevalent. The lesson to be learned is this: change is necessary, but will cause polarization. The approach to change is the only thing that can help suppress opposition. One also must not overlook any effect from the change. With these things in mind, modernity can seamlessly become a part of the present day.
“The co-production of epistemic, technological and social orders” -This is a central but complex idea among STS scholars. If we had to separate each of this categories and look for them in the case studies, what would be the epidemic, technological, and social order?
Because in STS views epistemic, technological and social orders in co-production, I believe the only way for us to view them in these case studies is finding them as a whole. For example in the case of the Tsetse Fly in Africa, the epistemic order seems to be the new knowledge obtained by the colonists, the technological order would be the scientific ways of combatting the fly, from both the colonists and the Africans, and the social order would be the interaction between the colonists and the Africans. They ideas all revolve around the knowledge of the Fly from both groups an truly cannot be separated.
This is a great, concrete example of how the co-production of epistemic, technological, and social orders worked in the case of the Tsetse Fly in Africa! Thanks for making it that clear!
In all of human history there has always been a connection between scientific and technological development and improvements or declines in society. Since there is this entanglement between science, technology, knowledge, development, and human society, it makes sense that a field of study would evolve to understand it. That is where Science and Technology Studies (STS) comes in. STS provides viewers of history a way to study scientific achievements and how society was and is influenced by them.
An example of this is the introduction to the book, The Mobile Workshop. The Tsetse Fly and African Knowledge Production. This book evaluates the history of different insects, mainly flies in Africa. It also connects every instance of someone learning or developing something new regarding the insects to social influences. This book discussed how it was possible for one culture to gain so much knowledge and benefit from it while another suffers because of actions taken using the research. In the case of the Tsetse Flies, white Europeans came in and created new fields of study into the insects and how they affected the human body or other species. From this research the field gained real traction and notoriety and while that sounds good, much if not all of the knowledge generated by natives was not used for their benefit. Even though local knowledge was central to the collection and verification of data, there wasn’t much acknowledgment of that from the European scientist who brought it to the world’s attention. The actions by European colonists using the knowledge to eradicate the flies, like destroying habitats, degraded the native Africans conditions.
In, The Problem With Environmental Activism in Appalachia, activism by environmentalists to advance adoption of renewable energy could easily have turned into a one sided political argument over the failures of humanity sparks a conversation over how the world is evolving and developing, just not at the same rate everywhere. In fact, renewable energies are quite prevalent even in some parts of the United States. Yet, the failure to adopt them is not necessarily by choice or lack of care. The mining towns in Appalachia that rely on the coal industry in their local mono economies. The writer proposed that if the advocates for renewable energy put their efforts into advocating for policies and programs that helped Appalachia move away from dependence on coal mining they might make allies of local communities. But, it is not until these two sides stop fighting for the upper ground will they be able to communicate accurately and efficiently with each other to where a solution can be a tangible idea for both involved. These social confines combined with the technological developments can create a real push and pull dynamic between progress and chaos. Due to this techniques STS employs creates a fuller image not just of causation but rather one of correlation and collaboration.
Your analysis, Miya, makes me think how an STS approach might help several debates about energy transitions in the US and somewhere else.
Science and technology studies (STS) is a field formed by networks that branch across many different disciplines. Therefore, for the field of STS to advance, Latour argues that the barriers between nature and society must be taken down. To this end, he argues that they never existed. People have created artificial barriers between society and nature, but in order to study STS, we need to cross these barriers.
In Africa where the tsetse fly is a nuisance that must be controlled, society and science have clashed because of this barrier. The indigenous people in the region had methods that were effective in controlling the fly’s interaction with humans. But when European colonizers came in, they had their own ideas about how the fly should be controlled. The Europeans “had political power, designed activities, and directed what, how, and where information was to be gathered, they could not personally live with mhesvi for sustained periods without falling victim to the bite of another chipu-kanana: hutunga (the one that gores), which vachena called mosquito. Only African men recruited as “flyboys” (fly catchers) could make the regular fly rounds or inspections of the targeted areas” (Mavhunga 2018). The Europeans thought that they were superior, so they could force the natives to do the work that they couldn’t. Because their societal norms and values clashed with those of the indigenous people, they believed that they needed to impose their ways on the people. It is clear to see the connection that science and technology had with this society. By rejecting local knowledge, the European colonizers rejected generations of learning and innovating in tsetse fly control methods. Now, because of a misunderstanding in culture, both science and society are suffering from the tsetse fly and the consequences of the methods used by Europeans to control them.
In coal mining regions Appalachia, it is becoming increasingly clear that coal mining jobs are shrinking, and alternative energy is growing. That growth is, however, slowed by the locals’ resistance to environmental scientists and their research. Many of the environmentalists who come into the region don’t take the time to understand the culture and the values of the locals. Because they are seen as foreign and trying to destroy the way of life that has been built around coal mining, they are viewed as the enemy. The environmentalists are arguing science without considering society and the locals are arguing for their society without considering the science. Because they have built borders between the two topics, both suffer.
Science and technology are very closely related to a host of other topics, but because barriers have been put up between them, it is hard for groups of people to relate them together just because they aren’t used to it. Drawing lines between subjects and refusing to relate them together has hurt both society and science. The best thing to do to help fix this problem is to acknowledge that the barriers between these subjects never actually existed. We created artificial divisions in our minds that made it hard to connect topics and now it is hard for scientists to understand society and culture and it is hard for normal people to understand science. We have insisted for far too long that science and culture are separate things when really, they are one in the same.
Works Cited
– Clapperton Chakanetsa Mavhunga. 2018. The Mobile Workshop. The Tsetse Fly and African Knowledge Production [Introduction]
– Nick Mullins. 2015. “The Problem with Environmental Activism in Appalachia.” Link: https://bit.ly/2N76ESr
– Ulrike Felt, Rayvon Fouché, Clark A. Miller, and Laurel Smith-Doerr. 2017. “Introduction to the Fourth Edition of the Handbook of Science and Technology Studies.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Fourth Edition.
-Bruno Latour. 1993. We Have Never Been Modern. [Chapter 1 Crisis]
A very good question Josh, is how as citizens, students, educators, we can help to break those barriers?
The _Handbook of Science and Technology Studies_ mentions two concepts. The concept that “epistemic, technological, and social orders are co-produced,” means that while people and societies make technology, the technology also changes the creators. The “situatedness of knowledge” refers to the idea that all knowledge is relative to it’s historical and cultural context. In _We Have Never Been Modern_, Latour describes the tendency to separate technology and science from politics and people. These two perspectives can be used to analyze historical events in context of the information and technology that shapes them, and vice versa.
The author of “The Problem with Environmental Activism in Appalachia” suggests that environmentalists against coal in the Appalachia region are not making progress because they are misunderstanding the problem. They fail to recognize that the culture of the region was “co-produced” with Coal, the dominant technology of the region. The locals identify with coal mining such that negative portrayals of coal are taken as an attack on the people of the region, instead of just the technology. The author suggests that rather than simply trying to change the technology directly, environmentalists must also attempt to change the culture and the conditions that perpetuate it: the technology and politics of the situation cannot be separated and dealt with individually.
The history of the Mhesvi shows the “situatedness of knowledge.” The introduction to _The Mobile Workshop_ describes how native peoples had knowledge of the problem and its solutions before Europeans came, but this information was not treated as valid by the Europeans. The author cites a quote which states that although native peoples had “methods appropriate to the end pursued, [that] does not necessarily imply deliberate activity of the understanding, nor the possession of knowledge capable of being analysed, generalised, and adapted to unforeseen cases.” The Europeans did not respect the existing knowledge as truly intelligent because it did not fit into their preconceived cultural notion of intellectual or scientific information. Here too the information should not be separated from the people and culture: when looking back at the events we can attribute the source of contributions more correctly.
The two approaches are both similar in suggesting that more traditional methods of looking at history tend separate and mis-emphasize the roles and relation of science/technology and people, while they are actually inextricably linked.
Good analysis Adam. If science/technology and people are actually inextricably linked, how do we create new methods to look at the past, the present, and the future that acknowledge and embrace those interrelations? Would we need a new set of methods? A new way of thinking about the “scientific method”?
The scientific method is based heavily on empirical data: that which can be tested and verified. I think that this is good: how else can we anchor our knowledge to the real world than by testing that knowledge against it? A section of “Truth in Numbers” mentioned the difficulty of replication studies, and how rare truly independent replication is. To really show that knowledge is a reflection of reality and not merely of the bias of it’s creators, we need to separate it from the authors, and ideally as much of their context as possible. To that end, perhaps putting a much higher emphasis (and corresponding funding) on replication would help weed out more biased or subjective studies. I don’t think we should throw out the scientific method: it might not be perfect, but so far it’s the best we’ve got.
I agree with you, Adam. Replicability has been discussed for a long time. And some studies assessing the rate of effective replicability are arguing that it is actually not that high. Now, I think this is slightly different from saying that we should replace the scientific method. I think Porter is not arguing for throwing out the scientific method, but pointing out the need to understand better how it works in scientific practice. He as other scholars are calling our attention to pay attention to methods, instruments, personal and collective assumptions, research questions, scientific and social goals that shape the results of a particular experiment. All of this is part of how that specific scientific knowledge is produced, and we should consider it seriously when thinking about what connections are between data, knowledge, and reality.
Science and Technology Studies (STS) is an interdisciplinary field “that investigates the institutions, practices, meanings, and outcomes of science and technology and their multiple entanglements with the worlds people inhabit, their lives, and their values.” (Felt, Fouché, Miller, Smith-Doerr) These entanglements represent Bruno Latour’s works of translation; hybrid constructions in continuous co-production which combine the fields of science and technology with nature and culture. Yet there exists another aspect of modernity, that of purification, which seeks to separate human from nonhuman. Without this distinction between nature from society, works of translation would be futile. That is why, when seeking to understand how science and technology can shape modern society and alter social life, as well as “how the latter in turn shape developments in science and technology,” (Felt et al.) one must first understand that “all knowledge is local and reflects the specific historical moment, cultural context, as well as the networks within which it is made.” (Felt et al.)
This holds true when examining the contemporary issue present in the Appalachian community. By using both Latour’s perspective of modernity and fundamental paradigms of the STS field, this case study can be broken down to its roots, allowing for a deeper understanding of the conflict. In this region, the reliance on coal has weakened the division between nature and society, and the human constructs of culture and politics have seemingly become inseparable from this natural resource. Because this distinction is no longer clear, it is difficult to implement new technology and harness the transformative power of science to rearrange society. To understand why, an STS scholar would first seek to understand the culture of the region and the societal life of its people, and the difference held between these people and those attempting to implement the new technology. This comprehension would reveal why these social traits are resistant to the developments of science and technology, and how the co-production of knowledge can be revived to allow for the reinvention of the region’s identity.
Another case which may be studied using the frameworks of the STS field and Latour’s definition of modernity is that of the Vedzimbahwe people native to Africa. To understand how these people are dealing with the Tsetse fly problem, one must first apprehend how society, science, and technology have intertwined throughout the Vedzimbahwe’s history. When examining how the situatedness of their knowledge influences their strategies today, it is revealed that these people have lived with the Tsetse pest for centuries. They have come to understand the fly and its methods through observation and years of coexistence. Yet the Vedzimbahwe were also “eaters of knowledge” (Clapperton Mavhunga), co-producing epistemic, technological, and social orders during the colonization of their land by the Europeans. The more scientific approaches used by the outsiders led to the implementation of pesticides and the collection of analytical research on the Tsetse nemesis. Today, these differing forms of knowledge can be mixed into works of translation, allowing for a complex issue to have a modern, multifaceted solution.
The frameworks laid out in the Fourth Edition of the Handbook of Science and Technology Studies and by Bruno Latour apply directly to the study of the tsetse fly in Africa and coal mining in Appalachia. Latour theorizes that modernization creates a set of mechanisms that separate nature and culture, humans and non-humans, and technology and society.
In Africa, the tsetse fly is significant as a result of its high mobility and disease transmission. The fly has different names in different African cultures, and this means inherent societal differences. White travellers, with their superior technology, decided that this fly was a pest and needed to be eliminated. This resulted in the Africans losing all their power over the situation. The white travellers “thingified” the fly, meaning that it lost its identity as a fly and simply became something that needs to be eliminated. It applies to humans as well. The Mobile Workshop states, “When people are seen as vermin, the instruments designed for verminous animals also can be extended to them…The boundaries between human and animal collapse; the dehumanized is eliminated as a pest.”(12) It is important to study cases of thingification because it relates to the history and science of technology. Thingification leads to developments in science and technology as superiors try to exploit the thingified to best of their ability. In the case of Appalachia, “thingification” lead to coal companies overworking and underpaying their employees so they(the coal company) could return the biggest profit possible.
Before big coal came to Appalachia, workers would mine the coal for themselves, and live off of it. Big coal companies came, and they exploited the workers, forcing them to form unions to maintain a livable wage. After the coal companies left, environmentalists came in and started telling the workers that they were harming the environment and they needed to stop their work.The coal miners become “thingified,” simply beings of labor. They lost their identity as Appalachian coal miners and simply became machines to remove as much coal as fast as possible while receiving minimal pay. Former coal miner and blogger James Mullins describes this as “Neo-Colonialism” in his post entitled The Problem with Environmental Activism in Appalachia The two frameworks outlining the study of the history and science of technology apply to this situation just as well because it is an example of how people entering into a culture blind degrades it instead of trying to immerse themselves in it. Mullins captures this idea in a statement about environmentalists, “They’ve continued acting in ways that conflicted with the local culture.” They do not know the culture, and they make no effort to help the culture. Coal companies and activists failed to see how mining kept the families economically stable, and as a result, coal families in Appalachia have lost what it means to be a coal miner and are instead scorned in society.
These two readings, The Mobile Workshop, and The Problem with Environmental Activism in Appalachia are real-life examples of the frameworks outlined in fourth edition of the Handbook of Science and Technology Studies and by Bruno Latour. These two readings provide a reason to study the history of science and technology to see how history repeats itself and for us to ensure that history does not repeat itself again.
Thingification is a useful concept to look at the role of power in the production of knowledge, Andrew. Especially in contexts of colonialism. I wonder what other examples of thingification, technological change, and colonial (or neo-colonial) relations we can find today?
Both Bruno Latour and the authors of the Handbook of Science and Technology Studies offer fascinating perspectives on modernization and the production of knowledge that many readers would never have considered before. Latour’s concept of modernity creating systems to separate humans and non-humans can be linked strongly to the introduction of The Mobile Workshop. On pages 12 through 20 of The Mobile Workshop, Mavhunga writes about “thingification”: “the transformation of the black person into a thing” (Mavhunga, 13), “deintellectualization”: “a reduction to a nonthinking thing” (Mavhunga, 13), and “self-reintellectualization”: “vanhu vatema home and abroad researching, reinstalling, reasserting, and revaluing themselves not just as eaters of other people’s knowledge, but producers of their own” (Mavhunga, 19). In these segments of his book, Mavhunga discusses how in the 1940’s and 50’s, Jewish and black people were treated as subhuman, and when “the boundaries between human and animal collapse; the dehumanized are eliminated as pests” (12). This mentality led to racial minorities, such as African Americans and Guatemalans in the Tuskegee and Guatemala syphilis experiments, being illegally and unethically experimented on to expand white scientists’ understanding of the disease and ways to treat it, and create a more ‘modern’ society. I believe that part of what made it possible for African people to be portrayed this way is that Europeans with more advanced technology decided to underestimate them as primitive and insignificant, as is often done to the Tsetse fly. Now, thanks to the reintellectualization of Africans and African Americans, both by themselves and by others, the entire world has the opportunity to see the feats these people are capable of accomplishing, just as many people these days know that one single Tsetse fly can be harboring something powerful.
I feel that the concepts of thingification and deintellectualization can also connect to the Appalachian coal miners. The coal mining monoeconomy heavily relies on Appalachian people getting subpar educations which make it discourage them from attempting to rise above their backgrounds, resulting in the vast majority of them becoming parts of a coal mining machine. The towns where these miners live are remote in several respects: geographically, culturally, and economically. This isolation makes it difficult to achieve “co-production of epistemic, technological, and social orders” (Felt et al., 1). In most Appalachian coal mining towns, the communities are not used to outsiders, and thus these “hillbillies” tend to have a very strong subculture which does not welcome them, especially environmentalists who have the tendency to “look down their noses” (Mullins) at the miners. The miners tend to be aggressive towards the environmentalists because they tend to overlook the fact that while it is becoming increasingly obvious that coal mining is causing pollution and ruining nature, it provides the miners with their livelihoods. As a result, the Appalachians are more likely to side with the people at the top of the coal economy than the environmentalists, and allow themselves to be objectified. This combination of the thingification and deintellectualization of the Appalachian people and the prevention of the establishment of the aforementioned orders creates a stagnant culture which refuses to cultivate advancements in science or technology, which allows for thingification which builds a stagnant culture, and so on and so forth in an increasingly harmful cycle.
In conclusion, I feel that this assignment really gave me the chance to explore connections I never would have considered before, such as the similarities between colonial Africa and Appalachian coal mining villages, and technology and society. I couldn’t be more grateful for this opportunity.
I’m glad you enjoyed reflecting on this Issy. One of the key questions that come after acknowledging and reflecting on this is. what do we do as creators, developers, and consumers of science and technology?