Clifford Geertz the Master Anthropologist tried for years to write about the culture of science at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton where he was head of the Anthropology section. All of the scientiests refused to cooperate saying that science was rational and he was writing about irrationality. One of the things he pointed to as ritual was the white lab coats that made no difference but were simply believed to be cleaner because they were white. Not long after that the fashion in hospital wear gained color and today we have greens and blues, pinks and even orange but we also have another thing. Dirtier hospitals. The Hospitals in Manhattan are filthy. I went to an urban hospital where they still wore the old white and it WAS cleaner. They didn't have anymore nurses and were just as crowded but the nurses were more polite and decorum did seem to make a difference to them. The "culture" of "whiteness?"
REH ----- Original Message ----- From: "mcandreb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 2:53 PM Subject: [Futurework] FWD:Sophistry or Sensitive Science?" An Interview with Martha Herbert > > This interview comes from "The Wild Duck Review: > http://www.wildduckreview.com/interviews/herbert.html > > ------------ > Sophistry or Sensitive Science?" An Interview with Martha Herbert > > > Martha Herbert biography: Martha Herbert is a pediatric neurologist at > the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and at McLean Hospital in > Belmont MA, where she specializes in patients with learning and > developmental disorders. She is also Vice-Chair of the Board of > Directors of the Council for Responsible Genetics. She received her > medical degree from Columbia University College of Physicians and > Surgeons, her pediatrics training at New York Hospital-Cornell > University Medical Center, and her neurology training at the > Massachusetts General Hospital, where she remains and is on the faculty > of the Harvard Medical School. At MGH she pursues research on brain > structure abnormalities in developmental disorders, particularly autism. > She also works on health and ecological risks of genetically modified > food, and on neurotoxins and brain development. Prior to her medical > training she obtained an interdisciplinary doctorate from the History of > Consciousness program at UC Santa Cruz, studying evolution and > development of learning processes in biology and culture. > > > Casey Walker: In your recent essay "Incomplete Science, The Body and > Indwelling Spirit," you sketched the difference between a science > shaped by a "control-oriented, disconnected" belief system and a > science shaped by a "systems-modulating, context-sensitive" belief > system. What are these differences and why do they matter? > Martha Herbert: I don't believe we can adequately critique the > uses of engineering technologies if we don't understand the assumptions > driving them, just as we can't critique the life and physical sciences > if we don't understand the assumptions driving them. We seem to have no > problem understanding all other areas of inquiry, such as literature, > history, politics, philosophy, or economics, in the cultural settings > that generate them, yet fail consistently to question the same for > science. > Briefly and obviously, there is a world of difference-all too > literally!-between basing a scientific enterprise on the belief that a > sufficient scientific control over the body or nature will achieve an > end to human suffering, and basing a scientific enterprise on the belief > that the body or nature and all it expresses is our primary source for > learning how to live well. > The first, which I would call a "control-oriented, > disconnected" belief system, informs most of our recent powerful > technologies, from nuclear power, dams, pesticide development, and > psychopharmacology to genetic engineering. This belief system tends to > make negative assumptions about nature and the human body, suggesting > that both are essentially limited, imperfect, undifferentiated, > uninteresting, inherently inferior, and morally dismissable entities > awaiting the improvements of engineering technologies. Pests have no > purpose and should be obliterated; rivers that flood should be paved and > straightened; emotional pain is purely chemical and should be drugged. > Human suffering can and should be eliminated. Human "nature" is > viewed as essentially weak, nasty, selfish, greedy, and lustful, with > destructive anti-social impulses that should be controlled externally. > The wild spirits of children must be tamed by harsh discipline. The > body is a source of pain, appetite, sex, sickness, suffering, and death, > which should be fixed, escaped, or transcended. Similarly, the body's > pleasures are sinful, dangerous, and degrading and must be vigilantly > restricted. Spiritual beliefs consistent with this view of > disconnection and control invoke an authoritative deity remote from the > body, mind, or earth. Such beliefs aim for a salvation based on > transcendence or escape. > With the recent advent of biotech, nanotech, and infotech, we see > a techno-utopian expression of this belief system promoting > "exciting" projections for the future-physical "conquests" and > "upgrades" via Francis Bacon's notions of human designs escaping > natural limitations. Plants, animals, and babies can be engineered to > specifications we choose. The human brain can be enhanced by genetic or > synthetic engineering, and, indeed, the brain can be left completely > behind once we download it into a supercomputer. A limitless supply of > replaceable body parts will ensure immortality. On the face of it, this > vision appears less punitive and harsh than the control-oriented view of > nature and human nature, but in reality it would subvert both. > Cognition would be subverted into a mechanistic process, while bodily > sensuality and earthiness would be demeaned as immaturely coy, comic > book versions of super-sexual, super-muscular, super-sensory prowess. > In contrast, a "systems-modulating, context-sensitive" belief > system tends to make positive assumptions about nature and the > body-physical constraints are inherent to a flourishing corporeality > and, one could say, the artfulness of existence. This belief system > comprehends life as connected and emergent at a profound level that is > larger and more complex than we currently understand. While this > intricacy and complexity militates against promiscuous or wholesale > engineering, we may yet come to understand, engage with, and work with > life both elegantly and appropriately at its structural levels. > Organisms and ecosystems have capabilities that, when understood, can be > gently modulated toward greater articulation. And, while human > suffering can and should be minimized, it is nonetheless an ineluctable > condition of existence essential to developmental competencies and > maturation. Through experience and cultivated awareness, the inherent > drives of human nature for love, cooperation, curiosity, creativity, and > conviviality can mitigate fear-based defenses. Rage, impatience, > self-centeredness, greed, and other defenses caused by harmful > experiences (isolation, danger, deprivation, humiliation), can be > overcome under properly nourishing conditions. Indeed, the full > repertoire of the human body and mind is the very substance of a > robustly mature physical, mental, and spiritual life > Admittedly, these characterizations are highly polarized. Yet they > do intimate the wholly different worlds that can be created by two such > widely divergent belief systems. We live in a time when most of science > has been shaped by beliefs about nature and the body that are primarily > disconnected and control-oriented and that are supported by motives > based on fear and defensiveness. I think it is essential, therefore, > that large numbers of people quickly come to see the problem: In whose > hands do we entrust the power of manipulating the smallest genetic, > molecular, and atomic levels of living and inanimate matter? > > It is also obvious to me that we are hugely mistaken if we believe the > first worldview is not dominant in the engineering sciences or is > capable of self-correction without confrontation. There isn't just a > misunderstanding between these worldviews, there is a basic conflict > about the nature of life and existence that is dangerously out of > balance. Even worse, the conflict is not in conflict. Where is > contention? Will you speak to the deafening silence in media and within > the scientific community? > To my mind, there's a dominant sophistry going on. Where is the > press for existing, complex system alternatives such as agroecology, > alternative medicine, or somatics-all of which work strategically > within whole systems, are locally variable, and are not patentable? I > had the opportunity to speak to the National Academy of Sciences last > spring on health monitoring of biotech food-which currently is not > being done at all and would be extremely difficult to do. After > sketching how hard it would be to trace or control the many infectious, > allergic, toxic, and other risks this technology poses, I asked my > listeners: "How can we know if genetic engineering offers the > techniques we really need to use, in spite of all the risks, when we > haven't seriously discussed alternatives? Why haven't we consulted > people who already argue convincingly, and with a lot of evidence, that > there are manyother ways to grow and produce all the foods we need?" > I suggested that if the National Academy of Sciences wanted to exercise > genuine scientific leadership, it would set up a serious dialogue > between biotech scientists and agroecology scientists. How does each > group define the problems, and how do they approach solutions? How > would each fare if they were compared rigorously and in good faith? I > don't think it would look so good for biotech-in fact, the kind of > genetic engineering currently employed would look pretty foolish. > One reason that molecular biologists are uncomprehendingly blind > to complex system oriented alternatives is that they have not been > required to study ecology or other higher level biological systems for > the last several generations. Of course, another problem with these > contextualized alternatives is that they can't be patented or > privatized. Insofar as industry gets interested in indigenous > knowledge, it takes the form of "biopiracy." For example, industry > scouts will learn about herbs from a traditional shaman, identify some > active ingredient in the laboratory, patent it, market it, and give none > of the proceeds back to the shaman or the community where the knowledge > originated. Such industries also don't have much interest in the > complex cultural contexts in which the use of these herbs is > embedded-systems of understanding that are hard to patent and commodify, > and is less real to them, in any case, than genes or chemicals. > Imagine what it would mean for science if we didn't have our kind > of free-wheeling, intensely escalating, "win-lose" economic > pressure. If we could pour all the incredible resources that we're > currently wasting on toxic tech "fixes" into sustainable, > context-sensitive practices, we could live a lot more simply, > effectively, and ultimately more peacefully with one another and the > planet. It's a tragic waste that so-called economic imperatives have > forced the commercialization of molecular biology and genetics. We > could study molecular biology because it's remarkable and beautiful to > learn about these mechanisms, and not lose sight of the correctives that > come from remembering that these mechanisms operate in larger > frameworks. > The sin comes, as I see it, when we use incomplete knowledge to > make technological products for mass marketing-and with a hyped urgency, > at that. Once we turn these neat little laboratory tricks into products > (and one could say this is the essence of commercial biotechnology), we > are actively intervening in a system that we don't understand. > Technology gives us the power to devastate and to rape without first > requiring us to understand. > > In "Dialogue on the Art of the Novel," Milan Kundera raises Kafka's > question, "What possibilities remain for man in a world where the > external determinants have become so overpowering that internal impulses > no longer carry weight?" It's troublesome, isn't it, to extend that > question to: What possibilities remain if the external and internal > determinants for all living things become radically overpowered by > engineering projects and their unintended side effects? Will you speak > to what you are seeing as a pediatric neurologist, clinically and > professionally, in terms of internal change-the numbers and kinds of > cognitive, neurological, and behavioral disorders in children? > I think that we are witnessing change in the neurological wiring > of this generation of children > ------------ > > This is quite long, here is the web site: > http://www.wildduckreview.com/interviews/herbert.html > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
