On Tue, 16 Jan 1996, Colin Danby wrote:
> > Henwood's reply ("Vandana Shiva Again"), which simply repeated his prior
> assertions at a heightened level of rudeness, is a good example of the kind
> of arrogant insularity that our last post took exception to.
I don't see Henwood's questioning of the consistency of Shiva's
stance on science to be rude or merely ad hominem. He raises an
important issue that should not be overlooked: what is the class
basis of the questioning of technoscience that is now en vogue
in some circles.
I've been enrolled at the University of California, Santa Cruz (a
hotbed of people who are critical of science in one way or another)
for seven years now and my experience
bears out Doug's observation. I've talked with lots of people about
many abstract and concrete issues re: technoscience-- everyone
from dyed-in-the-wool relativist post-structualists to ossified
sectarian Marxists to middle class housewives to undocumented
farm workers. Here's what I find: the only people who seriously
entertain the idea of rejecting science and returning to some
"non-Western" alternative to science (as if science were something
limited to "Western" thought/practice) are people in the academy.
Farm worker unions, for example, don't make their case about the
deliterious effects of pesticides by claiming that the Virgin
of Guadalupe appeared to them and told them so, rather, they appeal
to controlled animal experiements, basic chemistry and biology texts
and their own epidemiological studies. Similarly, the numerous
anti-toxics groups set up their own studies and invest in computers
and other gear so that they can meet rigorous scientific standars.
Most importantly, these groups don't simply rely on technoscience
as a rhetorical ploy (while they secretly consult chicken entrails
to gather data), they mean it. Even the organic agriculture folk
(who share much of Shiva's rural romanticism) depend heavily on
technoscience to develop their growing techniques.
Unlike Henwood, however, I'm not so sure how seriously to take
all the Shiva-esque hoopla. I'm not at all convinced that many
of her sort of ideas of anti-scientific rural romanticism have much
influence in practical political circles. I see it more as an academic
cattage industry that has little impact outside of the academy, especially
on grass roots activists (much like post-structuralism).
Let me end with the standard caveats that the above is based on
my limited experience, etc., etc. Do others see Shiva-esque ideas
as more practically influential than I am giving them credit?
Will Hull
