Return of Sandra Harding
Ah-a. Sandra Harding has a new book – and it does look like a corker. Happily, people are taking note, and adding it to their science studies course outlines as required reading. Splendid.
The idea of this science as value- or culture-free is pulled apart by postcolonialist analyses of the culturally distinctive ways that Western science has developed…Harding problematizes the claim to universality that Western science rests upon…This evaluation is not only presented in terms of how we might transform the scientific traditions of the “Global North”, but also how we might transform the way we study science to be more critical, reflexive, and politically-engaged.
Great. Study of science that is more politically engaged. Great idea. Of course, the Bush admin has been doing that for more than six years now, but more encouragement is always welcome. And of course the first step is to problematize the claim to universality that Western science rests upon – because of course it’s not universal at all, it’s purely local, and researchers in Manila and Mumbai and Lima are bound to find different, local results if they’re doing the work properly.
The first section of this book also reviews the antiracist and feminist argument that modern Western science exacerbates social inequalities through discriminatory projects, philosophies, technologies, and social structure. One of the most intriguing chapters of this section is devoted to an analysis of the discriminatory epistemologies and philosophies of science (chapter 5); here Harding reaffirms her commitment to standpoint theory in light of recent and innovative work on its application to science studies.
Ever read Harding on standpoint epistemology? It’s impressive stuff, I can tell you. Women have a different epistemology because they have different lives. See?
(No, that’s not unfair. She really is that crude.)
Perhaps the most valuable contribution that this volume makes can be found in its second section, comprised of three chapters on the topic of Truth, Relativism, and Science’s Political Unconsciousness. In these final essays Harding pulls together…proposed means of securing a future “world of sciences” with the possibility for advancing social justice…Harding lays out the “central foci of a still emerging network of postpositivist philosophies of science” in a way that allows for an interlocking plurality of sciences to exist that are best suited to particular local resources, goals, environments, and cultures for producing effective and socially-just outcomes…Here she brilliantly analyzes how both the anti-democratic and (supposedly) pro-democratic ideals of Western science are deeply problematic, preventing this model, which “speaks in a monologue”, from being suitable as a universal system.
Right. It speaks in a monologue, so it’s undemocratic, so it’s not ‘suitable as a universal system.’ It’s inappropriate. It’s impolite. It speaks in a monologue in the sense of saying some findings are not supported by evidence and so probably wrong. Well obviously that’s neither democratic nor kind – didn’t we all learn not to talk that way in kindergarten? I think so. So that’s that for that kind of science then; on with the new kind.
Instructors in particular will appreciate this new resource of not only a comprehensive overview of arguments in both past and present critical science studies, but also an “updated” and clarified understanding of one of the most important and influential writers in this area, who clearly has continued to push forward with innovative engagement.
One of the most important and influential, alas – that’s why she made an extended guest appearance in Why Truth Matters: because she is indeed, however incredible it may seem, influential.
That’s why I only fly between Britain and the US – I’d be scared of being on an aircraft heading to (say) Africa only to find (too late) that the local laws of physics were different, thus causing the plane to plummet down into lake Victoria.
That would be awful.
The great thing about writers like Harding is that they promise so much, yet when you actually read it you feel that somehow you must have missed the evidence, so you chase down the references, and find the same thing again in the next book. You feel like you’re chasing your own tail.
There is definitely a feeling when reading Harding (I don’t know about writers like her – I’ve never read anyone quite like her) that – ‘There must be more than this – surely – this can’t be all she has to offer to back up such an absurd claim?’ But the more is what you don’t find.
It sounds like a real page turner.
Who doesn’t love a good problematizing?
Seriously, though, one of the big challenges facing academia, and particularly the humanities, where this sort of thing seems to be more prevalent, is to really examine the kind of assumptions behind words like “problematize” and “innovative.” These words are revered so uncritically that no one bothers to ask whether these new problems and innovations are positive or negative. But history offers us many examples of innovations that led to disaster or increased cruelty.
That academics take arguments like Harding’s so seriously seems to me to reflect the academic-left awe in the face of so-called “radicalism” that is an unfortunate remnant of the otherwise worthwhile innovations of the last few decades.
Perhaps we need to problematize “problematization”!
Nothing wrong with problematizing. It’s done by everyone, by continental and Anglo-American philosophers, by physical scientists and by psychologists. It’s fair to say that problematzing is what academics do. What is wrong however is sloppy arguments. Sloppy arguments are what problematzing problematizes and science studies seems to have a fair few sloppy arguments.
But problematizing in and of itself is not necessarily a virtue. That is, certain fields want to make problematizing the goal rather than the process of reaching new knowledge. They want to replace knowledge with problems as the end of inquiry. This does not seem to me to be necessarily to the good, as it does to the reviewer of Harding’s book.
Every time I see stuff like this, I wonder how the writer thinks she is right. The only explanation I can come up with is that she looks at scientists in action, makes a hypothesis, tests it and reports it to readers. Which is just what scientists do, in fact. Presumably therefore all her objections to science suffer from the same flaws she claims to find in science. So why should she expect anyone to take heed of what she writes ?
As the first poster said, echoing Dawkins – WFT, effectively …..
I want to know how supposedly intelligent people like this Harding (whom, I’m glad to say, I’ve not heard of before) can write rubbish like this.
It is so obviously completely untrue, and false, and-etc … (rant)
Ahem.
ChrisPer also has a very valid point about veneration still being given to a fraud like Freud (That took some careful typing, I can tell you!) or someone who however honest, was totally wrong, like Marx.
But Mr. Power and others, lots of peole, as Ophelia points out, including the horrible Shrub, DO take heed of what she, and people like her write.
G.Tingey:
Did you actually read what I wrote? I no more take heed of the Hardings of the world than you do.
Erm – I don’t think I said you took notice – I did say that some people, including some with influence, do … unfortunately.
The question still remains – why?
G.Tingey:
You have now written:
1) “But Mr. Power and others, lots of peole, as Ophelia points out, including the horrible Shrub, DO take heed of what she, and people like her write.”
2) “I don’t think I said you took notice – I did say that some people, including some with influence, do … unfortunately.”
The second quote is not consistent with the first.
Just looked at the review. How gushing! I can’t see a single bit of criticism *anywhere* in the piece. This is published in the Canadian Journal of Sociology- which, I would assume, is an academic journal.
In economics even Nobel prize- winners rarely get away without, at least, some mild criticism. I assume that sociology’s critical faculties have atrophied.
I also note that the reviewer hasn’t even got a PhD. What happened to academic rigour?
Erm – I think Mr Power and I have managed to get ourselves tied up …errrr ……
Or rather, GT, you managed to say something you apparently didn’t mean, and then rather absurdly denied saying it. (Note: it never works to do that when it’s in writing just above.) You could just apologize, you know.
I think GT’s first comment was missing a comma after the word ‘but’. That would account for this misunderstanding. If it is a misunderstanding.
Tbh I don’t know what’s going on. Are all book reviews in academia written in that strange pseudo-English?
It has been pointed out elsewhere that in the future Freud and Marx (as mentioned by Chrisper) will still be studied in the arts faculties because it would not be possible to understand the art of the 20th century without understanding what the artists believed – a bit like an understanding of classical mythology or plant symbolism or christianity helps the appreciation of art from previous centuries. A knowledge of Freud may not help understand literature in general, but it certainly helps if the writer self-consciously put into the work something for Freudians to spot.
Oh I see – GT was addressing Paul, not including him in the list. So if it were like this
But Mr. Power and others: lots of peo[p]le…DO take heed of what she, and people like her write.
that would be clearer.
You could have just explained that, GT!
God I waste a lot of time cleaning up after you. It’s so tiresome.
“I also note that the reviewer hasn’t even got a PhD. What happened to academic rigour?”
Nothing wrong with postgraduate students writing reviews, is there? Having a Ph.D. isn’t a requirement for publishing, and it’s good for postgrads to do some of that before getting their dissertation out.
Not to defend this particular review: it does seem a bit thin and uncritical, more of a book notice, really. Of course, if one honestly believes a book is brilliant, one should write so – but I’d probably want to see a more detailed (chapter-by-chapter?) treatment.
Merlijn- maybe. However, I’m not sure that I would put a book like this in the hands of a neophyte. In an academic journal you should require a little more hard- headed analysis. A star- struck MA graduate is hardly the best person to analyse such a tome.
I would say it’s not so much uncritical as worshipful. Saying Harding “brilliantly analyzes” anything is…a stretch.
That’s it!
( I always did hate proof-reading )
I missed out a comma, right at the (almost) start of the last sentence in my first post ……
Don’t talk about clearing up.
Our unspeakably cute cat, Hex(adecimal) soemtimes doesn’t want to use her cat-flap at the moment, so her long-unused litter tray now has to be filtered, so to speak.
Never mistake having a PhD for having ‘academic rigour’. I’ve got a PhD and I’m as capable as the next person of spouting utter garbage once in a while. I misplace commas, too.
[…] Return of Sandra Harding by Ophelia Benson […]