I found a very interesting article in Le Monde Diplomatique (June 2010). I thought it was interesting to summarise the main points and discuss the topic. I am not German mother tongue, so I preferred to write in English. Feel free to comment also in German. Original source: Pablo Jensen[1], « L’histoire des sciences n’est pas un long fleuve tranquille »
THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE IS FAR FROM BEING A QUIET AND LINEAR WATERCOURSE
Science seems to have no sources anymore. Researchers build their own theories on the basis of previous ones. However, the image of a linear flux naturally bringing towards scientific truth is strongly criticised and put into discussion by new social studies on research mechanisms.
Sciences never easily found their place in society. Scientific domains have to coexist with a fundamental contradiction coming from the old ideal that sees “pure science” as isolated from deformations resulting from economic and social contingencies[2]. In the last decades, studies on social history of science, initiated by Alexandre Koyré and Thomas Kuhn[3], transformed the way in which the place of science in society is conceived.
Far from what traditional history tells us[4], sciences’ evolution is not the result of a coherent and linear project, but the one of temporal and spiritual global changes. History of sciences is like a watercourse, flowing towards an unknown ocean, facing obstacles, accidents and bends. Sciences do not discover the world, but build new worlds while holding together humans, machines and natural objects.
It is everyday more clear that the great scientific controversies do not end up with confrontations between erudite rationalists and an obscurantist opinion. More realistically, political debates are generated by discussions between different world views’ partisans. It seems clear, by now, that scientific progresses (such as nanotechnologies and GMO) cannot be judged separately from the social system where they were generated[5].
The great challenge is, then, to find a way to link researchers with a civil society that, on one side, remains submitted and controlled by a multiplicity of influences, but, on the other side, does not accept anymore a passive role.
Let’s discuss about it...
[1] Researcher at the Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS) and at the Ecole normale supérieure de Lyon, author of the essay “Des atomes dans mon café crème. La physique peut-elle tout expliquer ?”, Seuil, coll. « Points sciences », Paris, 2004.
[2] Rapport des états généraux de la recherche, www.ladocumentationfrançaise.fr
[3] See Alexandre Koyré, Du monde clos à l’univers infini, Gallimard, Paris, 2005 (1 éd. : PUF, 1962). Thomas Kuhn, La Structure des révolutions scientifiques, Flammarion, Paris, 2008 (1 éd. : 1962).
[4] See for example Georges Barthélemy, Histoires des sciences,Elipses, Paris, 2009.
[5] Christophe Bonneuil et coll., « Innover autrement? La recherche face à l’avènement d’un nouveau régime de production et régulation des savoirs en génétique végétale », dans Dossiers de l’environnement de l’INRA, n. 30, Institut national de la recherche agronomique, Paris, 2006.
Hmm, 2nd try because the first didn't work:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the post! Unfortunately I didn't have time yet to look at the whole article. I'm not very literate in that debate, but hopefully other people following this blog are!
A few questions:
- Is the author talking about "natural" sciences only? (where the purist view of science is probably still more present than in the social sciences/humanities)
- Does the author have any particular scientifico-political issues in mind? Global warming, genetic engeneering... (if so, this could make the debate a bit more grounded)
- What is, for the author, the benefit in linking the researcher with the "civil society"? What's the his "problem diagnosis"? (epistemological, ethical,...?) What part of "civil society" should the researcher relate to and in what way? Why?
- Am I right to assume that the article is in the tradition of Bruno Latour, actor-network and the like? (same language; I'm not familiar with his recent work, but he seems to deal with the link between researcher and civil society as well)
Thank you very much for your interesting comment, Andreas. I think you raised very important points of discussion, and I think these are a very good start for a fruitful debate.
ReplyDeleteI think that the link between researchers (natural and social sciences) and civil society is becoming a must. As Jensen highlights, civil society’s conscience about some fundamental issues is raising and the public seems to refuse the role of passive spectator. Why it is so important for the public to know more? Mainly, I think, because all people are and will be affected by science applications. Myself, for example, I would like to be informed and understand why my strawberries are still red and beautiful after one month in the fridge. And I also would like to have the choice to say something about it. And this is valid for (in)famous topics such as global warming, medical patents, vaccines, GMO... But also, as far as social sciences are concerned, about world views, and new theories about ethnic conflicts, racism, gender etc...
In order to fight against something or someone you need first to know it (at least a bit)... And this is an important fight. It involves the future of the next generations...
I appreciate the effort of some scholars to improve the dialogue between science and society. An interesting initiative is the 'Cafés des Sciences', which was started in 1997 by scientists at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique in Lyon, and now extends to the rest of France. Pablo Jensen is part of it. To know more --> http://perso.ens-lyon.fr/pablo.jensen/nature
... to be continued ...
I'll respond with a few monday noon thoughts:
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult not to agree with the basic claim that there should be a stronger and more sensitive dialogue between science and civil society. Like in the case of your strawberries (one month? wow, where did you buy them?! :)) this would ideally raise individual awareness and facilitate individual choice and participation.
One thing I find interesting is how this agenda can be pursued in very different ways, with very different ambitions. On the one hand, it could be like a "dialogue between equals", or maybe even a process of "enlightening" the ignorant public. On the other hand, it can go much further, namely if the underlying idea is that current ways of regulating "progress" need to develop into something more democratic. That is, that society should be able to have their say (beyond individual choice) in what kind of "progress" is desirable, acknowledging that the seemingly natural course of science is also determined by structures of power. If I read you right, you tend to this second position ("in order to fight against something or someone you need first to know it").
The more radical agenda makes me think of Polanyi's "reembedding" of economy into society. In a similar manner, science should be "reembedded" into society.
Now what about social sciences/humanities?
From where I'm writing, I can see the benefit in creating a more differentiated understanding for concepts such as "ethnicity", "gender", "culture", and for increasing awareness of global and historical connections (probably through channels like media, schools,...). This is already a huge endeavour in itself. But beyond this, how should scientists connect to "civil society"?
One thing that comes to my mind randomly is the french "Socio-anthropology of development". From what I recall, it is a current within which researchers have tried for decades to make their knowledge useful for "developers" without losing their critical edge. It was not really "applied" anthropology because the primary concern was not with solving a "problem". That is, their interest was in studying "development" as a social configuration. They did not take for granted the underlying narrative of Western superiority and progress. But nonetheless they felt that a dialogue between "practicioners" and "scientists" (sometimes one and the same person) could be somehow fruitful for society as a whole.
This can be seen as a dialogue with "civil society", if we are to accept that NGOs are a part of it. It was an attempt to translate social scientific knowledge (e.g. about the complexity of society) into the language of a group of people whose decisions could potentially become more sensitive (as they became more aware of the consequences of reducing this complexity through instruments used in development aid, and acting upon this reduced complexity). Should this kind of dialogue be part of the role of social sciences, or do we see it as knowledge serving (neo)colonial domination?
I guess what I want to say is that, apart from some kind of general education, there are many kinds of dialogues (or often monologues?), adressing particular strata of "civil society" and useful to particular purposes.
Thanks for the very interesting discussion.
ReplyDeleteI think that the problem with science is always the one of aiming to be objective. Man is an imperfect creature and science is one of his child, and as him imperfect. Social and political scientists often fight for peoples’ rights in the name of universal principles. There is no universal principle. Universality is an illusion and another form of opium.
I think it is important to create a constructive dialogue between the people and the academia, but I also think that in order to do that, scientists should renounce to the idea of being somehow superior and the guardians of Truth.