Near the end of the chapter Star and Bowker argue,
"This chapter has probed more deeply into how this unfolds - the
prototypical and artistotelien are conflated, leaving room for either to be
invoked in any given scenarial (especially by those in power)"
In contrast to Paul's necessity argument, for me the chapter points towards
how the scientific is not a neutral free zone and very much embeded in the
dialectics of culture and power. This argument has been addressed by
Foucault, Rose (1999), Walkerdine among others that in contrast to science
being objective or neutral it is a major site of power. In *We Have Never
Been Modern* Latour makes similar arguments in reference to aids and natural
disasters in that the scientific, political, cultural, social, and
psychological converge. This of course was something that Miettinen in the
Riddle of Things.
Phil mentions identity politics which brings up important issues about who
classifies and even if we should in reference to identity. One side of this
issue that stood out for me was the bus driver example in which a "white
boy" is suddenly reclassified and called a "white kafir". At the end of the
quote the boy mentions he was grateful for the word because up til then he
didn't know who he was. The bus driver gave him an identity. In some ways
this goes beyond classification to the relationship of language itself with
consciousness. "In the "beginning" was the deed. The word was not the
beginning - action was there first; it is the end of development, crowning
the deed" (Vygotsky of course).
Naming or crowning the deed seems to serve an essential function for
identity. As the boy mentioned now that he had an identity he could find his
group. However as I see Star and Phil getting at when identity becomes
naturalized or reified it can have serious consequences. Homi Bhabha
mentions this denies one the right of cultural translation. This seems to be
particularily true in historical artifacts that become transparent over
time.
I recently read Bookman's article on Gilligan which I find pertinant. She
quoted Gilligan as follows, "I believe the null findings coming out of
camparisons of male and female individuals on personal measures are part
illusory. That is, they are an artifact of our historical relience on the
individual difference perspective. Social behavior, as many have pointed
out, is never a function of the individual alone. It is a function between
an interaction between two or more persons." What is interesting is my
second hand experience with Gilligan in education / psychology classes was a
reified, essence, naturalized approach to gender.
I found the chapter very interesting and look forward to reading the rest of
the book.
Nate
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 01 2000 - 01:01:50 PST