Ambiguity and Biopolitics

In many ways, I find Latour's second chapter, "Circulating Reference" a good summary of what we have discussed in class so far. Briefly, that there are no absolute facts in even the seemingly hardest of scientists. He shows that even in determining what kind of dirt a person is looking at, which seems entirely fact-based (either it is one type of soil or another) there are politics at play. Subconsciously preconceived conclusions (whether or not the rain forest is advancing or retreating) can easily influence the subjective observations (it seems a bit more brown that orange) the geologists must make. Regardless of what kind of science a person preforms, the effects of politics must be recognized.

Thus, for this small blog I figured I would put my own politics out there. As an atheist, I've come to the belief that there is no easy answer to any of life's questions. In my mind purpose is something that people must create for themselves and there are no absolutes. Having been raised Catholic, even attending a Catholic school for many years, I understand the sense of comfort that comes from belief in God, but find that theistic through (for me, at least) is far too restrictive for everything I see around me. There is far too much variability and inconsistency in the world to think that certain behaviors are bad (I don't know many people who think that eating shellfish should really be considered an abomination) or good just because someone said it is. Or even if most people say it is.

However, I do hold that certain psychologically-unsound behaviors should be discouraged and worked against by society. For example, not many people disagree that those with anorexia nervosa should be encouraged to eat healthily. That people who self-harm should be helped to overcome such tendencies. That parents who, for some reason or another, feel compelled or obligated to hurt their children should be removed from their kids and given treatment. Or that apotemnophiliacs should be treated psychologically in order to make them feel like their limb is theirs rather than just lopping it off.

But like Latour's dirt, psychology and biology are by no means clear-cut. Should students be allowed to take Ritalin during finals in order to help them do better? It is their bodies, and no one is being hurt. As long as they know the risks involved, what's the harm? And how much different is it really for one person to be able to by glasses that help them read a bit better to someone else getting new eye lenses that help them see further and more clearly. Neither may seem "right" or "natural" now, but not so very long ago the fact that I'm wearing pants rather than a skirt or dress with several layers right now would seem so as well. These matters become infinitely more complex when one considers whether or not such treatments should be covered by insurance. What about people who didn't have insurance, or, if they wouldn't be covered, couldn't afford them? What about citizens with less developed medical care who didn't have access to them?

In the end I must conclude that I really have no idea how much liberty a person has over their own body. I can't say whether or not if a person can afford it, they should be able to augment themselves however they see fit as long as its not done self-destructively, or if such augmentations should be done only in order to better society because, as said in Brave New World, "everybody belongs to everybody else", or if they should be avoided entirely in order to prevent one group of people to have a distinct physical advantage over everyone else just because they can afford it. I don't think anyone can really answer these questions until, as a society, we all come to what Latour refers to as a "moment of truth" we agree what our answers will be and our reality is molded around them.