In an effort to explain why biogeographers use so many different types of maps to chart the same location my professor provided only this, saying "we map it so then we can understand it." I was struck by how Latour-ian of a concept this was, so for the first time this semester i cracked open my text book only to be bombarded with not only that exact quote but several other knockoffs, so similar i'm fairly confident it would qualify as plagiarism, (had it been written in a different source).
Let me rewind slightly and put this into context (because despite what pinker says, i believe context/environment is critical to understanding any sort of action) Biogeography of the Global Garden (Geog1403) is promoted by the advising staff as one of those "fluffy" science classes designed for the liberal-art-hearted to fulfill their required biology with a lab core, yet nevertheless it remains a science. We have spent a majority of the first 3 weeks of class going over in excruciating detail what qualifies as a biome, and have just recently made the transition to reading maps...
So fast-forward once more to find me nearly asleep in the darkest nook of the massive lecture hall, it is a monday, i am exhausted, and i was right on the brink of consciousness when professor zeigler's words came floating back to me, completely interrupting my dreamy state. After examining the textbook (as previously described) it was revealed she was a coauthor, thus slightly more apt to use exact wording. Regardless i feel Latour would question the principle, "we map so we can understand"
This practice of mapping is directly addressed in Latour's 2nd chapter Circulating Reference, when a "space" is transformed into reality. We as readers are witnesses to the process of how "the world is packed into words." In Latour this is seen/read as a process, including a literal "moment of truth" and yet with my biogeo class there is no process, it is simply presented as reality to be learned (or at least memorized until the exam and then it can be forgotten once more) There is no explanation of how the maps came to be, they simply are, and because they are produced by scientists they automatically reveal truth.
It struck me as a faulty, and yet quite human, way of experiencing the world. Before we can begin to understand we must transform our reality into words. We are simply not capable of translating knowledge through any other vehicle. Yet, i remain critical, for how can we map/label/word that which we do not understand? The paradox of reality?
I think its cool how you merged ideas from both classes together. But this and Latour have me thinking about the politics of science and, more specifically, the politics of those people trying to analyze the politics. Maps are a good example of this. I understand that cartography is as layered in politics as much as anything else, even if one only considers the fact that they convey their information using language and symbols. But isn't the study of the politics of sciences just as political? I realize that Latour is aware of this, but the whole idea of trying to explain discourse through discourse seems to me to be a bit like trying to tell a blind person what it is like to see. Not that makes it any less interesting or useful.
ReplyDelete