Postmodernism and Truth
Here is a story you probably haven't heard, about how a team of American researchers inadvertently introduced a virus into a third world country they were studying.(1) They were experts in their field, and they had the best intentions; they thought they were helping the people they were studying, but in fact they had never really seriously considered whether what they were doing might have ill effects. It had not occurred to them that a side-effect of their research might be damaging to the fragile ecology of the country they were studying. The virus they introduced had some dire effects indeed: it raised infant mortality rates, led to a general decline in the health and wellbeing of women and children, and, perhaps worst of all, indirectly undermined the only effective political force for democracy in the country, strengthening the hand of the traditional despot who ruled the nation. These American researchers had something to answer for, surely, but when confronted with the devastation they had wrought, their response was frustrating, to say the least: they still thought that what they were doing was, all things considered, in the interests of the people, and declared that the standards by which this so-called devastation was being measured were simply not appropriate. Their critics, they contended, were trying to impose "Western" standards in a cultural environment that had no use for such standards. In this strange defense they were warmly supported by the country's leaders--not surprisingly--and little was heard--not surprisingly--from those who might have been said, by Western standards, to have suffered as a result of their activities.
These researchers were not biologists intent on introducing new strains of rice, nor were they agri-business chemists testing new pesticides, or doctors trying out vaccines that couldn't legally be tested in the U.S.A. They were postmodernist science critics and other multiculturalists who were arguing, in the course of their professional researches on the culture and traditional "science" of this country, that Western science was just one among many equally valid narratives, not to be "privileged" in its competition with native traditions which other researchers--biologists, chemists, doctors and others--were eager to supplant. The virus they introduced was not a macromolecule but a meme (a replicating idea): the idea that science was a "colonial" imposition, not a worthy substitute for the practices and beliefs that had carried the third-world country to its current condition. And the reason you have not heard of this particular incident is that I made it up, to dramatize the issue and to try to unsettle what seems to be current orthodoxy among the literati about such matters. But it is inspired by real incidents--that is to say, true reports.
3 Comments:
This is a mite polemical, but nevertheless a relevant discourse. More than anything, however, DD seems to misunderstand, like most everyone, the high specificity of the term "postmodern," and it seems a weak argument, a backlash, if you will, that is at the heart of all misguided and blindly ideologized neoconservative thought.
In what universe is Daniel Dennett a neoconservative (except the one where "neoconservative" is a brute shorthand for "all things bad")?
Neoconservatives are ex-Leftists who became strident anti-Communists and pro-Americans.
Also, you must see the irony in claiming that the term "postmodern" is misunderstood on account of its high specificity, since postmodernists assert "that economic and technological conditions of our age have given rise to a decentralized, media-dominated society in which ideas are simulacra and only inter-referential representations and copies of each other, with no real original, stable or objective source for communication and meaning."
Simply, metanarratives are not a priori impossible. Dennett's point is that postmodernists incorrectly clump the metanarratives uncovered by scientific investigation with the various unfalsifiable doctrines of man and culture. Skepticism toward metanarratives is a must. Blanket incredulity fetishizes this skepticism into ideological self-indulgence.
Post a Comment
<< Home