Framing science

Is science naked?

Is science naked?

Western science is framed as being devoid of cultural values and is, in fact, perceived as “naked.” Anthropologist Laura Nader writes that naked science is “stripped of its ideologized vestments” and I argue that Western science is fully loaded–ideologically, politically and morally.

Yet, when we engage in discussions about science, especially in news reports, science is held aloft from cultural influences. In the case of environmental and health conflicts in Indian Country, scientists are portrayed as the arbiters of truth, and Native Americans become the challengers of truth, thus mirroring the tropes of old: the savage, illiterate, uncivilized denizen shackled and subdued by the greater authority.

When Indians are framed as “anti-science,” some anthropologists jump to their defense, arguing that native science should be accorded equal status with Western science. In his book on Zapotec science, Roberto Gonzales refers to indigenous knowledge as “local science” and Western knowledge as “cosmopolitan science.” Yet, even this thoughtful attempt to reframe indigenous ways-of-knowing separates Big Science from little science.

Instead I recommend a reimagining of the construct “science”: we need to own up to the cultural values that saturate all science. Indeed, the strength and power of native science is the acknowledgement of the welding of values to knowledge systems, where science is just another knowledge system. Rather than taking the reductionist approach noted at the start of our conversation, and rather than pretending that science is naked, we should welcome a vision of science as part of an interconnected system of dependent elements that emerge side by side–that are complementary and inseparable.

Indigenous knowledges are informed by such interconnections: earth and air; humor and language; birth and burial. “Our ancestors were very sensitive in their relationships with the land. They systematically organized experiential information about cycles, seasons, connections, and strategies in their cultures. Experience was evolved into knowledge, and knowledge was evolved into wisdom,” notes Jhon Goes in Center in the book Science and Native American Communities.

When we think of science, we should therefore honor the intersection of knowledges and experiences rather than treat them separately.

Advertisements

About Cynthia Coleman Emery

Professor and researcher at Portland State University who studies science communication, particularly issues that impact American Indians. She is enrolled with the Osage tribe.
This entry was posted in framing, Indian, journalism, Native Science, science. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Framing science

  1. Pingback: links for 2010-09-24 | Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture

  2. Crommunist says:

    You’ve made a lot of claims about “Western” science (which is used in equal measure in all parts of the world, and has its roots in several disparate regions of the planet) without actually defining any of these so-asserted “cultural biases”. Nor have you really defined the difference between science and “Native science”, just asserted that “Native science” is connected in a way that “Western” science is not. The reader is therefore left to assume the truth of the central component of your argument.

    Lots of other “ways of knowing” are proposed that have nothing to do with Native traditions, and are not borne out by observed evidence. Are you suggesting that we should throw out rigour and strict control of covariation in favour of “interconnectivity?” In what way does “Western” science not allow for interconnections between different influences?

    Like

  3. Crommunist says:

    I should probably read more than this single post before getting on my high horse.

    Like

    • Crommunist says:

      Yeah, read back to the beginning of August. Still have no answer to any of my questions. While it is important to present observed truth in a context that is acceptable to the cultural tradition of different groups, that’s not a problem of the scientific method itself. I am still not sure what the supposed biases of the method are supposed to be. Nor do I see how intentionally loading value systems into the method makes them better at discerning non-subjective truth.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s