A Testament of Defeat

Before we move from “Divided Faculties”, I want to pass along Steven Pinker’s “Science is Not Your Enemy: An impassioned plea to neglected novelists, embattled professors, and tenure-less historians” as another way to consider the two cultures in the twenty-first century. (Here is a link to the article: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114127/science-not-enemy-humanities.) Where Snow grounds his literary intellectuals in deconstructionism, Pinker goes so far as to say that those who resist science often do so not so much based on an inclination to reject notions of true or false, but on a resentment of the approaches used by scientists: “In the major journals of opinion, scientific carpetbaggers are regularly accused of determinism, reductionism, essentialism, positivism, and worst of all, something called ‘scientism.’”

Pinker includes a speech from G.W. Bush’s adviser given in 2007 to support the anti-science sentiment, where scientific discovery is seen as “soul-less scientism” which compromises the “moral and spiritual health of our nation, the continued vitality of science, and our own self-understanding as human beings and as children of the West.” In our readings, we have become familiar with the division of science and literature based on intellectualism’s assertion of the importance of studying the classics and of adopting a deconstructionist attitude toward scientific truths. It is useful to understand that the category of “anti-science” has been expanded to include those who see science as impinging on their faith. Pinker defends the work of scientists as “of a piece with philosophy, reason, and Enlightenment humanism”, rather than sacrilegious labor, which aligns with Snow’s understanding of scientists as equally concerned with both the moral and social life.

Snow notes the gap between the two cultures as having been widened during the thirty years prior to his lecture, saying that at one point the groups once “managed a kind of frozen smile across the gulf”. Education is discussed as the only way to reconcile the two cultures. However, that reconciliation has yet to come, especially within universities – as Pinker points out, the humanities is “the domain in which the intrusion of science has produced the strongest recoil. Yet it is just that domain that would seem to be most in need of an infusion of new ideas.” Since Snow’s lecture, the two cultures have been politicized in new ways, redefined, re-categorized, and have undergone a replacement of prejudices, but the issue is still intact – and as we can see through Pinker’s article, the solution that Snow sought remains hazy.

In “Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern”, Latour succinctly conveys critics’ two approaches in dealing with a “naïve believer”: “Better equipped than Zeus himself you rule alone, striking from above with the salvo of antifetishism in one hand and the solid causality of objectivity in the other”. The metaphor affirms Latour’s claim that, in deploying one or the other (depending on whichever tactic the situation calls for), the critic can count on being right. Previously, Latour argues that two positions of the objects at hand are established when a critic is met with a “naïve believer”, under different titles – ‘fairy’ (antifetishism) or ‘fact’ (causality of objectivity). The first, according to Latour, allows the critic to “show that what the naïve believers are doing with objects is simply a projection of their wishes onto a material entity that does nothing at all by itself”, or in other words, to reduce their objects of interest to “mere empty white screens”. The other position involves the critic’s designation of the behavior of the “poor bloke” as an unconscious process occurring outside of his own will. In either of these situations, the “only loser is the naïve believer”. According to Latour, the “Zeus of Critique rules absolutely, to be sure, but over a desert”, due to the humanities having lost the “hearts of their fellow citizens”.

I want to devote my post to Latour’s description of the “critical landscape” because through the primary methods used by critics, Latour realizes the need for a third position and is willing to address what that third “fair” position would look like. Throughout “Why Has Critique Run out of Steam”, Latour hints at various ways criticism could be reinvigorated – namely, returning to a realist method which concerns itself with matters of concern, rather than fact, not to “debunk but to protect and to care”. That some reality is lost when “we try to reconnect scientific objects with their aura” is disconcerting to Latour. At this point in the article, Latour seems momentarily sympathetic to the naïve believers, or at least not surprised that the believers and the “never sleeping critic” should be disconnected, given the process that ensures the victory of the critic every time. This “critical barbarity”, according to Latour, is grounded in the “total mismatch of the three contradictory repertoires-antifetishism, positivism, realism-because we carefully manage to apply them on different topics.”

What would a new vein of criticism entail? To “see through [objects] the reality that requested a new respectful realist attitude”, as Latour notes Whitehead having done well, or in other words, to realize objects cannot be assessed fairly as matters of fact. The job of the critic should entail a “multifarious inquiry launched with the tools of anthropology, philosophy, metaphysics, history, sociology to detect how many participants are gathered in a thing to make it exist and maintain its existence.” A critic, according to Latour, should not “alternate haphazardly between antifetishism and positivism like the drunk iconoclast drawn by Goya”.

It seems strange to the reader that after defining this new critic, Latour should throw Turing into the mix, especially as his speculation on how quickly objects turn into things persists throughout the article. On the one hand, this growth of object into thing can seem an irresponsible maneuver on the part of whoever is considering the matter at hand as a form of projection. On the other hand, Latour seems to suggest that this very maneuver is the only way in which matters of concern can surface. Latour notes Turing’s argument that “all objects are born things, all matters of fact require, in order to exist, a bewildering variety of matters of concern.” Latour finds in Turing’s paper the “surprising result… that we don’t master what we, ourselves, have fabricated, the object of this definition of critique.” Latour seems to include Turing’s model of idea generation ironically, considering the footnote that is included (Turing: “I do not do sufficient calculation to decide what to expect them to do, or rather because, although I do a calculation, I do it in a hurried, slipshod fashion, taking risks.”) Either way, the loss of the critical spirit is to Latour lamentable, ending his article with a speculation on what criticism would look like “if it could be associated with more, not with less, with multiplication, not subtraction.”

One of the most compelling features of Blade Runner is the character of Roy Batty, whose violent resistance to “accelerated decrepitude” and quest to extend his lifespan speak to his frustration at not being allowed to live longer than four years. Through the noble actions that ensue after Batty has chased Deckard up on to the roof of Sebastian’s building, the viewer is able to appreciate the complexity of Batty’s character. In the beginning of the film, rather than resist death as a sort of knee-jerk reaction, or at least immediately understand his “retirement” as inevitable (as Batty’s character seems to do in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?), he adopts a very “human” relationship with the knowledge that he is to be killed. Batty is characterized by a degree of suffering unmatched by any other Nexus-6 in the film, as it directly relates to his being informed that a “coding sequence cannot be revised once it’s been established”. His suffering and ability to empathize with other Nexus-6s is evident also when he comes across recently-retired Pris and kisses her good-bye.

If the objective of the film’s creators is to encourage the viewers to understand the human/non-human interplay through the eyes of the Nexus-6s, Rachael’s perspective seems much easier and more natural for the viewer to undertake (as her experience as a non-human revolves around learning that her memories are not hers, and forcing herself to be loved by a human). While Batty’s struggle with the idea of a very limited mortality and his lack of innocent motives make him, at times, deplorable and antagonistic, he does seem more the antihero than Deckard himself. Batty’s refusal to understand death as inevitable persists until he and Deckard meet in Sebastian’s building. After death begins to creep up on Batty, and through his decision to save Deckard’s life, the viewer can appreciate the complexity of Batty’s character. As he speaks his last words (“All those moments will be lost in time like tears in rain. Time to die”), the viewer is left to experience for himself the entire weight of Batty’s suffering.

11/13/12

Hundreds of Walnut Creek, California residents lined up early Friday morning in front of Macy’s, on the corner of South Main and Mt. Diablo Boulevard, to kick start the most important day of the holiday season.

Paula Brown, 50-year resident of Walnut Creek, claimed to have arrived at the store “just about when the sun went down” the night before Thanksgiving day. When asked if she regrets not having enjoyed the early evening feast with her family the previous day, Brown pauses to explain: “There are certain times in a woman’s life when she needs to make certain sacrifices. Today is a big day, and I knew that to really ‘carpe diem’, I’d have to skip the dinner. I’m not getting any younger and my hips aren’t getting any smaller, either.” When asked if she will have another chance to see her newborn grandson before her eldest son, Robert Brown, flies his family back to Philadelphia, Paula says that the mother and son were “on for Skype” later that evening. “Walnut Creek is great! I myself don’t have an iPad yet, but the Apple store is only two doors down and Reggie’s been saving my spot when I need to check my e-mail,” Brown states, winking at the woman standing behind her in line.

Another Walnut Creek resident, Steve Lowe, 32, says that he has been enjoying the holiday tradition despite its being the one year anniversary of a serious hospitalization. “My buddies told me to cool it this year and keep it on the down-low; just no jumping through any glass doors,” laughs Lowe, rubbing one of several pink scars on his face, “but I told ‘em I wouldn’t make ‘em any promises”. Sources say this time last year, Lowe consumed “eleven or so” Coors Light at the local sports bar, started a fight with 79-year old Patrick Kerkhoff (sources are unclear as to what the fight was about), charged at Kerkhoff, and ended up breaking through the glass door of Hallmark when Kerkhoff rolled his wheelchair forward. “It’s a good day to celebrate”, states Lowe, biting into a Slim Jim.

Macy’s predicts a 65% increase in sales today, which calculates the department store’s net earnings to be exponentially higher than the funds available to all K-12 schools in the Mount Diablo Unified School District. While Macy’s has declined to comment on their monetary growth, many patrons are excited to hear that their favorite department store is thriving financially. “This time of year really brings everyone together”, says Katie Sullivan, 17. “I’m reminded that my parents care, like, so much about me when I open up a gift from them. I’m actually here today to get ideas for a wish list. This truly is the happiest time of the year.” No commentary followed, as chaos broke out abruptly and crowds fought to flock into the department store.

08/11/11

Part I

While sitting in my kitchen in the dark a few days ago, indulging in a late night Web Surf extravaganza, I noticed a meager purple flame flickering on the stove top, in the crack that separates the stove top and the stove top cover. Due to my inherent fear of suffering a death caused by household appliances, I crouched next to the stove, drew a deep and (arguably) life-saving breath, and exhaled sharply, extinguishing the murderous flame.

My house companion and colleague, Laura, and I noticed a faint yet constant scent of gas throughout the house over the succeeding days. Laura eventually called PG & E, and as we sat on the front porch (the only area of refuge available), the man who showed up at the house to save the day/our lives listened intently to my recollection of stove related events. When I disclosed the bit about the mystery flame, he laughed and told me I had blown out the stove’s pilot light.

Part II

Over the last month or so, my eyes have been in EXCRUCIATING pain. I was unsure of what could be to blame for this perpetual and unbearable burning sensation, until I was standing at the bathroom sinking, dabbing my eyelids with Pond’s cream (a make-up remover). I remarked to my colleague, Laura, who sat on her bed in the next room, that my eyeballs were in a state of serious trepidation. She informed me that what I had THOUGHT was EYE MAKE UP REMOVER was, in reality, FACIAL CLEANSER. I studied the container and the horrendous realization struck me like an arrow in the chest.