 |
| Vandana Shiva, keeping it real? Source: http://palabrademujer.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/shivabarcelona083atf5.jpg |
Vandana
Shiva criticizes science and scientific knowledge as the basis of
''maldevelopment'' and calls it a source of “violence”. According
to her science is reductionist and inherently violent. Its purpose is
uniformity, centralization and control. Development thus becomes
scientific agriculture, scientific animal husbandry, scientific water
management and so on. She says that all these processes are violent
to both women and ecology. So this modern reductionist science is a
patriarchal project aimed at displacing women as experts and bringing
in fragmentation and reductionism in place of holism and complexity.
She believes modern science has displaced all other beliefs and
knowledge systems by its claim to universality and value neutrality
on the basis of a logical method to know nature. She accuses western
white males and particularly Francis Bacon, to have created this
patriarchal, “masculine project” called science which subjugates
both nature and women, saying it was created to bind nature to the
service of man. It creates a dichotomy between “rational and
emotional”, “objective and subjective”, “mind and matter”,
“male and female” and so on. She says it was not neutral,
objective, or scientific, but a masculine mode of aggression against
nature and subjugation of women.
Here the author seems to have gone too far, in the sense that one can't do away with science completely. Its presence in our lives, and everywhere is all pervasive. She needs to create a new science, which would replace the old. That is a project that is not really forthcoming in her work. Shiva doesn't indicate how and where is this new science that will solve our problems. Today, some people believe, and as also articulated so well by Sam Pitroda in his lecture, that we can not wish away science. Criticizing from outside without contributing to the creation or construction of the “new” is very easy, but it is very difficult to show the way or create the alternative. Shiva fails to show the way in what will replace this ''patriarchal, violent science''. She goes on to say, ''Both nature and enquiry appear conceptualized in ways modelled on rape and torture. '' Further she says, ''Nature came to be seen more like a woman to be raped, gender too was recreated.'' Science destroys eco-systems and knowledge systems by claiming to be the “expert”, the “knower”, even in the matters of daily lives where the traditional, indigenous knowledge systems existed and prospered in their own way.
She calls this reductionist science weak and inadequate to understand nature or women. Its a sweeping statement, that even all feminists won't agree to. These sweeping statements weaken the force of the argument and seem stereotypical. Shiva's book Staying Alive paints a picture that depicts traditional systems as perfect and unproblematic. It constructs a romantic traditional culture and depicts modern cultures as filthy and abominable. She does not answer or consider the high infant mortality rates, the low average life expectancy among “traditional” groups, the innumerable diseases and problems in “traditional” cultures which even they would be happy to get rid of. She has shown only one part of the picture. Vilifying science and progress summarily cannot lead anywhere. In my opinion, not everyone of us would like to go back to the ''romanticized past'' where everything is misleadingly shown as perfect.
She fails to recognize the violence in the local and traditional cultures where a woman who is taken by a ''ghost'' is cured by beating her and subjecting her to tortures. She has not looked at this aspect of traditional cultures. She fails to see that in the traditional cultures it's extremely difficult to add new knowledge to the existing set/collection of “knowledge” that is considered sacrosanct. It is here that traditional knowledge fails to be flexible and democratic and to stop inflicting pains and subjugating those who dissent. She writes "science resorts to suppression and falsification of facts and commits violence against itself." She deliberately does not acknowledge the fact that in science and other modern knowledge systems, there is at least a willingness to be democratic, and it is open to criticism, generally. This is why its body of knowledge keeps growing. She goes for an all out attack on science saying that science has this ''fact- value'' dichotomy. She calls science a ''perverse knowledge system''. This is a very radical stance that makes sweeping generalizations about women, men, science and nature. This stance has a lot of problems even within Feminism as liberal or other Feminist voices may not agree with this stance taken by the author.
She later contradicts herself saying that this science is not science but politics. And the politics can not be called scientific knowledge. Very true, if that is so, she is contradicting herself. she claims the laws of mechanics are not 'laws of nature' but value-judgements. This statement falsifies all knowledge acquired by mankind, scientific or traditional. Vandana Shiva should have devoted a few lines to explain this as even a “traditional” knower says the knowledge acquired has a “justification” that can be “verified”. Since even the traditional knowledge follow loosely the prescription of verification and justification, this would mean that all traditional knowledge are value-judgements too. Herein lies the self-contradiction of her statement.
Everyone today, including those who criticize science, use in their everyday lives the modern gadgets, technologies, and everything that science has brought into our lives. The ''critics of science'' do not go to the traditional systems of knowledge for treating diseases, for the hundreds of amenities from clothes to car, from plane to computer, from mobile to hair drier, from torch to CFL, from fast trains to clothes, from entertainment to watches, from in-vitro fertilization to artificial limbs, and the list can go on indefinitely. We can not imagine a world without the modern services of science that is so deeply entrenched in our everyday lives. She refuses to see the babas and sadhus who cheat and dupe people in the name of traditional knowledge systems. If the writer/activist has a heart attack or an ailment, she will rush to a most modern hospital, and not to an ayurvedic vaidya or a sadhu baba or a “traditional” healer. The criticism of science without showing a viable alternative is like destroying the bridge without an idea of how to make a new one.
Here the author seems to have gone too far, in the sense that one can't do away with science completely. Its presence in our lives, and everywhere is all pervasive. She needs to create a new science, which would replace the old. That is a project that is not really forthcoming in her work. Shiva doesn't indicate how and where is this new science that will solve our problems. Today, some people believe, and as also articulated so well by Sam Pitroda in his lecture, that we can not wish away science. Criticizing from outside without contributing to the creation or construction of the “new” is very easy, but it is very difficult to show the way or create the alternative. Shiva fails to show the way in what will replace this ''patriarchal, violent science''. She goes on to say, ''Both nature and enquiry appear conceptualized in ways modelled on rape and torture. '' Further she says, ''Nature came to be seen more like a woman to be raped, gender too was recreated.'' Science destroys eco-systems and knowledge systems by claiming to be the “expert”, the “knower”, even in the matters of daily lives where the traditional, indigenous knowledge systems existed and prospered in their own way.
She calls this reductionist science weak and inadequate to understand nature or women. Its a sweeping statement, that even all feminists won't agree to. These sweeping statements weaken the force of the argument and seem stereotypical. Shiva's book Staying Alive paints a picture that depicts traditional systems as perfect and unproblematic. It constructs a romantic traditional culture and depicts modern cultures as filthy and abominable. She does not answer or consider the high infant mortality rates, the low average life expectancy among “traditional” groups, the innumerable diseases and problems in “traditional” cultures which even they would be happy to get rid of. She has shown only one part of the picture. Vilifying science and progress summarily cannot lead anywhere. In my opinion, not everyone of us would like to go back to the ''romanticized past'' where everything is misleadingly shown as perfect.
She fails to recognize the violence in the local and traditional cultures where a woman who is taken by a ''ghost'' is cured by beating her and subjecting her to tortures. She has not looked at this aspect of traditional cultures. She fails to see that in the traditional cultures it's extremely difficult to add new knowledge to the existing set/collection of “knowledge” that is considered sacrosanct. It is here that traditional knowledge fails to be flexible and democratic and to stop inflicting pains and subjugating those who dissent. She writes "science resorts to suppression and falsification of facts and commits violence against itself." She deliberately does not acknowledge the fact that in science and other modern knowledge systems, there is at least a willingness to be democratic, and it is open to criticism, generally. This is why its body of knowledge keeps growing. She goes for an all out attack on science saying that science has this ''fact- value'' dichotomy. She calls science a ''perverse knowledge system''. This is a very radical stance that makes sweeping generalizations about women, men, science and nature. This stance has a lot of problems even within Feminism as liberal or other Feminist voices may not agree with this stance taken by the author.
She later contradicts herself saying that this science is not science but politics. And the politics can not be called scientific knowledge. Very true, if that is so, she is contradicting herself. she claims the laws of mechanics are not 'laws of nature' but value-judgements. This statement falsifies all knowledge acquired by mankind, scientific or traditional. Vandana Shiva should have devoted a few lines to explain this as even a “traditional” knower says the knowledge acquired has a “justification” that can be “verified”. Since even the traditional knowledge follow loosely the prescription of verification and justification, this would mean that all traditional knowledge are value-judgements too. Herein lies the self-contradiction of her statement.
Everyone today, including those who criticize science, use in their everyday lives the modern gadgets, technologies, and everything that science has brought into our lives. The ''critics of science'' do not go to the traditional systems of knowledge for treating diseases, for the hundreds of amenities from clothes to car, from plane to computer, from mobile to hair drier, from torch to CFL, from fast trains to clothes, from entertainment to watches, from in-vitro fertilization to artificial limbs, and the list can go on indefinitely. We can not imagine a world without the modern services of science that is so deeply entrenched in our everyday lives. She refuses to see the babas and sadhus who cheat and dupe people in the name of traditional knowledge systems. If the writer/activist has a heart attack or an ailment, she will rush to a most modern hospital, and not to an ayurvedic vaidya or a sadhu baba or a “traditional” healer. The criticism of science without showing a viable alternative is like destroying the bridge without an idea of how to make a new one.
Nilabh
is a first year student in the MA in Women's Studies programme at
TISS, Mumbai.
These
are the personal opinions of the author and do not represent the opinions of the fieldnotes editorial team.
Good one Nilabh..Keep posting..
ReplyDeletethanks vivek, though i expect some critical perspective on the article from you..
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Deletenice...yar
ReplyDelete@Nilabh: I have not read much of Shiva's work. However, what I understand from her is that she is critiquing the politics behind science. e.g. What was the root cause behind the invention of steam engine for propelling huge ships and why did they happen in the early 19th century only and not at some other time?
ReplyDeleteThe political reason behind this is that by early 19th century, Industrial revolution was complete in England. There were many industries set up there which required raw materials on a regular basis for the industries to be profitable. So in order to transport raw materials from India 'quickly', there was a thrust to invent steam engine.
I believe we need to understand Shiva's work from that perspective. Nevertheless, she has the reputation of being too aggressive towards science which cannot be denied.
Also, I believe her work has traces of Derrida's de-construction theory, because science when it is developed premises on certain assumptions. e.g. When fan was made, it was assumed people will have access to electricity. But in poor countries like India, a fan has no meaning. So science should work keeping in mind the centre and marginal aspects of our society. Science has done it in bits and pieces, but needs to do more.