Jane Bennett shares the same ideology as theorist Max Weber on how the domination of science has been translated in modern day writing. Through Weber’s writing he sees bureaucracy producing increasingly rationalised systems that will eventually entrap individuals into several controlled systems -the Iron Cage. She argues that as the world becomes more understood through the use of scientific laws, the personalised touch in writing has diminished. The ultimate question here is facts versus value.
Even though
I acknowledge that we are ruled by facts and figures, I firmly believe that we have
lost our voice in writing. The genre of popular science is intended to promote
science however the author only acts as mediator. By relaying information is
the author imparting an inspiring piece of work that will affect the reader? I
firmly believe this has created a crisis of inspiration and questions the
integrity of the author. This has come about through the use of disenchantment,
as some books are solely reliant on empirical values.
Scientific writing is somewhat alienating to me. We are seduced by the scientific terminology that we disregard the aesthetic association. In order to write scientifically, one must essentially transform them into the object. The lack of emotion is quite clearly recognised and personally the value of the writing decreases. I do not object in the idea of disregarding the scientific understanding but the power of author should be able to express their understanding and interpretation, which should inspire the reader. This can be seen through the different techniques of presenting data. Qualitative methods of writing provide us with rich description and understanding, creating validity amongst the reader. Quantitative methods merely represent the data. Perhaps we can draw similarities on the scientific research methods, whilst discussing such writing practices.
The institution of science is ruled by formulaic laws and terminology, which, causes us as humans to steer away from social problem, such as, structural inequality and concentrate on the environmental problems. Unaware, we are slowly backing up against a corner, whilst a matrix of rational systems, calculable means and impersonal outcomes increasingly descend around us. Blocking our escape, perhaps before we know it we have been trapped and Weberain ideals of the Iron cage has ensnared us in through the use of glorified language.
Hi Natasha,
ReplyDeleteYou have made some really interesting points about our reactions towards facts and scientific language. I would however disagree that we have lost our voice in writing. Correct me if I am wrong but when you say voice do you mean the personal side to writing- the more human side if you like? If so I believe that does still exist and would argue that it has more of an impact on the reader, which I think coincides with a point you made above. Yes, scientific terminology can entice the reader but at the same time it can cause a detachment if used on it's own. When we specifically look at writing on the environment's state, multiple figures, statistics and formulas are thrown at us with the intention to shock us. However, this seems to have little to no affect. Why is this? Why do we not find the statistic that 'each year we dump a massive 2.12 billion tons of waste' shocking(Theworldcounts.com)
I would partly argue that this is because we cannot comprehend the number so don't, deciding that the statistic is too big therefore the problem is also too big. The irony here is that the statistics are there to shock us but in actual fact it can make us more reluctant to do anything. I would also suggest that our emotional reaction to these statistics is so small that they do not shock us for, in a way, you are only coming into contact with numbers.
Then you come across a piece of writing that does not aim to shock with it's statistics and figures but concentrates on the stories and experiences more which makes the reader respond emotionally and that is when people sit up and want to do something to help. These writings have a voice, and there is something more human about them. I think this may coincide with the point you made about the qualitative data being more affective (and therefore effective) than the quantitative data. I agree with this. However, some would question the validity of piece of writing if it was without some sort of scientific data It could then be accused of being fictitious.
Therefore I don't think writing on the environment necessarily has to focus solely on fact or solely on value in order to be affective. In other words I think fact and value can work together. Sometimes we need the figures to illustrate a point being made and so giving one a clearer understanding of what the reality of a situation looks like. At the same time this cannot stand alone, there needs to be something said that we can relate to in order for us to be able to do something practical about it. Rather than the two being at oppositions in writing, 'fact' and 'value' need to be in balance on order to achieve the most affective writing on the environment.