Through the story of the domestication of scallops, Michel Callon defines the process of translation, which involves the formation and breakage of bonds between society and nature. He reasons that before “translators” can establish themselves as spokesmen, they first silence those who they speak for. There’s an entire hierarchy constructed for this purpose. In the case of Callon’s study, even though the scientific community and the fishermen were represented by their elected members, they were ultimately represented by the three researchers who initiated the research. Callon questions whether a few chosen individuals can speak accurately for the groups to which they belong, and whether the masses are willing to follow the few. If these questions are not considered, then all actions taken to solve the problem will have to be based on mere conjecture, which tends to lead to failure.
Callon is attempting to change not only the way we generally conduct research, but more importantly, the way we view animals (or other subjects of research) and other people involved. It’s never safe to simply assume that the behavior of a few members reflects that of the entire species. We can’t ignore the fact that there are always variations. Acknowledging that each animal can be unique individuals may also affect how we treat them.
Overall, I find his argument persuasive and the structure logically appealing. It was a really enjoyable read.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"It’s never safe to simply assume that the behavior of a few members reflects that of the entire species."
ReplyDeleteTrue, it is never safe... but often, a sample of members of a species which is large enough is usually *safe enough*, for experimental purposes. It would, of course, be optimal to look at each individual and its properties to make a true and exhaustive examination, but this is unfeasible; instead, (and this tends to happen in general research as well) it is common to try to determine the general, approximate error using statistical models when talking about representatives, and if that error is *small enough*, it is often sufficient.
Both Carling and Jonah make compelling points, and I know Carling and I have discussed how dividing lines between the animal and the human often materialize around these questions of statistical significance. Trying to treat human populations as all of one type or dismissing deaths in clinical trials as acceptable and predictable loss would seem repellent behavior to many, but doing the same for animals hardly raises objection. A lion is a lion is a lion. Or is it?
ReplyDelete