On Sun, 28 Nov 1999, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> To be more specific, there are two forms of science critique that I think
> should be avoided. (1) It is, in my view, a mistake to name "modernity,"
> "instrumental reason," "Western metaphysics," etc. as chief villains for
> making science an instrument of oppression, as, for instance, ecofeminists
> (e.g., Vandana Shiva, Maria Mies, etc.), postmodernists (e.g., Lyotard,
> Foucault, Butler, etc.), Green localists, deep ecologists, New Age
> primitivists, etc. are wont to do. (2) One does not want to dismiss
> science per se, (as opposed to oppressive forms of science in theory and
> practice), merely as a "regime of truth" invested with a will to power
> (e.g., Foucault). Science (in the broad sense of the word, an accumulation
> of knowledge, including feminist & historical materialist knowledge) is
> necessary, and we ought to seek to free it from an ensemble of oppressive
> social relations in which it is made to play a role of facilitating
> exploitation.
Clearly, if you define science in this broad way, science is a necessary part of our society. It's even a characteristic of hunting and gathering societies. Is the accumulation of knowledge inevitably tied to oppressive social relations? No, there are numerous human societies with fairly egalitarian economic and political arrangements. But should we call the accumulation of knowledge in these hunting and gathering societies science?
Miles