The power of language is amazing. The significant impact of one word or the arrangement of several and.or many words can alter one’s reality; perhaps shift foundational understandings of one’s reality. Consider the following statements:
“I like you” vs. “I love you”
The first implies a notion of favor toward another in the sense of a platonic (or leading to a romantic or somewhat familial) relationship. The second statement implies a deeper intimacy from whence one can employ certain expectations, communication patterns/habits, and behaviors. A married couple actively expressing their love will certainly act differently toward and speak differently to one another than two people recently befriended to each other. The married couple's and the friends' foundational understandings of each others' relationships are going to be entirely different and thus generate entirely different behaviors.
Latour’s use of the word crisis to speak on the problem of academia’s disciplines of study being segmented is thus purposefully used to accomplish several feats. The first, I believe, is to make his readers aware of how significant the problem is. The word crisis is generally used to depict a situation that is very unstable and/or is very tense. It employs a very negative connotation. Usually when one hears the word “crisis” the response is to automatically ask oneself “how can it be prevented?” if it is used to speak of an approaching condition – or “how can this be fixed?” For example, someone facing a mid-life crisis is said to be experiencing a dramatic turning point. Here this person is said to suddenly recognize that what he or she has been doing has not been fulfilling but instead has been useless in sustaining a worthwhile and satisfying life. This is, obviously, VERY disheartening. It is no accident then that Latour uses “crisis” because he is implying that we need to turn away from the current understanding in academia and the world because it has not been useful.
The second reason he uses the word crisis, I believe, is to stimulate human response. As stated previously, when someone says a crisis is imminent, people react in a way that will hopefully deter such an occasion. I believe that Latour is trying to move people to understand his idea that we are in a state of emergency and thus stimulate human response to stabilize the academic condition. Segmentation of academic disciplines is not very stable being that – naturally – everything is connected and plays a part in the existence of each.
Well, this is my second go-round. The "Comment as" control is a bit of an annoyance. I lost my previous comment because I had to log in to my Google account.
ReplyDeleteYou suggest Latour wishes his readers to see academic segmentation as serious (...why else use the word "crisis"). Realizing that we have very little of Latour to read in this excerpt, does Latour produce such an effect in you? What seems to be the consequence of NOT agreeing with Latour and his colleagues that everything is connected (or, if not everything, then at least for any controversy a great many different sorts of things are connected)?
Latour does produce this effect in me. Thankfully, I have been thinking about this very topic for years. Since I began my "college career," I noticed the segmentation and how students seemed to grapple/struggled with finding the importance of what they were learning that wasn't particularly "interesting to them." or "relevant" to their life goals. I found that disheartening because I saw that there were many things students could draw from classes that didn't minister to their career choice and/or life pursuits yet still have a positive impact on their lives which in turn has a positive impact on what they choose to do with their lives.
ReplyDeleteThe consequences of not agreeing with Latour's arguments are scary. I believe (perhaps this is a fallacy but for the sake of argument, I'll state it) that if we were to continue in these divisive eras of "segmentation" and "specializiation" we would not be able to work together or appreciate the value of each others' work. Consequently, our world would be more divided and oppressive than it already is. Why? Because I can only imagine how people could ultimately compare themselves to each other based on career choice and specialization. It would be terribile!