A REALISTIC REALSIM

Latour’s, “realistic realism”, is a concept I’ve been fighting since it was first introduced to me early on in the semester. Understanding the relationship between ontology and epistemology through the lens of a realistic realism has exposed the interconnectivity between the Cartesian “brain-in-vat”, and the outside world, and how science and politics are necessarily linked to and work through each other. Accepted concepts like “Might is Right” or scientific truth versus mob rule are suddenly delegitimized and falsified because science has been placed unjustifiably above common knowledge. A fact then, does not become a fact until it has been accepted as common knowledge. It is this point, when examined, and applied, that has colored and complicated my interpretation of the world.

We know the danger in relying on “facts” that fail to get the “mob” to go along with them; look to our discussions/debates on issues regarding global warming, food and the fossil fuel economy, and Michael Crichton’s real-world impact through the vehicle of a fictional novel. Rhetoric and fact are deeply connected, but in making them ontologically separate, we are unable to settle those issues that are connected to them because of the hierarchical structuring of scientific fact and the mob’s common knowledge. Latour reminds us however that this relationship is not vertical it is instead circular: fact and common knowledge depend on each other—one does not command the other. Latour’s fourth “public representation loop” (Latoure, p. 105) illustrates this point nicely, capturing the ways in which common knowledge plays a part in what scientific fact claims to be true.

Initially, I stood in contestation with this claim. How can the talk-show friendliness of a scientific fact affect whether or not that fact actually becomes one? Having completed the course, I now have a better idea of what Latour was getting at—although I’m not sure I will ever understand his reasoning entirely. In a way, if everyone were to believe in something, it makes it true. Where there is no belief, there is no fact. There is no sole determining factor in the creation of fact, there is instead a series of complex and interconnected relationship that work together to determine whether a claim becomes a fact or not. It is important for me to keep these things in mind. As a political science major, much of my time is spent exploring concepts of human nature, examining the role and likelihood of international cooperation, understanding the implications of international and domestic policy and so fourth. All of these concepts, in some way or another, are affected by the interpretation and implications of fact—scientific or not. Changing understanding is no longer dependent on the power of facts, it is instead dependent on the systems of signification and meaning that work to constitute and shape our very subjectivities.