Perspectives on "Western Sci" May 24

Please join us for our next meeting on Friday, May 24, 2024, 12:00 pm to 1:30 pm EDT. We will meet online at https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89247760518 You can find your local time by logging in to your account on www.chstm.org (be sure to set your timezone preference there). This month we will again discuss two drafts: "Neither Triumph Nor Telos" Paul Keyser, Independent Scholar The long-used distinction between “western” science and all those “other” sciences in(tro)duces a pernicious categorization, even when none of the implied categories are labeled as privileged. In contrast, I argue that the varying species and genera of science are best treated as a spectrum or continuum, since no science anywhere ever evolved in utter isolation from the ecumenical cultural network. Furthermore, to maintain multiple dichotomies (“polytomies”) across the cultural genera of science is to subtly yet powerfully (re)generate further dichotomies. Even scholars committed to the re-valorization of “non-western” sciences fall into the discursive trap of speaking and thinking dichotomously. This ancient and false dichotomy is a reflex of xenophobia, and similar “us” versus “them” dichotomies are found in ancient texts from Greece, Egypt, and China. and "Othering knowledge: The use of the prefix 'ethno' in science" Abigail Nieves Delgado, Utrecht University Juliana Gutiérrez Valderrama, Universidad de Los Andes This paper examines the use of the prefix “ethno” to designate and represent the epistemic practices and knowledge systems of “non-Western” communities and regions. We argue that the prefix inherits the problems of the “Western”/”non-Western” divide: (i) it reproduces a colonial epistemic norming of space; (ii) it can result in a case of cultural imperialism. Exploring the history of the use of the prefix in anthropology, we claim that it inevitably carries with it normative and colonial assumptions intrinsic to the “emic”/”etic” distinction –where the former refers to the “universal” or “external” point of view (usually ascribed to “Western” science) and the latter to an “internal” or “particular” approach (traditionally ascribed to the understanding of other “non-Western” or non-European peoples). We take the field of ethnobiology as an example to illustrate our argument. Finally, we emphasize the need to reevaluate the terms that reproduce practices of othering certain knowledge systems. This is vital for fostering transdisciplinary research and acknowledging the value of diverse epistemic practices. You can download these from the group landing page at https://www.chstm.org/content/critical-perspectives-historiography-western-science-1 Looking forward to the discussion. Darin Hayton and Babak Ashrafi, group conveners