Will Gerber About 160 Words
10 MacVittie Circle
Geneseo, New York 14454
(315) 250-9687
Bruno Latour on The Greek Tree
By Will Gerber
If Bruno Latour were to pass by Geneseo’s Greek Tree, he would presumably take silent note of it and continue on his way. However, if he were asked to speculate on it, he would most likely talk about a boundary-defying product of hard science, power struggles, and human discourse.
Trees are a natural showcase of biology. What makes this particular tree unique, however, is its function as a medium for fraternal organizations. With limited space on the tree, campus associations must compete to make their letters the most noticeable if they want the most recruits. This dual purpose blends the human and natural sciences to the point that the tree would not fit into either category.
I liked how you talked about Latour’s possible view that the Greek Tree represents a breakdown of the barriers between science and human culture, and that you separated your view in a new paragraph. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of connection between you and Latour, however. I’m pretty sure you’re agreeing, but there isn’t much in the way of a transition. In your essay, make sure you discuss your view in relation to Latour’s and use lots of evidence.
I really like how you gave us Bruno Latour’s point of view at the very beginning of the writing. The only thing that was wondering was your point of view on it. You had the “they say” but I didn’t understand wha you say about it. I also really liked the false dichotomies that you mention at the end.
Hi Will, I’m going to echo what Matt and Erik have already pointed out here. There’s some good work going on in terms of how you’re presenting Latour’s ideas (I love your paraphrase of the three categories at the end of your first paragraph—very strong). I can see that the tree is “natural,” as you say, and implicated in human power relationships (these fraternities), as well as being tied up in language games (discourse), so in your second paragraph you’re starting to tease out how the tree surfs all three categories. I’d like to see you think in much more detail about the tree’s existence in fact, in power, and in discourse, and I’d like to see you work in more detailed ways with evidence about your tree to do this. I’d like to know if you think this is a valuable methodological approach as a way of thinking about the tree, or if it is lacking something important–perhaps you will discover as you explore these avenues that there is something about the tree that Latour’s theory does not fully explain, and that you can. Good luck expanding your ideas!