Sarah Lambert                                                                                 about 200 words

sel15@geneseo.edu

Student, INTD 105-19: Scientific Writing

Latour’s Argument About The Sidewalk

By Sarah Lambert

      Throughout his argument, Latour insists that “translation,” or the “mixtures between entirely new types of beings, hybrids of nature and culture,” is a type of interpretation necessary to consider oneself modern. Latour exemplifies this motif through his own term coined, “nature-culture,” which he defines implicitly as an overarching term that refers to aspects of society and their interactions. Latour’s argument is similar to my own in that we agree that not all things can be categorized, especially when it comes to man-made things we define as ‘artificial.’

While Latour sufficiently supports his claim that this “nature-culture” exists, I cannot also accept that it is most advantageous to see the world from a “pure” standpoint. Though I concede that it is helpful to separate ideas to clarify them, I do not believe that “all [ideas] have their privileged vantage point, provided that they remain separate.”

    Though he touches upon how the sciences and politics interact on issues like global warming, Latour fails to illustrate how some interactions of the universe are nearly impossible to “purify” and “categorize.” Creation, for example, is a direct interaction between one being and the next. This specifically shows how these two things cannot ever be entirely separate because if it were not for the first, there would be no second.

Sarah Lambert                                                                                 about 180 words

sel15@geneseo.edu

Student, INTD 105-19: Scientific Writing

“We Have Never Been Modern” Response

By Sarah Lambert

   Since it’s birth, society has found thousands of ways to classify and separate aspects of itself. Latour relies on the example of a newspaper in the beginning of his essay to exemplify this; how it’s easy to see categories like science, religion, fiction, etc. Latour’s argument relies on how this attitude of segregation in society is inaccurate and the paths of these elements do in fact cross, creating “hybrid networks.”

  As time does to many other words, the definition of modern has been altered under many different connotations. Latour believes that we are not able to define ourselves as modern until we define the word itself in which case we may need to adjust our attitudes and beliefs.  He emphasizes his argument about modernity when he writes, “If the modern world in its turn is becoming susceptible to anthropological treatment, this is because something has happened to it.”

   As his argument forces the audience to rethink the definition of “modern,” Latour’s piece seems quite effective in supporting my ideas about the minimal barriers that remain between man and nature.

Sarah Lambert                                                                                 about 180 words
sel15@geneseo.edu

Student, INTD 105-19: Scientific Writing

“The Trouble With Wilderness” Response
By Sarah Lambert

Throughout his piece written about the connotations and interpretations of the word “wilderness,” William Cronon develops the assertion that “wilderness” is not entirely wild, “it is quite profoundly a human creation-indeed.”

    This awesome, other-worldly “wilderness” attracted many. Cronon exemplifies other’s views by quoting multiple writers who have described nature with powerful allusions to religion and God’s presence because of the way it struck awe into the hearts of men. Attitudes towards it shifted from bewilderment and distaste to admiration and reverence which caused people to preserve them as national parks. The national parks, as Cronon points out, have provided us with a false sense of security that the wild is still there to be “our true home” while in fact, it is just a false dichotomy. Cronon summarizes by stating that these parks are “standing for…wild freedom…and seeming to represent a highly attractive natural alternative,” an alternative to civilization whereas it’s truly just a side effect.

    Though his argument that wilderness isn’t entirely wild is intriguing, his statements do not exactly fit into my ideas about the boundaries of humanity and nature.

Sarah Lambert                                                                                 about 150 words
sel15@geneseo.edu

Student, INTD 105-19: Scientific Writing

“The Cyborg Manifesto” Response
By Sarah Lambert

In her piece, “A Cyborg Manifesto,” Haraway asserts her opinion that society should dissolve the boundaries between race, gender, class, etc. and embrace the image of cyborgs. Though Haraway explains the cyborg’s inherent irreverence, her assertion strengthens through the illustration of how cyborgs break down the boundaries between three aspects of society.  Haraway describes the way that the boundaries between animals and humans, organisms and machines, and the physical and non-physical can all be broken down by the acceptance of this cyborg image.

Haraway dissects society and other feminist views to assert the idea that one must be all inclusive rather than exclusive to advance our “politics rooted in…changes.” However, how does Haraway plan on unifying a world so divided “by [its] terrible historical experience?”

This idea of breaking down barriers ties directly into my mini-essay focused on the truly non-existent barrier between man and nature.

about 250 words

Sarah Lambert

sel15@geneseo.edu

Student, INTD 105-19

The War On Campus: A Battle Between Man And Nature

By Sarah Lambert

  Since humans appeared on this planet, the advancement of technology has had a significant impact on the nature and environment around us. We have developed the advancements to build sky scrapers and cruise ships as well as materials–acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, for example– to print objects in three dimensions. It has become common today to dismiss the idea that man and nature may coexist. I believe, however, that not only do we coexist, we have all become unified with nature.

    I noticed, as I walked around campus this afternoon, the significant difference between the firm, hardened cement I walked on and the green, grassy areas along side it.

    The cement that my worn out flip-flops slapped down upon remained unchanging under my feet. On the edge of the cement, the boundary where the natural and the artificial converge, the grass grows with persistence. Though it may be cut, it still tries to overcome the artificial barrier that has been poured and set in its path.

    If we look close enough, this boundary becomes a battleground. As the cement stands firm, the grass exerts energy daily, trying even harder to overcome its opponent. This cement was something that humans created. However, it’s derived from nature itself. The crushed rocks cemented into place have likely been here longer than we have, we just found them a new purpose. The closer you look, however, the more obvious it becomes that it isn’t truly a battle between man and nature. Rather, it is just further evidence of how we have become even closer to nature, using it for our own devices.