Rachael Natoli                                                      Approximately 200  words

rln5@geneseo.edu

INTD 105-19: Scientific Writing

In We Have Never Been Modern by Bruno Latour he addressing the dualism between natural science and society. He begins the chapter by discussing the contents of a newspaper. There are many topics included in a single page of a newspaper that have a union between the natural world and societal issues.

“The ozone hole is too social and too narrated to be truly natural…,” which is why it shows that the dualism between the social and the natural is an illusion created by the modern world. To describe the effect the ozone has on our world in an article or essay, societal problems and scientific information must be combined. Latour describes the ideas of critics who say a scientist can not include societal discourse in their academic work as societal issues are not in their field of expertise.

His ideas about the false dichotomy of nature and society connect to the farm land that you can see when looking out from the gazebo into the valley. Farming has been a topic of societal discussion recently due to the animal cruelty by large corporate farms and it is also a part of the natural sciences because it involves the health of plants and animals.

Alec Toufexis

agt9@geneseo.edu

INTD 105-19- Scientific Writing

Latour’s essay states that our society is in fact not modern. To be modern we must be able to consider two practices. “Translation” ,which is a hybrid of nature and culture, and “Purification”, which takes the hybrid and focuses on it’s constituents. However, there is a great dichotomy between the two practices, which is making modernity an unreachable reality.

The author makes it clear that this dichotomy is evident in the newspapers. Right now, our society is more of a hybrid. Latour says, “Press the most innocent aerosol button and you’ll be heading for the Antarctic and from there to the University of California at Irvine, the mountain ranges of Lyon…”. This is what the author calls a “network”, which is more of an “Ariadne’s Thread” that exhaustively takes the reader of a newspaper from one discipline’s view on the subject to another. That is why we need a balance between “Translation” and “Purification”.

With respects to The Greek Tree, I find that we utilize both the “translation” and “purification” practices. We view the tree as associated with Greek Life, but we also see the artwork separate from the natural beauty of the tree.

Jason Gerbsch                                                             Approximately 230 words

jg33@geneseo.edu

INTD 105-19: Scientific Writing

To be modern, according to Latour, is to be simultaneous in our ideas.  Because of this, humans are not modern.  Latour states that, “as soon as one outlines the symmetrical space and thereby reestablishes the common understanding that organizes the separation of natural and political powers, one ceases to be modern” (Latour 1991, 13).

As a society, we don’t like to mix networks together, it becomes too confusing.  An event must belong to one network or the other.  Latour brings up the example of the hole in the ozone.  He states that the ozone hole is too social and too narrated to be truly natural, meaning that the media has so much coverage on the issue, that it can’t be scientific.  However, this is entirely false as many events in our society have multiple networks intertwining.  Using the example of the ozone hole, networks such as science, politics, industry, and more are involved in a matter such as this.  No event or issue can be labeled as belonging to one singular network, because beneath the surface, everything is connected.  Because of this, we are not modern.

I can see the connection between my object and the idea of intertwining networks created by Latour.  Like many events and issues in real life, there are many connections between the ivy and Sturges Hall, as well as humans.

Alexis Baer                                                                                       about 150 words

anb8@geneseo.edu

Student, INTD: Writing Science

“We Have Never Been Modern”
by Alexis Baer

Bruno Latour begins his essay by focusing on a newspaper article that recognizes multiple negative events that begin to rapidly occur. Such topics mentioned include flawed dualisms, religion, culture, technology, law, and the economy in order to further support his argument of separation throughout the writing. Latour’s main points he tries to get across consists of his modernization views and the hybrid of combining nature, that is based off scientific studies, and society together. Modernism is the altering of traditions to form a new way of society using new ideas and thoughts. As Latour explains it; he believes that modernism is the challenging divide between translation and purification. Individuals must consider these different perspectives of such topics as well as forming and changing their own opinions. Although Bruno Latour does give a valid argument, his statements do not quite connect or resemble my object.

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.

Justin D’Souza                                                                               About 170 words

SUNY Geneseo

INTD 105 Science Writing

False Dichotomies of “Modern” Society

By Justin D’Souza

When one browses a newspaper, one encounters many neat sections: “science, politics, economy, law, religion, [etc.].” But the complexity of modern issues goes beyond labels. For example, a story about the ozone layer blends science and politics. Latour argues that we too frequently create false dichotomies between human events and natural/scientific events due to our inability to properly classify such hybrid “networks.” However, every culture has these interconnected networks – an anthropologist analyzing an ancient culture will synthesize them, like a “narrative” Therefore, old cultures did not have the false dualisms modern culture has that separates us from nature and science. We uphold this dualism so we can think of ourselves as more modern than others, the West versus the old. But since this dualism does not really exist, we are like ancient cultures, aka not modern.

#

Geneseo’s Arboretum certainly seems like an example of a “nature-culture,” But, I predict that if a discovery were found in the trees, it would be confided to the science section of a newspaper regardless of if it relates to other fields.

Mike Emanuele

“We Have Never Been Modern” by Bruno Latour

We live in a generation where false dualisms surround us. Humans have become hybrids, involving themselves with every element on this planet. We have blurred dualisms  such as nonhuman nature and human culture, combining  the two into a lifestyle. The definition of the word “modern” means a passage of time into a new regime, from revolution, rupture, or any significant change. However to be modern we must be symmetrical, meaning we must to be able to separate practices such as translation and purification. Being a hybrid is not modern because it breaks the symmetry. Latour describes our era as the Gordian Knot meaning the weaving of issues and crises all into each other even though they are irrelevant to one another. Science has little relevance in politics, as social affairs have little to do with science. According to my mini essay, we incorporate a tree into our living space and use it as a symbol. Ultimately involving something non human, to humans. This is not modern. Their is no symmetry between a human and a tree. 

Simon Lee                                                                     Approximately  150 Words

Shl5@geneseo.edu

Scientific Writing 105-19

We Have Never Been Modern

By Simon Lee

In We Have Never Been Modern, Bruno Latour discusses how newspaper articles that are written are distinguished into one category or another. However, a lot of the articles are hybrids. For example, an article about the ozone layer involves both science and politics. Yet the fragile thread that connects several different fields of study will be broken. However to be a modern society we must retie the Gordian knot.

I believe that the Greek Tree is a good example of what Latour discusses in his article. The Greek Tree is a blend the natural world and the social world into one. However people will try to distinguish it into one category or another instead of realizing that it is a blend of both.

Paul Weissfellner

INTD 105: Science Writing

Prof. Fenn

The Trouble with Wilderness Response

In his essay The Trouble with Wilderness, William Cronon lays out a comprehensive critique of the American concept of wilderness. He takes the reader through the history of wilderness and perceptions of it in America, from the standpoint that the entire idea of wilderness and the way that it is expressed is flawed and dangerous. From its origins as a forum for religious experiences  to a playground for the urban elite, wilderness has taken many forms. I found his descriptions of the issues with wilderness interesting, especially as he presented them as antithetical to all of mainstream environmentalism. I particularly liked his analysis of the effects of wilderness of the general views of nature as a whole. Nature is only valuable if it is untouched, but what really constitutes untouched? Humans have lived everywhere for thousands of years, and, more often than not, wilderness preserves an area where people had lived after kicking them out; it is not how nature was before humans. It’s how nature was when a certain group of humans arrived. At the end, Cronon brings it back to Haraway’s ideas of the cyborg, in that nature and humanity cannot be separated without dire philosophical consequences. My rock is no longer a representation of the struggle between humans and nature; rather, it is a monument to unity, to the natural and human-made systems that worked together to create it as it exists now.

Emma Cooke                                                                                     about 150 words

erc8@geneseo.edu

INTD 105-19 Science Writing

The Trouble With Wilderness

William Cronon’s “The Trouble with Wilderness” is his response to the idea that “wilderness is the preservation of the world”. Cronon argues that the wilderness is actual a human creation, that the very idea of the wilderness is a product of our culture and interference. He gives examples of the many ways in which humans have interfered in the wilderness including our emphasis on the sublime and the frontier- preserving that experience. He states that “if we allow ourselves to believe that nature, to be true, must also be wild, then out very presence in nature represents its fall” (Cronon 97).

This concept can be connected back to the ivy growing up Sturges Hall. The growth of the ivy is managed, humans chose not to allow the ivy to grow over windows, how high it grows and often only allow it to grow because it is aesthetically pleasing. William Cronon emphasizes that there is not a true border between the human and natural worlds because humans have interfered in what was once the natural world.