Old Email Archive

digest 1996-12-31 #001



11:29 PM 12/30/96 -0800
From: "Society for Literature & Science" 

Daily SLS Email Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 30 Dec 1996 12:22:15 -0800
From: "barta-smith, nancy" 
Subject: Re: So how was the SLS conference?
In response to questions about the Atlanta meetings, I would like to
say
that I always find the SLS one of my favorite conferences and I wish to
extend an olive branch, even though I have not been privy to any
particular
conversations voicing dissatisfaction. I, for one, would very much like
to
see a discussion of how we could keep the society a place in which
literature and science continue to meet, not clash. I am a relative
newcomer
to the society, but have found the SLS conventions stimulating both
because
of the papers I've heard and because of the people I have come to know.
I do
not want there to be destructive divisions among us.
It always seems to me that face to face encounter with another is an
opportunity for listening as well as speaking and that it can often
surprise
assumptions we make based on conceptual differences. All of us need to
both
speak and listen, though our disciplines mostly emphasize the former in
authorizing us to teach. Sharp remarks are rarely conducive to promoting
a
climate for encounter and I think we should all avoid them. We may have
come
to the SLS to pursue a variety of interests, including the rhetoric of
science, but I would hope those interests can be mutually enriching.
The ultimate goal of those of us in the society interested in the
rhetoric--and even critique-- of science must surely be a humane and
responsive science.  Accomplishing this goal seems unlikely if the
scientists among us feel alienated by rather than interested in our
arguments. It seems to me that scientists participating in the society
are
the least likely to be unresponsive to arguments regarding the ways in
which
science can be implicated wittingly or unwittingly in relations of power
and
subordination. They are the most likely to be responsive to strategies
for a
science for, rather than about, others. In addition, science has
accomplished monumental goods as well as frightening potentials.
Humanitarian concerns are certainly part of the motivation for
scientific
endeavors--even Frankenstein, the favorite mad scientist of us literary
types mentions them among his motivations, though sadly it is not his
primary one. It is salutary to note that no discipline has the unique
potential to maintain power or to question it.  All disciplines do
their
share of both.
Just as I would hope that our interdisciplinary conversations could
create a
more humane science, I believe that listening to scientists can create
a
more humane humanities. I for one am sensitive to a measure of dismay at
the
way in which postmodern literary theory seems to make language the
primary
ground and the way in which we are too easily stalled in critique
rather
than moving beyond it toward conversation and fruitful action. It seems
clear that it is people of good will and empathy, wherever they reside,
who
disarm resistance and accomplish worthwhile aims.
Therefore, let's assume that our opening speaker's defenses may have
been
invoked by having suffered some previous incivility, perhaps more than
once.
Likewise, the defenses her remarks engendered are understandable,
especially
among our most loyal and committed scientific members. The key is to
break
the cycle. No rhetoric succeeds in being persuasive where it alienates.
Those of us in English surely know this. There is a visceral and
embodied
response to words as well as things, which is a step toward
acknowledging
both the import of rhetoric and "the there there" that
scientists feel we
doubt.
At least in the case of those outside a discipline seeking to critique
it, a
first step might be panels where scientists and literati share the table
on
an issue under discussion and are available to clarify for each other
given
assumption, values, plans of action.  I am wondering whether, for
starters,
we could agree that both language and scientific results are secondary
reflections on a primordial existence we all experience directly through
the
flesh, as well as through daily speech and the discourses of our
respective
disciplines. It is this lived experience that teaches us that the
response
to threat is fight or flight--a pair of alternatives that will get US
nowhere. NBS
Nancy A. Barta-Smith
Department of English--314 Spotts World Culture
Slippery Rock University
Slippery Rock PA 16057
nancy.barta-smith@sru.edu
"A Wild Patience Has Taken Me This Far"--Adrienne Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 30 Dec 1996 19:51:10 -0800
From: Stephen J Weininger 
Subject: Re: So how was the SLS conference?
Good on you, Nancy! I think we can carry on a "full and frank"
exchange of
views without feeling compelled to put down our colleagues. There are
real
cultural differences between (and among) scientists and literati as
well
as crucial conceptual and ideological differences that cut across all
the
disciplinary boundaries. Those differences shouldn't be smothered under
a
blanket of bland irenicism. But tone is awfully important. A colleague
of
mine who is not a native English speaker asked me the difference between
a
"vigorous" and a "heated" exchange of views. I
replied that the difference
was hard to define but like pornography, you knew it when confronted
with
it. I hope we can aspire to vigorous exchanges without succumbing to
the
temptation to heating them up.
Steve
************************************************************
Stephen J. Weininger               Internet: stevejw@wpi.edu
Professor of Chemistry             Phone: (508) 831-5396
WPI                                Fax:   (508) 831-5933
Worcester, MA 01609-2280
************************************************************