Feeling Around for the Apparatus: A Radicley Empirical Plant Science

Kristi Onzik, M. Gagliano
{"title":"Feeling Around for the Apparatus: A Radicley Empirical Plant Science","authors":"Kristi Onzik, M. Gagliano","doi":"10.28968/cftt.v8i1.34774","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Scientists are oft trained to think that “feeling” is not simply irrelevant but antithetical to their methodologies. That scientists are not simply objectively trained minds but also bodies that feel has been an important feminist contribution towards reimagining scientific knowledge—not as the product of self-directed teleological discovery, but as situated in time, place, and transformed through relations that oft exceed the binary logics of scientific representation; those founded upon rationalist distinctions between feeling/knowing, body/mind, object/subject. Through a collaborative methodological lens we (ethnographer + scientist) are calling radicle empiricism, we ask how a scientist comes to make sense of feeling and knowing—and the relations “between”—throughout shifting configurations of a pea plant decision-making apparatus. By focusing this study at the level of the apparatus (Barad, 2007), we provide an empirically based description—not a proposed model or theory—of some of the material-discursive relations through which the concepts of “feeling” and “knowing” are (re)configured through a scientist’s unexpected encounters with pea plant root tips or radicles. As such, we offer a perspective that does not assume “feeling” or “knowing” as distinct categories of a scientist’s knowledge making endeavors, nor as categories of experience that function independently of the historical, social, and material conditions through which they are made perceptible. Immanent to this description is an invitation to explore creative and collaborative practices of science-making in which the phenomena we study—whether pea plants or other persons—have the opportunity to reformulate not only our categories of “feeling” and “knowing” but the conditions through which they are made possible.","PeriodicalId":316008,"journal":{"name":"Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.28968/cftt.v8i1.34774","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Scientists are oft trained to think that “feeling” is not simply irrelevant but antithetical to their methodologies. That scientists are not simply objectively trained minds but also bodies that feel has been an important feminist contribution towards reimagining scientific knowledge—not as the product of self-directed teleological discovery, but as situated in time, place, and transformed through relations that oft exceed the binary logics of scientific representation; those founded upon rationalist distinctions between feeling/knowing, body/mind, object/subject. Through a collaborative methodological lens we (ethnographer + scientist) are calling radicle empiricism, we ask how a scientist comes to make sense of feeling and knowing—and the relations “between”—throughout shifting configurations of a pea plant decision-making apparatus. By focusing this study at the level of the apparatus (Barad, 2007), we provide an empirically based description—not a proposed model or theory—of some of the material-discursive relations through which the concepts of “feeling” and “knowing” are (re)configured through a scientist’s unexpected encounters with pea plant root tips or radicles. As such, we offer a perspective that does not assume “feeling” or “knowing” as distinct categories of a scientist’s knowledge making endeavors, nor as categories of experience that function independently of the historical, social, and material conditions through which they are made perceptible. Immanent to this description is an invitation to explore creative and collaborative practices of science-making in which the phenomena we study—whether pea plants or other persons—have the opportunity to reformulate not only our categories of “feeling” and “knowing” but the conditions through which they are made possible.
感觉周围的仪器:一个激进的经验植物科学
科学家们经常被训练认为“感觉”不仅与他们的方法无关,而且是对立的。科学家不仅是客观训练的头脑,而且是身体,这是女权主义者对重新想象科学知识的重要贡献——不是作为自我导向的目的论发现的产物,而是作为位于时间、地点,并通过超越科学表征的二元逻辑的关系进行转化;它们建立在感觉/认知、身体/心灵、客体/主体之间的理性主义区别之上。通过我们(人种学家+科学家)称之为激进经验主义的合作方法论镜头,我们询问科学家如何通过豌豆植物决策装置的变化配置来理解感觉和认识-以及“之间”的关系。通过将本研究的重点放在仪器层面(Barad, 2007),我们提供了一个基于经验的描述——而不是一个提议的模型或理论——一些物质-话语关系,通过这些关系,“感觉”和“认识”的概念通过科学家与豌豆根尖或根茎的意外遭遇(重新)配置。因此,我们提供了一种观点,即不把“感觉”或“知道”作为科学家创造知识的努力的不同类别,也不把它们作为独立于历史、社会和物质条件之外发挥作用的经验类别,这些条件使它们能够被感知。这种描述的内在是邀请我们探索科学研究的创造性和合作性实践,在这种实践中,我们研究的现象——无论是豌豆植物还是其他人——不仅有机会重新制定我们的“感觉”和“认识”类别,而且有机会重新制定使它们成为可能的条件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信