Circulating Reference - Michelle Sumovich

This week our concern is how we “pack the world into words.” Bruno Latour’s Chapter on soil sampling in the Amazon illustrates the many steps that one must take in formulating scientific conclusions and theories. Only after performing a series of preparations, calibrations, tests, and analyses is one able to conclude a “study.” Latour shows us that making reference is not pointing to ‘x’ and saying “this is the answer,” making reference is a process in which knowledge is transformed. In the context of this chapter, I think that the ability to transform knowledge is enhanced by involvement of scientists from various professional and social backgrounds, each of whom brings his/her own expertise to the table to influence what is known.

Another theme in this chapter is that of “mobilization.” Scientists mobilize the world into the realm of science by engaging the public through texts and articles. The doing of science is made possible by mobilizing nature (samples) into the laboratory. Conversely, science can also be mobilized into nature. Latour states of the field site, “I thought I was deep in the forest, but the implication of this sign ‘234,’ is that we are in a laboratory, albeit a minimalist one, traced by the grid of coordinates” (32). On thing that interests me about mobilization is that it seems to be, in and of itself, a time of great transformation. Plant samples are brought to the laboratory for analysis, but they are taken out of context of the forest; they represent only a moment in time; they’re dried to kill the fungi and insects that are a part of the referent...though irrelevant to the “matter” at hand. However, when samples from different points in time are recombined and compared to one another, they are transformed again to tell an entirely new story, one of time and change. As Latour puts it, “in losing the forest, we win knowledge of it” (38).

Circulating reference is just this. It is the pattern of giving form to matter again and again until your research question has been sufficiently addressed. Putting the world into words is a process of making reference. But, as we discussed in class, reference is a string whose credibility relies upon its traceability. The string must withstand the unwinding that occurs when one looks at the process of the forming up of matter, and this string must also be able to wind itself up once again. As studies relevant to this same subject matter are performed, the string undergoes this process of reversal, and if it proves to be credible, it is reinforced by additional credible studies, forming a rope. If it is not credible, it must be unwound to the point of error and attempted once more.

Credible knowledge can only be achieved through the use of careful field and lab methods. If one does not properly locate, record, sample, and measure the matter that is being studied, the form of the study itself is compromised. Articulating the properties of matter and imposing qualitative categories depends on the use of tools to measure samples. Latour shows us that the information gained through this process, gives data a stability that transcends time. Once we know that the properties of ‘x‘ are ‘1’ and ‘2’, we can communicate this information to the world outside of the Amazon. This is how science is mobilized. But of course, I always have to give my two cents about the importance of expressing the methods that are used in the field. Anyone and everyone can put the world into words. Without articulating one’s methods, the world is incapable of scientifically and/or intellectually determining if this is the edition which they would like to read, internalize, and accept as truth.