Johnson 1
Heidi Johnson
Professor Mak
LIS 502
5 May 2014
"The View from Everywhere":
Latour and Woolgar, Foucault, on the Panoptic Production of Knowledge
Introduction
According to Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar in Laboratory Life, all facts are
constructed within contexts that are both social and intellectual. If this is true, then
all facts are created from a particular social situation or context, and hence from a
particular point of view.
The implications of this claim are critical and vast. If all facts are subjectively
constructed from a particular (i.e. non-neutral) point of view, then claims to
neutrality are groundless, and efforts at neutrality are doomed before they begin. In
fact, this paper will show that language itself resists disciplinary efforts aimed at
neutrality. Not only that, but even impartiality, a slightly less rigid form of discipline,
is thrown into question, as every social circle is defined by particular norms,
customs, values, and beliefs rather than universal ones. It is impossible to approach
or judge texts written from different points of view equally and without bias,
because the reviewer always has his or her own opinions that are more or less in
agreement or in disagreement with those of the author. The particular position - the
subjectivity - of a reviewer cannot be erased.
This paper will explore these claims for examples drawn from the tradition of
academic peer review and the discipline of knowledge that occurs in Wikipedia's
Johnson 2
commons-based peer production (Brabham, 7). Ultimately, it will be argued that
both neutrality and impartiality are impossible. The implications of this argument
are both profound and far-reaching. If neutrality is impossible, certain ethical
principles of librarianship, namely that of neutrality, must be re-evaluated and
reconsidered. Then what are the alternatives to neutrality and impartiality? Having
a particular position is the only alternative, yes, but what kind of position would be
an ethical position? What is the librarian or information professional to do if his or
her position does not agree with those positions predominantly held by others
within the discipline? Finally, what does it mean to claim a neutral point of view?
What point of view - unowned and unacknowledged - is hidden behind this guise of
neutrality? These questions and more will be addressed below.
Part I: "The Social" Affecting the Construction of Facts
Not even facts are neutral. Facts are explanations of phenomena or
observations, and any set of phenomena or observations can be explained in
multiple ways. This is Latour and Woolgar's claim in Laboratory Life (citation). By
establishing that not even facts are neutral, because they are bound up with
particular contexts and social practices, we will see that outside (social) forces of
discipline are always at play in the construction of facts and hence the production of
knowledge.
Latour and Woolgar take an anthropological approach to the study of the
discipline of science (L/W, p. 12). They do not believe that science should be
immune to sociological or anthropological analysis simply because of the exalted
status and exoticism that surround it. Science can and must be understood as a
Johnson 3
social phenomenon, not simply an intellectual phenomenon, because like everything
else, it occurs within a social context (L/W, p. 31). They give examples of so-called
discoveries of facts taking place over a number of days rather than at an isolable
point in time, and they note that observations are always affected by social factors
such as whether or not the observer was well-rested or confused.
Facts do not simply present themselves to the scientist through observation;
they are not discovered. They are neither straightforward nor irrefutable. Rather
facts are constructed. They result from putting order to observations and making
sense of them, yet there are many possible explanations, or "facts" for every given
set of observations (L/W). One remarkable aspect of their theory, based on their
own observations, is that the construction of facts - which are assumed to be
irrefutable, judging by their very definition - is subject to bias. When it comes to
disciplining scientific observations in order to construct facts, Latour and Woolgar
have this to say:
The observer has to base his analysis on shifting ground. He is faced with the
task of producing an ordered version of observations and utterances when
each of his readings of observations and utterances can be counterbalanced
with an alternative. In principle, then, the task of producing an incorrigible
version of the actions and behaviour of the subjects of his study is hopeless
(LL, 35).
There are any number of possible explanations, or "facts", to explain a given set of
phenomena or observations. Therefore, the construction of facts is a subjective
enterprise. There are no rules guiding the construction of facts besides the making
of "sense" and providing as simple an explanation as possible that conforms to the
body of scientific knowledge - the current paradigm.
Johnson 4
Here it is evident that, in Latour and Woolgar's view, there is no such thing as
an objective "view from nowhere" - or neutrality. This is because all observations of
phenomena occur within social settings. Social factors or circumstances affect the
perception of phenomena and threaten the objectivity and validity of scientific
findings. "Given the presence of social factors," Latour and Woolgar observe, "no
ordinary scientist can pursue science successfully" (L/W 21). If social forces always
interfere in the observation of phenomena, then "true" science - science that is
always valid from an objective point of view - is impossible.
That social forces always interfere in the observation of phenomena and play
a role in scientific discovery is precisely what Latour and Woolgar claim. According
to Latour and Woolgar, the separation between the "social" and the "technical" (or
also "intellectual") that is the condition of sociology as well as of science is
impossible.
Now, however, can it be countered that a "view from everywhere" is possible
- one that gives no special preference to any particular view but gives all
(predominant) viewpoints their due weight in treatment? This is precisely what
Wikipedia lays claim to in its Neutral Point of View Policy. In this view, the absence
of bias is not erasing point of view but giving predominant points of view "equal"
treatment".
Part II: Panopticism and Point of View
If all facts and thus all knowledge are constructed, then this construction
could be understood as a form of discipline, in the Foucauldian sense. Facts are
Johnson 5
shaped out of observations, and knowledge is constructed from facts. Knowledge
exists within a network that is the scientific paradigm of a particular age.
What is discipline? Foucault explains,
Discipline is an art of rank, a technique for the tansformation of
arrangements. It indivvudalizes bodies by a location that does not give them
a fixed position, but distributes them and circulates them in a network of
relations (DP, 146).
So discipline is a way of arranging bodies. These bodies move, but even in motion
they maintain their relationships to each other. For science, the bodies that are
arranged would be observations. These observations do not have fixed points but
are distributed and circulated within a network that is a particular scientific
paradigm. The paradigm adjusts to new facts that are constructed from new
observations, and arrangements are altered. Only when an anomaly presents itself is
there a true paradigm shift (Kuhn).
Knolwedge must be normalized through discipline in order to become a part
of a paradigm. Foucault writes,
The perpetual penality that traverses all points and supervises every instant
in the disciplinary institutions cmopares, differentiates, hierarchizes,
homogenizes, and excludes. In short it normalizes (DP, p. 183).
A paradigm is the accepted way of doing science in a particular age. In other words,
it is normal science. To conform to a paradigm, observations, and thus facts, must
become normalized, that is, made acceptable within the particular dominant
scientific framwork.
Within the current paradigm, it is generally accepted that neutrality and/or
impartiality and objectivity are possible, and these are standards to which many (if
not all) scientific practices are held. One example of the discipline of knowledge on
Johnson 6
the world wide web is Wikipedia, an example of commons-based peer production.
Presumably because Wikipedia articles are written and edited by "peers" who are
not necessarily preeminent scholars of everything about which they write, they are
possibly held to very high standards in their editing. This, therefore, is a prime
example of the discipline of knowledge.
On the "Wikipeda: Neutral Point of View Page", it is written,
Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means
carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then
attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly,
proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. Wikipedia aims to
describe disputes, but not engage in them.
Thus Wikipedia's defintion of neutrality conforms to a "view from everywhere"
approach, in which a variety of reliable sources are represented fairly and
proportionately and without bias, as far as possible. Any disputes about the topic
are explained, but participation in such disputes, i.e. taking a side, is prohibited.
What are the issues that one might encounter in seeking to abide by this policy? Is it
possible to fairly and critically represent a variety of views without favoring any one
viewpoint, with the writers and editors betraying no position of their own?
There are at least some examples of concepts that resist this kind of
discipline. Not only that, but there are phrases and expression in language that are
already "loaded" or charged with political meanings. It is impossible to name such
concepts without calling them into existence, unless one is refuting their very
existence. The Wikipedia article on "white privilege" demonstrates this point very
well. "White privilege" is an article in dispute; in particular, its neutrality is being
debated.
Johnson 7
"White privilege" refers to a set of phenomena whereby certain social groups
receive cerain privileges by virtue of the color of their skin, and other groups are
excluded from this privilege because of the color of their skin. The concept is
nebulous, imprecise, and divisive, yet there are plenty of observations supporting
the claim that white people are privileged in whatever form this claim might take. In
observing the "Talk" page of the "white privilege" article, it is evident how highly
contested this topic is as well as how highly conttested the meaning of "neutrality"
is. For some of the discussants, the claim that whites are privileged is perfectly
neutral. White privilege exists, just as justice exists. [See appendix A]. What is up for
debate is not whether or not white privilege exists but whether white privilege
should be defined in a particular way. For others, the very existence of white
privilege is up for debate, and as such, the topic must contain hedges. What is
evident from all these discussions is that the debates about the subject are not so
clear cut. It is unclear what the "view from everywhere" is, whether the view that
white privilege is bunk is included among those locations from which the subject is
viewed. This topic resists efforts at disciplining it to be neutral, for there is simply
too much ambiguousness surrounding it.
Another example of the discipline of knowledge can be found in academic
peer review. This seems to be a less rigid form of discipline, as the goal is not
neutrality but impartiality -that is, judging all things equally and not showing favor
to particular viewpoints. The goal, therefore, is not to discipline authors' works so
that they are neutral but to be a fair judge of the particular position that the author
takes. This is different from disciplining an article on a particular topic to be neutral,
Johnson 8
for the impartiality applies to the judgment of the content rather than the content
itself and because impartiality does not lay claim to the equal representation of all
predominant views but the equal judgment of a particular point of view understood
on its own terms. Content and positions/viewpoints do matter, but presumably the
reviewer's own position or viewpoint should not play a role in their judgment of the
article.
Yet impartiality is also a lofty goal. How are reviewers to detach themselves
ffrom their subjectivity? If they are not judging a particular work from their own
subjective standpoint, from what point of view are they judging the work? This
brings us back to neutrality, completing the circle. And how is one to judge an article
in which there is a clear subjective point of view from a neutral point of view? This,
too, is not clear.
Finally, what are the implications for librarianship? Many codes of ethics of
professional library organizations include a principle about neutrality, including
that of the IFLA. If neutrality is not possible, then librarians must have a particular
subjective position. What sort of position would this be if it were to be one that
would allow for adherence to the other principles? The focus of ethical codes is
often on securing the freedoms of patrons, including the freedom to access
information. If this becomes the guiding principle, then it should be librarians' duty
to take a position which maximizes the freedom to access information by all
patrons. This would mean increasing services to underserved populations and
defending the rights of the underserved. This, I would argue, is a social justiceoriented position, and not a neutral one.
Johnson 9
In conclusion, no information - no facts, no knowledge - is neutral. All
knowledge is produced within social contexts by subjectivities that have particular
positions and opinions about their observations and the facts that they construct
using them. This has vast and profound implications for various realms of
knowledge production, including the examples of Wikipedia and academic peer
review. Both realms of knowledge production make claims of neutrality, objectivity,
impartiality - in other words, a "view from everywhere" or a "view from nowhere".
Yet, as we have learned, this is impossible for humans, who are beings situated
within social contexts and throughly defined by their subjectivity. What are the
implications of this resistance to the discipline of knowledge and topics of
knowledge, which are inherently all non-neutral? This means that librarians, at
times, cannot even speak about particular topics without betraying a particular
position. In upholding ethical principles, though, they can abide by principles which
adhere to a social justice-oriented position, which is still consistent with the
remaining principles of these ethical codes.