Distance is measured in spatial, temporal, cultural and even personal modes. The anthropologist Edward Hall, working in the vein of ecological epistemology that had its origin in studies done for the air force on air fighter and bomber crew reactions to the adventure of bombing the great cities of Japan and Germany even suggested a science of the near and far: proxemics. Newspapers and tv deal in various degrees of false proximity, which in itself is not a bad thing: after all, illusion surrounds even our most personal acquaintanceship with people and events Like the lovers in Max Ernst’s version of the kiss who wear bags over their heads, even at our closest we never quite know how far away we are.
This is of some relevance to discussions of the “epistemology” of journalism, the topic of a recent discussion between Chris Hayes and David Roberts. They debate, between the two of them, models of knowing – with Roberts claiming that most people don’t think like scientists, but like lawyers. Like the latter, they think of proving cases, unlike the former who, ideally, think in terms of where observation and experiment lead them..
Admittedly, Roberts concedes, this is a very positive picture of how scientists think. But he continues with his “most people” theme: “Well this is my point, it's difficult even for scientists, but of course normal people don't think like that. Even in specifically designed institutional contexts meant to encourage that kind of thinking, even there it's difficult. Most people, most of the time, think like lawyers, i.e., they have a case, they have their conclusion in hand, and they're going out, gathering information, trying to build a case for it. Most people, most of the time, think like lawyers and reason like lawyers, not like scientists.”
I read this discussion and wondered about the sacrifice that pulled out of the jungle of epistemological stances the scientist/lawyer divide. Although I know that those two epistemic models are often the only ones discussed in journalism by journalists.
Why chose these professional types? Especially as we know that “most people” are thinking in various modes of practice. They are lovers or children or parents, they work as nurses or plumbers, they go on vacations or are kicked to the curb, literally, for debt.
When I buy groceries, for instance, I don't think about a case like a lawyer. I think more like an 18th century natural philosopher, reviewing the experiments and having a very vague idea of the variables – but knowing that I must have some picture of the dependent variables in order to get the right groceries. That must be affordable and not wasted.
The experiments are composed of meals cooked and either enjoyed or rejected. Other determinants are price, variety, and time spent cooking. I repeat, these variables are not independent of each other. There’s another variable – who I am cooking for. Each person eating has a history of what they like and how they like it cooked. Plus my own history. And, as a parent, I am continually engaged in trying to get my child to eat healthily – even as I have to admit my own numerous failures to eat healthily.
This adds up to a certain impressive complexity wh/ becomes evident if, say, a stranger joins our meal. Say a foreign student. And wonders why we are eating this one thing and not this other thing, etc.
Now, consider the way “most people” in America work. And notice that most people are neither policy wonks, scientists or lawyers. I think one of the ways to think about people's epistemic lives, a way of seeing the ecology of the epistemic stances, is to look at what they do. There are comparitively few scientists and lawyers in, say, the U.S. Here's the chart of job types from 2024 in the U.S:
| Occupation | Employment |
|---|---|
Home Health and Personal Care Aides | 3,988,140 |
Retail Salespersons | 3,800,250 |
Fast Food and Counter Workers | 3,780,930 |
General and Operations Managers | 3,584,420 |
Registered Nurses | 3,282,010 |
Cashiers | 3,148,030 |
Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material Movers, Hand | 2,982,530 |
Stockers and Order Fillers | 2,779,530 |
Customer Service Representatives | 2,725,930 |
Office Clerks, General | 2,510,550 |
One notices the vast number of home health and personal care workers, of nurses, of fast food and counter workers, of retail salesmen, etc. Now, everybody has a situation, everybody makes epistemological adjustments to it, but I very much doubt the lawyer/scientist model can help us understand the knowledge of the cashier at the Mcdonalds in Tucker Georgia who has been there for five years, has a child who is being raised by her mother, has a boyfriend who is employed as a temp, and has a steady stream of office workers coming in for lunch. The epistemological situation here is a bit like that studied by Hall with his bomber aircraft personnel, who are under tight time constraints, and who engage in intense activity at certain times and at others don't, as this is spaced out over the entire practice segment of their time.
It is into the epistemological jungle we have to plunge, in my opinion, to understand the way “social media” has changed us. The us being a pretty charged pronoun.
No comments:
Post a Comment