Reply to comment

Barad: "According to agential realism, "gender," "race," "class," and "sexuality" refer to specific social dynamics, not to properties attributable to a particular person. These terms are historically, geographically, and politically situated." (Teaching the Majority, Barad, p.68)

It took me a long time to read this an understand it. I'm not even sure if I really understand it right this very second, but here is me trying...

Me: So, Barad, what you're saying is that our concepts of what it means to be a man or a woman, of a particular sexual orientation, of a class are all socially constructed demarcations, much like we demarcate ideas in science? So, classifying or qualifying terms that fall within each of these respective social categories are to realism, as Cartesian cuts or technology or terminology is to realism as you (and Bohr) define it?

Barad: Sure, something like that.

Me: Cool. But let me see if I really understand. Let me use an example that I think is relevant. My boyfriend, a philosophy/writer type like yourself, always asks me "What is a species?". He doesn't get it. Why is this very similar thing a different species from that very similar thing. Why are they separate? At first I would try to explain it as it had been taught to me. I would say, "Well, if populations are isolated by reproduction, meaning that there is no successful hybridization between two groups, then they are distinct from each other and considered separate speces" or "Morphologically, this mandible length and that tarsal segment are modified making them different, blah blah blah." That wasn't enough for him. That wasn't what he was looking for. And eventually, I uttered the answer he finally wanted to hear from me. I said, "Well, I guess there really aren't species. A warbler doesn't care that we call it a warbler. This is an idea that we imposed on nature, that we use to make sense of the world around us." (I may not have been quite that articulate). Surely enough, he smiled, nodded his head, and was satisfied. And it is for the very reason that you speak of in your writings. The idea of "species" is constructed. Our interpretation of the world is one with the world itself. We could come up with completely different ideas about what a species is, and people have. It's just they way people have done things for so long that makes it "common" practice.

Barad: I think you're getting it.

Me: Thanks, I'm trying. So, getting back to social dynamics and dualisms... We use other social definitions and classiciations in discourse about the world and how it works. Just as we must be careful about and helf accountable for the demarcations we make in science (in understanding that we create them and that they have context - that they are not preexistant in nature), we must be concious of how we use social terminology in discourse, and how our ideas about race, sexuality, gender, etc. will have an impact on the world around us. So, for instance, defining things as masculine or feminine... those are social constructs... We associate certain characteristics with men or women, based on historical, social precendent. Huh. I think that makes a lot of sense. You're really, very insightful.

Barad: Well, I have my Ph.D.

Me: Yeah, I need one of those. Or not, since that could be a whole socially constructed thing, too. Ha, you know what I mean?

Barad: I worked very hard to get where I am.

Me: No, that was just... a joke. You obviously deserve... *ahem*... But, getting back to the point, I guess the next question is how to apply your ideas to actual practice.

Barad: That's always the hard part.

Me: True that, Karen. True that. I guess one way of doing this in the field of physics is through educational practices, like you discuss in your paper on Agential Literacy.

Barad: Yes, my course on 20th Century Physics was "designed to enable students to learn science while thinking about science, and to learn that thinkng about science is part of doing science... In a sense, the course itself was a meditation on scientific literacy, disciplinarity, and the consequences of particular boundary practices." (Scientific Literacy, Barad).

Me: So our scientific practices are not separate from how we behave as a society.

Barad: Exactly. "The making of science is not separate from the making of society... not because they impact one another but because the constitutive intra-actions do not honor the arbitraty boundaries we construct between one and the other." (Scientific Literacy, Barad).

Me: Yeah, totally. That's... yeah... well I pretty much can't expand on that. But I think a good way to apply your ideas about this is through education and getting rid of courses that over-contextualize physics, or may just contextualize science in the wrong way... Like the "Physics for Poets". There is no physics for poets... Everyone should think about what physics means... everyone can be a responsible scientist. You don't need a Ph.D. That's what... I meant... earlier...

*Silence*

Me: Say, wanna grab a beer? It's on me. We can cheers to the fine apparatus called the pint glass.

Fin.

* Disclaimer: This is a fictional conversation. Karen Barad did not actually talk to me, and I don't know if she likes or consumes barley beverages.