"Is Science Multicultural?"

In having her book title as a question, Harding immediately pulls the reader into the role of questioning assumptions about what science is, should be, has and can include. 

1. Universality/relativism/standpoints....

I wrote a paper for an undergraduate music history seminar on the Baroque period on the conquest, conversion, and conversation between Spain and Mexico through a music history lens. While it was only an initial examination of the topic, I was interested to learn about how percussion and flute instruments were introduced to Europe from the Americas. I also learned about how the Catholic Church used music as a tool for conversion. The reason I am bringing this up is that there are so many parallels between the points that Harding makes about Eurocentrism and how European music history has been taught. This includes the narrative of how instruments developed, as an indicator of advancement in technology, as well as the myth of the universality and “advancement” of Western music. For example, many scholars/historians of European music have argued that music transcends culture, but there are numerous examples that this is not the case, instead, music is rooted in social, historical and political contexts, languages, and expectations.

In Is Science Multicultural?, Sandra Harding argues for an understanding of science that is inclusive of global and local histories and interactions. The underlying issue of Eurocentric models of science/technology is that these narratives “fail to acknowledge” (p. 36) these interactions resulting from centuries of trade, expansion, and exploitation.

I think the main point is that by articulating a standpoint, all contributions to knowledge are then a piece of this universal thing called “science”. By refusing to be “relative,” Harding is claiming space for voices, histories, and cultures that have actually been part of science, but just not acknowledged.

Again, I feel frustrated that the problem is that only those with privilege can “choose” their standpoint as postcolonial or feminist, but since this is a choice, many of these narratives of Europe’s expansion and science/technology contributions still persist.

2. “cultures as toolboxes”...what does this mean? Harding says, “knowledge proves to be a resource for the collective growth of human knowledge about that natural world.” (p. 69) And, again on p. 83- she talks about postcolonial and northern feminisms ability to make contributions as dependent on “the ability of each to make use of the local resources at their disposal.”

Ok, so what does it mean for the global/local construct when cultural knowledge is viewed as a resource? How can “local” knowledge be used by postcolonial feminist standpoints without the local being “used” in a negative sense? I pull this out into thinking about fieldwork and thinking about how various disciplines/scholars have conceptualized/problematized how to represent and make “use” of knowledge. If the “local” is not always “internal” (p. 121) (apologies- some scare quotes are hers, some are mine, inspired by hers....), how does it become also external or included and by whom? Where do these dialogues occur and what/where is this “multiplicity of local resources” (p. 194) located in dominant discourses? As an international communications scholar, I am also thinking about the implications of these questions. Are multiple voices being heard more because of new media and possibilities for content creation in multiple spaces/spheres? But, I keep coming back to the Inayatullah and Blaney piece where they insist that their work not become another piece of evidence for “larger N” studies. How do all these voices then become appropriated, represented, understood, without perpetuating the same dynamics as articulated by Harding?