Coping With Science by Gernot Bohme

Author:Gernot Bohme [Bohme, Gernot]
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9780367004101
Barnesnoble:
Goodreads: 50040890
Publisher: Routledge
Published: 2019-04-02T00:00:00+00:00

Empathy Versus Domination

This last dimension serves to define the difference between science and nonscientific types of knowledge. Remember that knowledge is the relationship of participation to what is known. At first glance this seems to be of interest only to the Platonist, if one is considering the claim of Thales or other mathematical examples. But if the object of knowledge is nature or the other man or woman, it makes a great difference whether participation is empathetic or a relation of dominance. Science is a type of knowledge that is based on a fundamental distance between the subject and the object known. This distance is generally formulated as the postulate of objectivity: The object of knowledge should not be influenced by the subject of knowledge. But more important, the subject of knowledge should not be influenced by the object of knowledge. This conclusion could not have been drawn before the social sciences emerged, because the empathy with nature was driven out of science in the early seventeenth century. So coldness and mere instrumental behavior toward nature seem now to be natural. This stance may be criticized today as far as the natural sciences are concerned, but we have to realize that such nonscientific types of knowledge as those involved in teaching, nursing, gardening, and farming presuppose a good amount of empathy with nature. Yet empathy is to be differentiated from domination. Knowledge through empathy means that the subject of knowledge is affected by, or suffers because of, its object. This is exactly the contrary to domination. Domination means that the object may be determined by the subject of knowledge, and not vice versa.

In discussing these pattern-variables, I have mentioned several examples of nonscientific knowledge—namely, nursing and personal care, other aspects of medicine, artisanship and the arts, technology and teaching, farming and gardening. Let me now sum up the characteristics in one example that I have studied more closely: midwifery, as distinct from scientific obstetrics. Traditional midwifery was based on knowledge that had been transferred in personal apprenticeship relations. It presupposed personal maturity and experience; that is, the midwife was supposed to have had children of her own. And it encompassed an invariant, only slowly changing corpus of knowledge, which was the basis of a rather diffuse, holistic competence of personal care. Midwifery was a competence integrated into the lifeworld and, hence, was affected by local customs and adapted to regional social conditions. It was an empathetic competence and thus could be performed only by women; yet it was not a competence taken up with guiding and controlling the process of childbirth. By contrast, scientific obstetrics is a rather impersonal job, based on technical competence. It can be learned in schools and through books. It presupposes neither a certain level of personal maturity nor biographic experience. A highly specialized competence, it represents universal knowledge in the sense that it is valid all over the world (at least where the appropriate clinical equipment is supplied). And it is not affected by empathy; indeed, empathy would make impossible the optimal technical guidance of the process of birth.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.