-
Part III: Alzheimer Disease as a Social and Cultural Entity
- Johns Hopkins University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
PART III Alzheimer Disease as a Social and Cultural Entity Social Construction. These two words succinctly evoke an intellectual battle that has raged over the meanings and boundaries of nature, society , and science in the modern world. Although the intellectual approaches to this problem are in fact quite diverse, the tendency of the combatants to engage in caricature makes it possible to speak as though there were two clearly defined and inevitably conflicting camps. On one side stand positivistic scientists and their allies, who assert that knowledge derived through scientific procedures and validated by the scienti fic community is pure knowledge, untainted by the social environment that surrounds it, and should thus be regarded as the authoritative account of nature. On the other side stand relativistic historians and social theorists, who assert that science is a social process like any other and that the knowledge it produces is always tainted by the ideological imperatives of the scientific community and should thus be regarded as no more authoritative than any other account of nature. Though most scholars recognize that these are caricatures, after two decades of what has been called ‘‘the science wars,’’ in which these caricatures have too often been the central terms of debate, it has become difficult to approach these issues in any other way. We suggest, along with a growing number of scholars, that it is time to abandon the starkly drawn battle lines of the ‘‘science wars’’ to create a middle ground where insights coming from many directions can provide a more satisfying account of what scientific concepts tell us about the natural world, our society, and ourselves. The chapters in this sec- 126 Concepts of Alzheimer Disease tion will suggest ways in which constructivist studies can contribute to a better understanding of the concept of Alzheimer disease (AD). The essential difference between scientific studies and constructivist studies of science lies in their respective objects of inquiry. While the scientist follows a series of elaborate social, intellectual, and technological procedures in order to make some aspect of the natural world a fit object for investigation, the constructivist takes those procedures as the very object of inquiry. While the scientist works to erect walls between the prejudices of the social world and the field of scientific observation , the constructivist analyzes the means by which these walls have been erected, questions whether they are as solid as the scientist believes , and watches carefully as the scientist moves between the supposed sanctity of those walls and the larger society. Sociologist Bruno Latour distinguishes between ‘‘ready-made science’’ and ‘‘science in action .’’ Where the scientist presents science as a ‘‘ready-made’’ finished product, making the steps taken along the way appear to follow an inevitable logic, the constructivist scholar presents science ‘‘in action,’’ showing how each step along the way was problematic and fraught with contingency (Latour 1987). But a critical perspective need not be an inherently hostile one. Most constructivist work evinces respect for scientific work on its own terms but seeks a more satisfying account of that work than is typically offered by the scientist. Constructivist accounts have seldom set out to impugn the integrity of scientists or to question the validity of scientific knowledge as scientific knowledge. They recognize that scientists must primarily be concerned with science, not with its social construction. Researchers are trying to create valid scientific knowledge and ultimately to find useful treatments for AD—a task that understandably precludes intensive inquiries concerning the philosophy and sociology of scientific knowledge. Nonetheless, constructivist approaches can contribute much to an understanding of the way the concept of AD has evolved and how it is situated in a broader social and cultural context. This more nuanced account can, in turn, help to decide the sorts of knowledge that should be pursued in the future. Thus, while critical approaches to scientific knowledge about AD should not be regarded as inherently hostile to the goals of scientists, the insights they contribute should provide an important critical perspective on the agenda for future research. Constructivist accounts can further the understanding of the concept of AD in at least three ways. First and most obviously, constructivist accounts can help us to better understand the process of creating knowl- [100.25.40.11] Project MUSE (2024-03-19 13:49 GMT) A Social and Cultural Entity 127 edge about AD and, more fundamentally, how it is we have...