Poetry: Science vs Humanities
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2008/12/22/venus-hottentot-and-the-irony-of-science/
“One of the other good choices made by Obama’s inaugural planners was inviting Elizabeth Alexander to compose and deliver a poem. It’s not a well-established tradition. Only two other Presidents have featured poets at their inaugurations: John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton. And, of course, the mere mention of “poetry” gives folks an opportunity to burnish their anti-intellectual credentials by pulling excerpts out of context and proudly proclaiming that they don’t get it.”
“You can guess where that’s going to go. Of all the things the world needs right now, “more mockery of science by humanities-oriented intellectuals” is not one of them. Yes, yes, we know: science is cold, and clinical, and dehumanizing. It also gave us penicillin, not to mention Mentos & Diet Coke, so cut some slack, okay? At the end of the day, anti-intellectualism is still anti-intellectualism.”
“But upon reflection, I decided that my first reaction was unfair. As Hilzoy very astutely points out, the poem’s opening in Cuvier’s voice is honestly beautiful and affecting, where it could have been nothing more than sarcastic. The beauty of science can coexist with a shriveled heart.”
“More importantly, as scientists we need to be able to take a little honest critique now and then and learn from it. Although anti-science attitudes within the humanities can often be little more than a cheap pose, that doesn’t mean that science shouldn’t ever be examined critically. Georges Cuvier’s crazy theories (he was also wrong about elephants, evolution, and continental drift, but did have some good ideas about dinosaurs) are just as much a part of the history of science as Newton or Darwin. And the impulses behind them are as real today as they ever were.”
The importance of Sean Carroll’s post about the irony of science to our understanding of “The Venus Hottentot” is that it shows us the importance of reading Elizabeth Alexander’s work without any expectations and before forming any opinions, using textual evidence to support alternative ways of thinking about the poem. I think we do go through similar phases that Carroll talks about. We might get intimidated by hearing the word “poetry,” because it requires knowledge, precision, and patience in order to fully understand it without taking anything out of context. Then, we might begin to read it and criticize the author for their writing. When we first read Cuvier’s part about science and the beauty of it, we might start to criticize Alexander’s so-called hate on science and how unethical it can be. Or, we might assume that Alexander supports Cuvier and believes that science is beautiful too. However, like Carroll points out, we might begin to realize how unfair our responses were. This allows for critique, analysis on the text at hand instead of automatic opinions about the content of the poem. Overall, this can be important for Alexander’s work, because it is meant to be thought-provoking. It is meant to draw attention to the complexity of Cuvier’s science-oriented mind and then, Baartman’s character and tragic life. As a result, audiences can start to wonder what more there is to science and to civil rights. Analysis of the text and critique of the content leads to the bigger ideas that Alexander hopes to depict. Reading from a science point-of-view or a humanities standpoint would not get us very far.