Science and Society in Bali and Beyond

I found it odd throughout the beginning of the introduction that Horkheimer and Adorno were not mentioned in relation to the enlightenment goal of de-mystifying the world around us through the logic of numbers (further obscuring the world in the process to those who are not privileged with mathematical skill). Quotes like this one would seem to warrant credit: “The loss of a magical worldview was the essential precondition for the appearance of the modern sense of the self: ‘The decline of the world-view underlying magic was the obverse of the rise of the new sense of freedom and self-possession’” (2). Though admittedly the author states that these theorists suggest that the decline of magic must be seen to give way to the rise of scientism (which is problematic in his opinion). It seems interesting to me that the social scientist shunning reliance on a particular mode of thought should depend so heavily on justifying what he already observed through model simulations. Clearly, this form of irrigation works for the Balinese farmers and their testimony should be enough to convince development workers of it’s merit. I suppose this does not need to be an either or situation and indeed the mixing of both qualitative and quantitative data is desirable for decision makers.


I did think it was interesting that the chapter begins with a critique on social scientists. There does seem to be a drive to create some sort of grand theory, but there are also many which leave room for movement and nuance. There have been many themes since the modernists which analyze the blending of Western ideals with varying “traditional” practices. I put quotes around the traditional because obviously, traditions stem from someplace and themselves shift throughout time. I have read about the Balinese rice patties in the past and one could take it as a major “innovation failure”. It is always disheartening to think that modernizing entities do not stop to recognize the value in non-mechanized or less mechanized was of doing things-especially when such a system worked so well for the community as a whole! The discourse on “Green Revolution” failures looms large in the literature. Stories of farmer suicides on account of debt from purchasing the “technology packets” is alarming indeed. Only when we can slap the title of “sustainable” onto such and such technology packets do we believe that maybe our comfortable way of doing things can be spread across the globe. I believe we would have done and will do well to pay a little more attention to how other cultures do things in order to truly develop a set of best practices---or not. Best practices are extremely contingent upon a variety of factors (politics, climate, culture, etc) and perhaps may only be applicable on a local scale. The universalizing tendency of both the modern social scientists and science writ large flattens the necessity of localized solutions. Maybe we should simply get to the task of appreciating each situation as it happens? Kind of makes academic pursuits seem somewhat pointless-or extremely interesting and difficult!