I am currently applying to do a postdoctoral fellowship with Professor Tian Song at Beijing Normal University. This is a rather rare opportunity, and I very much hope it will come to fruition. As early as the beginning of my undergraduate years, I was already reading Professor Tian’s books, such as The Perpetual Motion Machine and the Goldbach Conjecture, Don Quixote’s Spear. Professor Tian can also be regarded as one of the people who first led me into philosophy of science. Of course, in terms of viewpoints and style, I differ with Professor Tian on many points, so later on my writings were basically more critical than supportive. Even so, Professor Tian’s unrestrained personality and open-mindedness are still very admirable, and talking with him is always extremely pleasant. This time, if I have the chance to help him with postdoctoral research, I do not want to establish merely a nominal relationship, but rather, if possible, to have some real exchange and collaboration in substance.
So the topic I am envisioning is a “history of garbage,” which continues my own work in philosophy of technology and can also enter into dialogue with Professor Tian. What follows is a rough statement of this plan:
Main topic: The History of “Garbage” from the Perspective of Media Ecology
This theme is both a continuation of my doctoral dissertation and an inspiration drawn from Professor Tian Song. I once heard Professor Tian’s presentation “‘Garbage’ in Phenomenological Study” at the 5th National Conference on Phenomenology and Philosophy of Technology, and I have also read related articles by Professor Tian. As for Professor Tian’s specific views, I have always been mostly critical, but I must admit that his formulation is highly inspiring and can give rise to many important questions.
If I were to collaborate with Professor Tian as a postdoctoral researcher, it would not simply be a matter of echoing Professor Tian’s ideas; rather, I would more often be developing some of his insights critically, from my own line of thought.
One important insight in Professor Tian’s thinking on garbage is that he discovered the “historicity” of “garbage.” Through conceptual-historical inquiry, he found that in the ancient world it is even hard to find a concept corresponding to the modern word “garbage.” In the ancient world, almost everything was useful, or rather, had its “place.”
The emergence of “garbage,” like the emergence of any modern technical object, signifies a profound shift in a lifeworld or a mode of thinking. To trace the history of “garbage” is at the same time to trace the origins and evolution of “modernity.”
The school of media ecology studied in my doctoral dissertation also includes phenomenological philosophy of technology in the Heideggerian context. Its attitude toward technology is neither critical nor embracing, but rather one of suspending value judgments and examining, through history, the impact of technological development on the human lifeworld and on forms of thought. Technical objects are not neutral tools; they always have some cultural or conceptual bias, and this is also a basic viewpoint of philosophy of technology. “Garbage” is of course no exception.
Yet “garbage” has a more special place in philosophy of technology/media philosophy. For if technology is that which is useful, and media is that which is “through…to…,” then garbage is precisely a counterexample: we can no longer “through” garbage. Garbage seems to be the end point of the entire chain of directives in the technical world, and also the point where technology connects with and breaks away from nature. Garbage is clearly not a natural object, but neither is it a tool, much less a work of art. Thus, within the theoretical horizon of traditional philosophers of technology, “garbage” may have nowhere to belong; it is also something discarded. But this discarding is obviously not how it should be. A sound approach to philosophy of technology must necessarily take into account the relationship between human beings and garbage.
Thus, moving from philosophy of technology/media history to the history of garbage will be a natural transition. Following Professor Tian Song in the study of garbage-related issues is also an excellent opportunity to advance my academic path.
As for Professor Tian Song’s specific positions, I have many objections. First, in terms of style, Professor Tian’s articles place too much emphasis on emotion, while not digging deeply enough in academic terms; they still need further textual verification and citation. Of course, this is precisely the kind of thing that we younger scholars can help the teacher complete.
In terms of viewpoint, Professor Tian often lumps together concepts such as urbanization, industrial civilization, and modernity, and adopts a broadly critical attitude toward them. In my view, however, these concepts should be distinguished much more carefully. For example, although the modern industrial world has many maladies, when one traces things back to their roots, it is not necessarily the case that urbanization or technologization itself is doomed to be wrong, nor is the only path for modern people necessarily a return to rural or even tribal modes of life. On the contrary, through a re-sorting of history, we may discover multiple possibilities, and thus discover different “futures.” In my view, “garbage” is in a sense an inevitable companion of urbanization, and urbanization is itself a necessary path for human civilization to move toward prosperity and diversity. Therefore, the very appearance of “garbage” need not be completely rejected; rather, one should try to recalibrate the relationship among “human beings—technology—garbage—nature” through a consciousness of historicity.
In my view, the problem of garbage is less a problem of “space” or, one might say, of the “status” of things. Garbage is a thing that has lost its place. In ancient thought, all things and beings were situated on the “great chain of being”; each thing occupied a position, and that position determined its category and meaning. But the modern image of the world no longer includes the “chain of being.” The sheer usefulness of things has replaced their “place” as the standard by which their significance is measured, and thus such rejected things can appear.
On the other hand, in my view, the emergence of “garbage” is less tied to industrial civilization than to “urbanization.” For garbage is first and foremost something discarded, and so-called “discarding” involves an “outside” space, a space that no longer belongs within my lifeworld. And “the city” first establishes precisely such a spatial separation, separating urban life from the “natural world.” In rural life, of course, there are also spatial separations, such as my field and your field, my house and your house; but although your house is not part of my property, it is still within my lifeworld. The inhabitants of the countryside live together in the same world. Whether it is a friend’s home or an enemy’s field, every place is meaningful. When I move a thing to a certain place, such an act is always meaningful; it is still a way of arranging and disposing of things, and they do not simply vanish from my lifeworld. Yet urban life for the first time establishes such a “boundary”: rural people regard the entire city as a “black box,” while urban people regard the whole world of fields as a “non-set.” The city’s internal ways of spatial division, such as garbage trucks and sewage systems, also reinforce the existence of this “outside world,” enabling people for the first time to throw something outside their world. One may think of the indigenous man in the film The Gods Must Be Crazy, who, in order to “throw away” the Coke bottle, had to travel far and wide before finally finding what he regarded as the “end of the world.” For a modern city dweller, the trash bin and the sewer are his “end of the world.”
In short, the relationship between human beings and garbage is, on the one hand, a question of civilizational history, reflecting changes in the human lifeworld; on the other hand, it is also a question of natural philosophy/philosophy of technology, encompassing the relationship between artificial objects and natural objects.
As for literature, first there is my existing foundation, centered on phenomenological philosophers of technology such as Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, and Stiegler. Second are the resources of the media ecology school, including Mumford (especially his research on urban history), Innis (his examination of the relationship between modes of communication and political-economic structures), McLuhan (the core insight that the medium is the message), and so on. As for garbage studies, in China there have so far been relatively few studies from the perspectives of intellectual history, cultural history, or social history. Abroad there are some works, such as
Scanlan, J. (2005). On garbage. Reaktion books.
Rathje, W. L., & Murphy, C. (2001). Rubbish!: the archaeology of garbage. University of Arizona Press.
Strasser, S. (1999). Waste and want: A social history of trash. Macmillan. and so on.
Other topic 1: Research on the History of Science and Culture
Although my main focus during the doctoral stage was philosophy of technology/media issues, under Professor Wu Guosheng I also received solid training in general history of science and the history of scientific thought. History of science has always been one of my key interests. During my doctoral studies, I have already written a monograph, Is Science Learnable? — A Sketch of the Cultural History of Science, which is expected to be published by Peking University Press after July 2014. However, this work is mainly a popular read written for general readers; its academic rigor is still not strong enough, and its content is not rich enough. During the postdoctoral stage, I also hope to expand this line of work.
Other topic 2: Research on Phenomenological Philosophy of Technology
Phenomenological-ontological research on philosophy of technology has always been a basic concern of Professor Wu Guosheng, and I have inherited this academic tradition as well. Further interpretation and development of this academic tradition is my long-term work. On the one hand, this means sorting out its basic program and propositions; on the other hand, it means applied research on specific issues. For example, internet issues and monetary issues are directions I have recently been paying close attention to.
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply