Geology. Massively large-scale events spread over time periods vast enough to render dynamic, earth-changing processes imperceptible—indeed unbelievable—to humans. In invoking geological time and dynamic earth processes, D + G equate the social systems, biological organizations, and other phenomena with which they are concerned to the cyclical, mass-conserving, ever-repeating processes of erosion, sedimentation, cementation, and uplift that characterize the lifespan of a sedimentary rock. Looking at the formation of rocks, D + G employ the process of sedimentation to flesh out the concept of “double-articulation.” Having long been interested in rocks, geological processes, and the astounding scale of geological time, I would like to flesh out their analogy and highlight some weak spots and possible interpretations.
In double articulation, “the first articulation chooses or deducts, from unstable particle flows, metastable molecular or quasi-molecular units (substances) upon which it imposes a statistical order of connections and successions (forms). The second articulation establishes functional, compact, stable structures (forms), and constructs the molar compounds in which these structures are simultaneously actualized (substances)” 40
Turning to a single geologic stratum, or rock layer, D + G describe the first articulation as a process of sedimentation and the second articulation as a process of folding. According to D + G’s analysis, sedimentation deposits sediments according to a statistical order, while folding establishes a “stable functional structure” and facilitates the transition of a sedimentary bed into a sedimentary rock.
While sedimentation and folding are both important processes, D + G oversimplify the process of sedimentation and misinterpret folding altogether. The effect that D + G attribute to folding—the creation of a stable functional structure—is actually a part of the sedimentation process, and it is through this sedimentation process—the first of D + G’s two articulations—that both sediments are deposited AND sedimentary rocks are created from sedimentary strata. In effect, sedimentation is itself a double articulation involving two process: deposition and cementation. Deposition describes the layering of sediments due to erosion and river transport (what D + G attribute to sedimentation), while cementation is the process by which, under the weight of miles of overlying sediments, old sedimentary strata are compressed (cemented) into the “stable functional structure” of sedimentary rocks (what D + G attribute to folding).
In contrast to D + G’s analysis, folding is not actually involved in the process of creating a sedimentary rock; rather, folding is a physical process that changes the shape and orientation of sedimentary rocks long after they have been formed.
While it is certainly unfair to expect D + G to fully understand and express the intricacies of a complex geological process such as sedimentation, I found myself surprised to see such a major oversight in a work so sweeping in its scope and so seemingly smart and exact in its wording and structure. Is this an instance of poor research resulting in an incomplete comprehension of the sedimentation process, or did D + G misunderstand the process entirely? Or did D + G understand the process but simply confuse the names of each part, replacing cementation with “folding” and collapsing both deposition and cementation into the broad “sedimentation.”
In and of themselves, these errors in terminology may be minute, unworthy of critical interrogation. However, they raise larger questions about how we approach, evaluate, and critique works of theory. Is it fair to expect theorists to fully grasp and accurately represent the diverse phenomena with which they create analogies and metaphors in their work? How do we respond when we do identify factual inconsistencies or poor representations of scientific or other phenomena? Do these errors or oversights delegitimate the work in which they lie, or do they have no bearing on the critical value of a work of theory? I look forward to fleshing out some of these ideas and questions in class tomorrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment