by Gusti Ayu Ismayanti 

Introduction 

Science communication is often time linked to the western practice of disseminating science. The development of science itself is what Medin and Bang (2014, p.3-4) said to be started to emerge in Greece as well as the whole of Europe, which provoked the idea of “the enlightenment.” This notion refers to the confidence of an individual to use their understanding or reason for knowledge. Therefore, this process leads to modern science or what we now understand as western science. As quoted from Orthia (2020, p. 1), said science communication’s origins are generally characterized as Western. Although there is no evidence saying the best practice of science communication has been done by western society (since nowadays this discipline has been done differently by many researchers and practitioners around the world), the way science is discovered, reviewed, and often developed time dominated by white and western paradigms. 

Understanding how this perspective could take place will give us a different view of science communication practice. Derived from the statement above, this essay will start by (1) understanding the meaning of deconstruction and then (2) trying to recognize the binary inside “Science Communication”. Parallel with the previous understanding, the next step (3) draws a connection between western science and its practice in science communication. Consequently, (4) it will give us a broader idea of how deconstruction could help us depict science communication from a non-western point of view. One of the examples we will use in this essay is a study of geomythology. A similar study has been done by Orthia (2020) examines how the ancestors of the Australian Yorta Yorta Nation illustrate a geological phenomenon in which they witnessed 30,000 YBP. They communicate it from generation to generation as likely could be defined as one of the examples of science communication. The example from Orthia’s study forms the basis of this essay to raise “geomythology” as one of the case studies that this essay will discuss further. This topic is also what is being said by Finlay and colleagues as one step further towards acknowledging the diverse work of science communication and liberating science communication from a white or western paradigm. 

Deconstructing Science Communication 

The term deconstruction is often associated with the French philosopher Jacques Derrida. The meaning of deconstruction from Derrida, quoted from ‘Force and Signification’ by Alan Bass, said that deconstruction creates a displacement force that propagates through the system. In another word to say, Derrida claims that giving a name or meaning to something is relative to the context. Another definition Royle (2000, p.11) presents is what makes every identity at once itself different from itself. Therefore, Royle concludes that there is no adequate definition to explain deconstruction uniformly, but it could be linked with what Derrida said as “new enlightenment”. 

In order to understand what the new enlightenment is, we need to grasp the idea of binary. Here Derrida wants us to be able to identify a binary in a system or concept and then deconstruct the binary. The binary itself has a broad example in the sense of the duality of an object or system, the duality in the tangible and intangible. Deconstruction attempted to show the vulnerability of these binary hierarchies (Fritsch, Lynes and Wood, 2018, p.6). At the same time, Derrida in Royle (2003, p.26) noted that if unity, coherence, and univocal are the effects arising from division and divisibility, then everything is divisible. 

Binary Inside “Science Communication” 

Deconstruction itself subsequently helps us to identify the binary in science communication. Davies and Horst (2016, p.4) explain science communication as organized activities to transfer scientific knowledge, methods, processes, or practices in an environment where non-scientists are perceived as part of the audience. This definition shows us the duality of “science” and “communication”. The notion of science started in European society when the era of enlightenment, as in 1784 Kant described it as a people’s courage to use their understanding and knowledge to answer their curiosity. This desire is born of ‘fantasy’, the dare to imagine what science we want and need. Thus, a concoction of imagination and curiosity sparks the desire for innovation. This process leads us to the modern science we know today, which is also well known as western science. 

Conversely, communication also holds an essential role in the relationship between scientists and the public. Miller K. in Davies and Horst (2016, p.43) highlights that communication is information of message transfer and meaning-making production. This statement is what Palmer in Davies and Horst (2016, p.42) define as ‘multidirectional’ in which communication appears, oscillating between experts and the public and between the public and the public to produce a real meaning and understanding of knowledge. Additionally, communication is all about relationships. It appears more complicated than it seems. The communication process includes uncertainty, trust, conflict, and much emotion. Therefore, science communication is also required to be known as a cultural phenomenon (Davies & Horst, 2016, p.9). 

Western Science and Practice in Science Communication 

Many studies have examined how mainstream science spread and how general science was developed ‘by the people in the 19th and 20th centuries in Western Europe, particularly England and France (Topham, 2009 in Orthia, 2020, p.3). Indeed, modern science brings much innovation to human development. Some contradictions also portray the other side after we understand the deconstruction of science communication as a western paradigm. In Medin and Bang (2014, p.27-28), Sandra Harding stated that only modern Western science shows that it has the resources to escape the universal tendency to naturally project nature’s cultural assumptions, fears and desires. The understanding of the deconstruction of science communication from the western point of view is something that unemotional and detached. It perceived being about a value-free ideal where the objectivity of the science practice should be neutral, with no bias in research, unemotional and detached. Alternatively, Collis (2020) considers that knowledge is made from various points of view which background of the scientist also matters then; consequently, there is no such ideal or “unbiased” in science. 

In some cases, historically, the practice of science always brings another agenda besides the scientific research itself, as Londa Schiebinger in Dawson, E. (2019, p. 29-30) argued that we must be careful of western scientific projects that try to involve people. From the point of view of justice, science, like all human undertakings, has a socio-political history and is dominated by colonialism, racism, misogyny, 

ableism, homophobia and heteronormativity, and other causes. Given all the arguments mentioned by Orthia (2020, p.6), it all makes sense since, in other words, labeling anything as “science” (or withholding the label) as an effort to decolonize ideals and the best effort historians could make carries a value judgment with great political resonance. 

Deconstructing Science Communication from “Non-Western” Point of View. 

Case Study: Geomythology 

While the practice of science communication in the western paradigm focused on how scientific methodology is perceived and how it is being recognized and validated by the public, the deconstruction of science communication shows another way to depict this from a ‘communication’ point of view. As it is explained above, the communication process includes uncertainty, trust, conflict, and much emotion. David Archer’s thoughts, written in Chakrabarty (2012, p.12), raised a new perspective: he worries that human beings do not care about the science he is trying to tell. He stated that human beings could not imagine beyond a couple of times before and people are too far in the future; consequently, scientists are keen to create public informed with scientific information very similar appeal to experience. This brings us to one example of deconstruction of science communication which could be a ‘communication point-of-view and redefine the practice of science communication in the non-western area is a term called Geomythology. 

According to Chester and Duncan (2007, p.203), geomithology is an oral tradition that perpetuates memories of pre-historic geological events. In the ancient era. Another description from Yulianto (2018, p.1-2) stated that geomythology studies are carried out to restore myths to historical narratives. Humans created legends and myths, but the human creators did not witness the geological event and are not included in the realm of geomythology. Records of folklore and traditional activities related to natural events are recorded in notes by Chester and Duncan (2007, p.205). Some examples of these are stories from North America. Harris (2000: 1312-12) stated that the indigenous community of Americans maintain their oral myths about the eruption of Mt Mazama in Oregon back in 7500 BP for over 250 generations. Still written by Chester and Duncan (2007, p.206), not only in Java, as indigenous people of Mt. Bromo still sacrifice any living material to the Mountain. Including Sigurdsson (1999) also recorded in Northern Europe, in Icelandic ancient belief, Surtur, the almighty, was believed to be the incarnation of eruption. Geomythology is used to disseminate a scientific phenomenon or natural disaster through folklore. This comprehensive understanding of forms of art, storytelling, and fiction, which include emotion and beliefs, is another realm of communicating science. 

As a result, in areas with a short written historical span, it is difficult to find written records of natural disasters that occurred before the modern era. The method to find out is to read the unwritten records in the form of evidence in the soil and rocks. Eko Yulianto is a paleontology researcher who researches pre-historic disasters and believes that legends about natural phenomena that occurred in the past were human intellectual attempts to devise causal explanations for the various disaster events. This explanation is used as a basis for carrying out various actions in an effort to overcome and deal with similar events in the future. A similar understanding is stated by Chakrabarty (2012, p.11) where legend could be a metaphor for information that is outside of human capacity, knowledge, or visual at that time to record and present this natural disaster in the realm of human experience. 

The phenomena of globalization and global warming, which are predominantly caused by humans, state that we are in the Anthropocene era. This understanding can also take a different approach from Chakrabarty’s statement (2012, p.9). He stated that the idea of humans representing a geologically enormous force and influencing the entire planet is new. It then means that humans are now considered part of the earth’s natural history. Nevertheless, it is hard for humans to sense ourselves act similarly as a geophysical force despite the fact we recognize that this situation is a result of our collective existence. Continuously, in line with what Chester and Duncan (2007, p.210-211) present, where several geomythological phenomena intersect with the belief in human actions that were not good and lead to 

wrathful natural events. This statement is followed by what Yulianto (2021, p.10) conveyed regarding the birth of a culture in the form of objects and intangibles, which explicitly and implicitly record these events. So, culture is a collection of knowledge about living, especially how humans interact with their surroundings. This knowledge has been continuously collected, verified, and tested from event to event and from generation to generation throughout human history. Knowledge, which has been partially transformed into belief, is practiced in human life and becomes a guide for overcoming various problems. 

Geomithology finally opened a new crust in the dualism resulting from the deconstruction of ‘science communication’ described at the beginning. Aside from the scientific phenomena, there is a vulnerable side of the human that can only be touched by personal approaches. Nowadays, the practice of geomythology has also been done in collaboration between the public and scientists. Geomythology is also nowadays being implemented in the practice of geotourism. Geotourism is tourism surrounding geological attractions and destinations (Dowling & Newsome, 2006). The practice of geotourism communicates scientific and natural phenomena with geomythology and folklore stories through tourism activity. It also produces active communication flow not only from scientists to the public but also public to public. Quoting Chakrabarty’s (2012, p.10) own language, a person’s description of their understanding of knowledge makes more sense because it is relevant to other existing descriptions. Practically, there is a lot of science communication practice. Quoted from Orthia (2020, p.7) if we consider science as knowledge other than the recent Western point of view; we need to consider opening “science communication” to practice beyond it. A practice that effectively communicates science from humans with more human language lets goes of the human entity as part of nature itself. 

References: 

Chester, D. K., & Duncan, A. M. (2007). Geomythology, theodicy, and the continuing relevance of religious worldviews on responses to volcanic eruptions. Living under the shadow: The cultural impacts of volcanic eruptions, 203-224. 

Collins, P. H. (2020). Defining black feminist thought. In Feminist theory reader (pp. 278-290). Routledge. 

Dawson, E. (2019). Equity, exclusion and everyday science learning: the experiences of minoritised groups. London, U.K.: Routledge. Pg 29-30 

Dowling, R. K., & Newsome, D. (Eds.). (2006). Geotourism. routledge. 

Fritsch, M., Lynes, P., & Wood, D. (Eds.). (2018). Eco-Deconstruction: Derrida and Environmental Philosophy (1st ed.). Fordham University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt201mp8w 

‘Force and Signification’, in Writing and Difference, trans. Alan Bass (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1978), 3–30. 

Medin, D. L., & Bang, M. (2014). Who’s asking? Native science, western science, and science education. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press. 

Miller K (2005) Communication Theories—Perspectives, Processes and Contexts. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, inc. 

Orthia, L. A. (2020). Strategies for including communication of non-Western and indigenous knowledges in science communication histories. Journal of Science Communication, 19(2), A02 

Palmer SE and Schibeci RA (2014) What conceptions of science communication are espoused by science research funding bodies? Public Understanding of Science 23(5): 511–527. 

Royle, N. (2003). Jacques Derrida (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203380376 

Royle, N. (2000) ‘ What is Deconstruction?’, in Deconstructions: A User’ s Guide, ed. Nicholas Royle (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave), 1–13. 

Ringkasan Indonesia:

Mendekonstruksi Komunikasi Sains: Perspektif Non-Barat dalam Geomitosi

Komunikasi sains sering dikaitkan dengan cara Barat menyebarkan ilmu pengetahuan. Menurut Medin dan Bang (2014), sains dimulai di Eropa, saat era Pencerahan. Ini membentuk sains modern yang sekarang kita kenal. Namun, Orthia (2020) menunjukkan bahwa komunikasi sains sering dianggap berasal dari Barat, padahal praktiknya bervariasi di seluruh dunia. Artikel ini akan melihat pendekatan non-Barat dalam komunikasi sains melalui geomitosi.

Dekonstruksi (Deconstruction), konsep yang dikembangkan oleh filsuf Prancis Jacques Derrida, mengajak kita untuk mempertanyakan bagaimana cara kita memahami dan menyebarkan sains ditentukan oleh paradigma Barat. Menurut Royle (2000), dekonstruksi membantu kita mengidentifikasi dan memahami dualitas dalam sistem atau konsep. Dalam kasus ini, dualitas tersebut ada dalam “komunikasi sains” itu sendiri.

Dualitas dalam komunikasi sains dapat dilihat dari definisi Davies dan Horst (2016) yang memisahkan “sains” dan “komunikasi”. Sains berkembang dalam konteks budaya Eropa, di mana rasa ingin tahu dan imajinasi memicu inovasi. Di sisi lain, komunikasi tidak hanya tentang mentransfer informasi tetapi juga membangun makna dan hubungan antara ilmuwan dan masyarakat. Ini membuat komunikasi sains menjadi fenomena budaya.

Studi menunjukkan dominasi Barat dalam pengembangan sains modern (Orthia, 2020). Harding, mengutip Medin dan Bang (2014), menekankan bahwa sains Barat sering dianggap objektif dan bebas nilai, meskipun realitasnya tidak demikian. Collis (2020) menyatakan bahwa pengetahuan dibentuk dari berbagai sudut pandang, dan latar belakang ilmuwan juga penting, sehingga tidak ada sains yang benar-benar “tidak bias”.

Geomitosi menawarkan perspektif yang berbeda dalam komunikasi sains. Chester dan Duncan (2007) mendefinisikan geomitosi sebagai tradisi lisan yang mempertahankan ingatan tentang peristiwa geologis prasejarah. Yulianto (2018) menambahkan bahwa geomitosi berupaya mengembalikan mitos menjadi narasi historis. Contohnya, komunitas asli Amerika memelihara mitos lisan tentang letusan Gunung Mazama yang terjadi 7500 tahun yang lalu. Geomitosi digunakan untuk menyebarkan fenomena ilmiah atau bencana alam melalui cerita rakyat, seni, dan fiksi, yang mencakup emosi dan kepercayaan.

Mendekonstruksi komunikasi sains dari perspektif non-Barat, seperti dalam studi kasus geomitosi, membuka wawasan baru. Praktik ini tidak hanya menyoroti keilmuan di balik fenomena alam, tetapi juga mengeksplorasi sisi manusiawi yang hanya bisa tersentuh melalui pendekatan pribadi. Dalam era globalisasi dan pemanasan global, memahami komunikasi sains melalui lensa non-Barat dan melibatkan masyarakat dalam dialog sains menjadi penting. Geomitosi adalah contoh bagaimana narasi tradisional dan pengetahuan lokal dapat menjadi bagian integral dari komunikasi sains, memperkaya pemahaman kita dan membuka jalan bagi pendekatan yang lebih inklusif dan holistik dalam sains.