Modes of Syncretism

Fuzzy Studies

MODES OF SYNCRETISM

Notes on Noncoherence

John Law, Geir Afdal, Kristin Asdal, Wen-yuan Lin, Ingunn Moser, Vicky Singleton

Notoriously, Bruno Latour insists that “we have never been modern.”1 His argument is that modernity presents itself as gleaming, consistent, and coherent— as something that is pure rather than fuzzy. Think, for instance, of the mass transit system in twentieth-century London.2 You have that utterly familiar modernist icon, the red London bus. It is all curves and ﬂat surfaces. You have the underground interior, again all curves and smooth surfaces. On every vehicle, bus stop, and tube station you have a logo in the form of a modernist roundel (more curves and straight lines). You have a clean sans serif typeface that is used for every sign. And you have the distinctive and endlessly mimicked underground map designed by Harry Beck, which appeared in 1933 to replace its more geographically faithful predecessors. Famously, Beck reasoned: “If you’re going underground, why do you need [to] bother about geography? . . .

The authors would like to thank friends and colleagues, 1. Bruno Latour, We Have Never Been Modern (Brighton, both within and beyond their institutions, with whom UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993). they have talked about the arguments made in this arti- 2. Here we are drawing on Adrian Forty’s remarkable cle and, in particular, Liv Berit Carlsen, Bård Hobæk, book Objects of Desire: Design and Society, 1750 – 1980 (Lon- Annemarie Mol, Elisabeth Ruud Rønning, and Aud Irene don: Thames and Hudson, 1986). Svartvassmo.

172 ( needed to persuade everyone everyone persuade needed to — employees and not passengers least — tha the the the modernist makeover of the London transportation system in the the in system London transportation of the makeover modernist the poin the see to helps us example London Transport the apparition.) Again, sto his in purity, because modern, we never have been that say to and up together. jumbled been have geog and social, architectural, engineering, of different variety te in it functional is then it functional, is If consistent. particularly messy, a angular, complicated, is London bus) of the modernity case the s (and hood literally the under that is argument The smooth. and functional th rather cartographic complex and was map underground the and likewise; buse the pieces; and bits all machinery, lumpy the but see you could various, we halls ticket The fuzzy. symposium, of this language or, the impure it in was performative twenty- the In too. it look shabby, may a it heyday its was but in century first c to started realities material the so appeared, stations and new buses the Transpor belong to “London to were beginning they felt that they shifted: of People identities more the and traveled system. the shape to idea The too. of consis performative it thoroughly was superficial; not jus was makeover The of Latour’s point argument. the is such and at all, true not and true both is But this superficial. was makeover the that and ever as messy p as represent to itself began system the due course, makeover. In modernist an differences messy the out all design to began they at which mom the was This organization. asingle indeed was of companies mishmash note: note: it noncohere was that say to but it it better amess, would be was that We forces. labor tempte are different and approaches design, to different differ equipment, different with companies of different miscellany it wa century twentieth of the beginning the At of London Transport. again, that is argument of his part second But the pure. surfaces. smooth and Connections are the thing.” the are Connections / webMuseum page: www.vam.ac.uk/vastatic/microsites 3 1929) 1331 . The quotation is taken from the Victoria and Albert Albert and Victoria the from taken is quotation The . . It is both pure, and it is not pure at all. (It is the lack of purity that excites him him excites that of lack purity the is (It it at not all. is and pure pure, . It both is _modernism/highlights_ 1930 non In a third step of the argument, Latour also tells us that modernity is a is modernity that us tells also Latour argument, of step the athird In It is tempting to say that underneath the smooth surface it remained as as it remained surface smooth the underneath that say to It tempting is That is the first part of Latour’s argument: modernity repres modernity of Latour’s argument: part first the is That , and the authority, under the leadership of Frank Pick, decided that they they that decided Pick, of Frank leadership the under authority, the , and s, the different companies were amalgamated into a single or a single into were amalgamated companies different the s, coherent, not not coherent, triumph. At this point we get to the core of the argument: one argument: core of the we the to get point this At triumph. in 19 coherent.) more simply, perhaps, Or that we say might .html 3 Modernity is about connections, curves, lines, lines, curves, about is connections, Modernity

actually it is not pure at all. at pure not itis actually raphical logics that that logics raphical the employees the ry, is a modern ry, a modern is d embark on a d embark rms of awhole rms ent standards, ent standards, tency started started tency ents itself as as itself ents ganization ganization 1920 nt (please Think, Think, d to say say d to nd not hange hange t.” As t.” As t this t this s and and s both/ t. In In t. ure. o in o in , as , as ent s a s a an an re re s t t

Law, Afdal, Asdal, Lin, Moser, and Singleton • Fuzzy Studies 173 4 in in Accidents,” Train into Inquiry An Moves: Utopian or ments Blackwell, Blackwell, .ac.uk/fass/sociology/papers/law- mol- local- entanglement local- mol- .ac.uk/fass/sociology/papers/law- - utopias- and- train- accidents.pdf train- and- - utopias- . See John Law and Annemarie Mol, “Local Entangle “Local Mol, Annemarie and Law John See . COMMON KNOWLEDGE 174 Utopia and Organization 2002 in terms of a single logic of logic efficiency. of asingle terms in coherent, integrat shiny, iconic, gleaming, pure, as itself present able it was to impurity: deny to its purposes able it five, was sequence, for many handling what we might think of as a of as what think we might handling ne the implies turn in but it, that understanding and this ing world,” is To “modern world, the even the thing. bad that way, put it another saying we are not is a this that and at hand always is of “logics” arange that suggesting we are differ Quite coherences. about failed of away talking of opprobrium, term noncoherent. is “Incoherence” simultaneously are effects generat that practices the that learn for we also important, something to o is Latour said, That hood. (also?) is else the on under going Something pure. “modernity.” as soun such Such stories categories about large of g story, but wary we be should a seductive is This productive. not pure at all, and that that and atnot all, pure other on the impurity and one hand, on the of purity strengths dr to be); able, it was simultaneously, four, because it worked precisely log professional and technical, economic, social, different apatch still (for, too necessarily it hood, was the under performative was im the three, effects; it productive had performative, was purity its two, pu both was at London Transport work, of modernity example an of “U- do not referees favor inc journal that discover academics turns,” minds their who change Politicians trouble. liableinto get to probable.) is s you are impurity, this But your you if flaunt that suggests sium of this fact (The was. there than fuzzy being against cies in their manuscripts, and accident inquiries tend to home in on the incon on the tend home to in accident inquiries and manuscripts, their in cies working empirically. working b it this did and practice, work in at how scientists looking by life started STS field so and technology, of the by science, influenced been we all have backgrounds of disciplinary avariety piece come from of this authors The How To ThinkaboutNoncoherence catastrophe. to —led —allegedly that tencies ), ), 82 – 105 So that is the argument: modernity is a is modernity argument: the is that So , also available at www.lancs available , also , ed. Martin Parker (Oxford: (Oxford: Parker Martin , ed. fuzzy and that it always has been. The challenge is to find ways of think ways find to is challenge The been. has it always that and 5 As it did so, STS quickly discovered that the stories told stories the that discovered quickly it STS so, did As both/and - s

is what is distinctive about it why it so and is distinctive what is is 2008 Social Theory in Semiotics,” Material Law, “Actor- John see and references, Theory Network 5 . For a brief account of the history of STS and for further further for and of STS history of the account For a brief . bias for purity for bias ), ), 141 – 4 58 , ed. Bryan S. Turner (Oxford: Blackwell, Blackwell, Turner S. (Oxford: Bryan , ed. . both/and . Perhaps there is less prejudice prejudice less . Perhaps is there Common Knowledge The New Blackwell Companion to to Companion Blackwell New The . It is both pure and it and is pure . It both is ics, and it always would would it always and ics, a normative label, a label, a normative are rapidly accused accused rapidly are ed to find ways of ways find to ed ed, and organized organized and ed, d just a little too too a little d just rand narratives narratives rand ; and, as a con as ; and, re and impure; impure; re and ciety (STS). (STS). ciety aw on the aw on the onsisten e purity e purity sympo work of purity purity ently, , but sis till till n n y y - - - - - Construction of Scientific Facts Woolgar, Steve and Latour Bruno 6 Princeton University Press, Press, University Princeton 7 Mess in Social Science Research Science Social in Mess 8 Modernity Law, John see ofordering, modes On multiple. as regard we which of logics, writing when formal nothing We intend “logics.” different to also and of ordering styles Interferences,” Interferences,” Their and Disability of Ordering Modes Multiple The Alternatives: Articulating and Disabled Becoming “On many different different many herence a high degree of tolerance of of mess. tolerance degree a high not concomit cohere does and, which that to at asensitivity least then bias, consequence, this means that it also has a has it also that means this consequence, (more recently) other topics. More specifically, STS has always so always has STS (more More topics. specifically, other recently) empirically work to propensity its is DNA of the STS in STS.) strand Asecond from comes Latour that no is coincidence field’s (It the into outset. the DNAwritten from w rehearsing been we just have that impurity and about purity arguments the Transport- importa is This of science. conduct about the stories like disposition to focus on practices, which it has usually discovered to be me be to discovered usually it has which on practices, focus to disposition DNA pre its is STS the in strand Athird studies. case through working by tion empirically. So as it asked the question, “what “what question, the it as asked So empirically. and practices. and doctri elements its into Roman and Hellenistic absorbed had church early inter scholars Christian by Renaissance enemy, the in used was of acommon face the in solidarity need for brotherly of the context the in tarch and characterize some of these. The term term The some of these. characterize and became a term of opprobrium for theologians who sought to resist what they what they who sought resist to for theologians of opprobrium aterm became neous, pragmatic, and fuzzy. and pragmatic, neous, went the argument) science in the laboratory was messy, noncoherent, was he laboratory the in science argument) went the pract in articles, journal you read if the way look that it not did necessarily were idealization method” scientific about “the philosophers most by taken from different religious traditions. religious different from taken p of combining process the practice: spiritual in phenomenon not unusual of away latter, describin been it the has In studies. religious to part in and ogy sensibilities to work as we try to better understand how the noncoherent how the op understand better to work to we try as sensibilities . This argument is developed in John Law, John in developed is argument This . . For a pioneering “laboratory study” in this mode, see see mode, this in study” “laboratory For apioneering . . In this paper we refer interchangeably to modes or modes to interchangeably refer we paper this In . Our conclusion, empirically arrived at, is that there are many many are there that is at, arrived empirically conclusion, Our ; or, to shift to the vocabulary that we use in the rest of this p of this rest the in we use that vocabulary the to ; or, shift to (Oxford: Blackwell, Blackwell, (Oxford: (and usually through case studies) as it has explored both science and and science both explored it as has studies) case through (and usually Cultural Studies 10 modes of syncretism of modes Later, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, syncretism syncretism centuries, seventeenth and sixteenth Later, the in 1986 (London: Routledge, Routledge, (London:

, 1994 19 2 ). nd ed. (Princeton, NJ: NJ: (Princeton, ed. nd , no. , no. ), and Ingunn Moser, Moser, Ingunn ), and Laboratory Life: The The Life: Laboratory 6 In short, STS began life by telling very London London very telling by life began STS short, In 6 ( 2005 . After Method: Method: After 8 7 The task that we set ourselves is to discover discover to is we ourselves set that task The In what follows, we put this combination of combination we put this what follows, In ): ): Organizing Organizing 667 2004 – 700 syncretism bias for impurity impurity for bias 9 The word, Plu The by probably coined ). .

is Routledge, Routledge, Synthesis Religious of tics ing Syncretism,” in in Syncretism,” ing Shaw and Charles Stewart, “Introduction: Problematiz “Introduction: Stewart, Charles and Shaw 10 Wessels (Amsterdam: Eerdmans, Eerdmans, (Amsterdam: Wessels Anton and Fernhout, Rein Vroom, M. Hendrik Gort, AnSyncretism: Interdisciplinary Approach in Problem,” of the Definition the inition, in Religion: A Reader 9 science?,” ques the it answered . Anita M. Leopold and Jeppe S. Jensen, eds., eds., Jensen, S. Jeppe and Leopold M. Anita . . André Droogers, “Syncretism: The Problem ofDef Problem The “Syncretism: Droogers, André . belongs in part to anthropol to part in belongs 1994 or fuzziness ), ), 1 – (Sheffield, UK: Equinox, Equinox, UK: (Sheffield, ested in how the how the in ested Syncretism/Anti- Syncretism/Anti- The Poli syncretism: ught do to 26. aper, there are aper, are there , ed. Stewart and Shaw (London: (London: Shaw and Stewart , ed. styles nt, because because nt, or, not if a s. Though Though s.

of ssy. As a a ssy. As ractices ractices teroge

erates. ice (so nonco theory antly, antly, 1989 nes nes ere ere g a g a ), ), ------

1 , ed. Jerald D. Jerald , ed. – Dialogue and and Dialogue 25 2004 ; Rosalind ; Rosalind Syncretism Syncretism ). - - - Law, Afdal, Asdal, Lin, Moser, and Singleton • Fuzzy Studies 175 A Comparison,” A Comparison,” 11 Reflections on Cultural Mixture,” Mixture,” Cultural on Reflections 12 ( 1999 . André Droogers, “Syncretism and Fundamentalism: Fundamentalism: and “Syncretism Droogers, André . . Charles Stewart, “Syncretism and Its Synonyms: Synonyms: Its and “Syncretism Stewart, Charles . COMMON KNOWLEDGE 176 ): ): 40 – 62. hybridized or creolized. be subsequently have that practice and doctrine of religious forms of pure it im might because term the resisted have purity religious as and/or practice. By contrast, used descriptively the interest has bee has interest the descriptively used By contrast, and/or practice. of doct purity the protect to boundaries maintaining of) (the importance gious backgrounds. gious porary coexistence of practices and doctrines from a variety a variety from doctrines and of practices coexistence porary tem the secure or perhaps combine that processes more messy or less terizing be) classical doctrinal confusion confusion — doctrinal be) classical empe Roman by power to plays pointed some to version of (wha pointed word often the century, nineteenth t elements. In pagan and of Christian combinations unprincipled be to took tended to be the preferred terms of art when anthropologists have thought abo thought have when anthropologists of art terms preferred the tended be to either or normatively descriptively. mixtures. and other other and — animistic — f borrowed for instance, been have that features Roma both it displays because syncretic is Brazil in practice religious orthodoxies. gender (and often dominant from withdrawal and of resistance a politics imp favor, syncretism its in that argued, has Droogers André For instance, anthro and studies religious both in fortunes mixed experienced has term More recent monotheism. to of syncretism state intermediate the through fro advanced religions that it argued was which in teleology heterodoxy, aversion to of religio and domesticate sought absorb to and they companies and franchises in London that has replaced has London that in franchises and companies new twenty- Obviously, the patchwor syncretic. was ﬁrst-century syncretic here. term the use how is we w noncoherent, this and also is coherence that of religious talking amatter- is syncretism of- of way thinking, this In trade. slave the fac br traditions West the African including sources, different everything is syncretic, the changes in London Transport over a century s over acentury London Transport in changes the syncretic, is everything not disappear has big London red The bus red. painted all are but they company, RATP, transport Paris the by run and owned are buses Some of the be has uniformity design (Interestingly, too. syncretic is poration Social Compass At least in religious studies, the term term the studies, religious in least At So, borrowing from religious studies, we want to say that that we say to want studies, religious from borrowing So, . London Transport, both before and after the great design makeover design great the after before and both . London Transport,

52 11 , no. , no. On the other hand, those who hold that there is no such thing thing no is such who there hold that those hand, other the On Diacritics 4 ( 2005 14 Thus, for instance, it has been widely argued that much that argued widely been it has for instance, Thus, ): ): 12

463 29 Indeed, words such as as words such Indeed, , no. , no. – 71 . 3

no. no. Anti- syncretism in the History ofTheosophy,” History the in Anti- syncretism 13 and Theory in the Study of Religion of Study the in Theory and 14 13 . Siv Ellen Kraft, “ Syncretism/ Mix’: Not to or ‘To Mix Kraft, Ellen Siv . . Michael Pye, “Syncretism versus Synthesis,” Synthesis,” versus “Syncretism Pye, Michael . Used normatively, the focus has been on been has focus Used normatively, the 2 ( 2002 ): ): syncretism 142 – hybridization 77 . has generally been used used been generally has the previous public cor previous the ought to Brazil with with ought Brazil to m pagan pantheism pantheism m pagan

or or 6 ply the possibility possibility ply the ( of dissimilar reli of dissimilar 1994 creolization en maintained. maintained. en all practices are are practices all k of privatized k of privatized t was taken to to taken t was ): ): n in charac n in 217 n Catholic n Catholic t means of t means ed.) But if rom quite rom quite – Numen 29 pology. uggest uggest rors as as rors . ly, the Method Method come have have rine rine lies lies ed)

he 49 us us ill ill ut ut - - - - , ,

modes of syncretism. In what follows, we have used small case case small we used have what follows, In ofmodes syncretism. sty different are there too—that done is changes syncretism how this that 15 these as as these world. modern We at the work in refer to of syncretism or styles modes six tify farmer and on two yellow plastic tags pinned to the ears of ears the to pinned tags plastic yellow two on and farmer the by kept “passport” aphysical on It appears database. electronic tral acen in appears number The number. aunique has cow British Every Tracing System Cattle British The case: First inspections. In forty- mini forty- the In from people find may you eight hours inspections. of those warning much donot you get and inspections, are there So fined. seriously be to likely are you then error in be to found are you If trouble. in are you that find to likely are you wrong put foot one you if because meticulously, dothis to need They farm. the off and on cattle movements and deaths, births, all record farmers that requires schem the adisease- as measure, Intended control animal. every lutely abso trace and track to attempt astate scheme: autopian is This mal. were alright, this one didn’t matter, just amistake.” just one didn’t matter, this alright, were We percentages. lose .,you [us]. .YouIt frightened penalties get .payment. our affect could others that and adiscrepancy had we had was different. was number the passport ear the in the on and match: thing, one it said tag not did numbers the one cow for that discovered inspectors The result? cows The study. — case our in one farmer to happened what is which l and records their with fields your around walking try Moser, and Jeannette Pols (Bielefeld, Germany: Tran Germany: Pols (Bielefeld, Jeannette and Moser, Farms and Homes, Clinics, ing: Control or Care?” in in Care?” or Control ing: Farm “Good Singleton, see details, For further gleton. At its most insistent, the will to purity works by denial. It simpl denial. by works purity to will the insistent, most its At Denial Six Modesof Syncretism been. have they than coherence import were and less consistency if ways good in fitmight together do not coher that how is day practices end of at the the at is stake What decline. for puri of possibility conditions the and purity, to will the that appears it aworld which in in useful be will way (or similar) another this in syncretism mod differentiate to attempt the that is proposal modest but our definitive, sibility of noncoherence, so everything fits. All is pure. is All fits. of noncoherence, everything so sibility . This case draws on material collected by Vicky Sin Vicky by collected material on draws case This . “We got a letter from [the ministry] a few weeks after, tellin after, weeks a few ministry] [the from “We a letter got denial , domestication , ed. Annemarie Mol, Ingunn Ingunn Mol, Annemarie , ed. Care in Practice: Tinkering in in Tinkering Practice: in Care , separation 15 , care, conflict, conflict, care, - - - ence, Technology, and Human Values Human and Technology, ence, script, script, Feminism and Accountability in UK Cattle Farming,” Farming,” Cattle UK in Accountability and Feminism ooking at your at your ooking and 2010 each ani each of their of their collapse ), ), 235 g us g us s – e e - - - - 56 y refuses the pos the y refuses

studies to idento studies . Our list is not is list . Our ; Singleton, “When Contexts Meet: Meet: Contexts “When ; Singleton, ty, are in in ty, are

les or or les 37 es of es , no. , no. ant ant e e - - 4

( 2012 ): ): 404 – Sci 33 - . Law, Afdal, Asdal, Lin, Moser, and Singleton • Fuzzy Studies 177 mental Medicine and the Animal Body,” Animal the and Medicine mental ofExperi Laboratory The Parliament: to “Subjected 16

. For further empirical details, see Kristin Asdal, Asdal, Kristin see details, empirical For further . COMMON KNOWLEDGE 178 needed to make it work in the first place, and this is is this and place, first it the workneeded in make to farm on the processes messy of about the any nor cares neither sees system the thing, and the system system the and thing, r do to the failed Here afarmer different. quite are for they denial, and failure animals, or whoever aids or abets such an act, will be punished by fi by punished be will act, an such or abets aids or whoever animals, of mistreatment ormalignant of gross guilty be .should “Whoever animals to cruelty about law Norwegian The case: Second century twentieth of the turn at the with dealt was this as animals to of cruelty issue the to and Parliament Norwegian the to us takes study case Our ticated. itself is dependent is onitself no comply. must no have choice: Farmers they syste But the asymmetrical. also where no possible is power doubt relati only that something purity, to will expressi possible purest the of noncoherence. Here we witness refusal of what it running. keep on to depends part a large noncoherence. deni It in is about essential its denial in is system the clear: However, farme for the understand. authorities hownot much the obvious it Tracing is System, Cattle of the case the in By contrast, them. doto away with fashi utopian ahopelessly in all, after trying, it was of them; about many knew noncoherent mana its and the of London heterogeneities, Transport case t place. In kept ordered in be to have and that pieces and bits material varied the difficul its labor and invisible of the all needed it keep to going: practices instance). present the (as i paperwork the with mistake a small you make Sometimes farm?) a on holiday on go moment to agood ever there Is moment? wrong the at holiday on go you if (what happens time on in tags the get to difficult it is Sometimes killed.) recently was One farmers. the for dangerous be It can manhandling. the at all upset get dams (The place. first the i calves of the ears the into tags put the to it difficult is Sometimes hedges. into heads their push cows out as come tags the Sometimes In a second mode of syncretism, noncoherence is recognized but is then dome but then is noncoherence recognized is mode asecond of syncretism, In Domestication conform. to fail To understand what is happening, we first need to distinguish between between need distinguish to weTo first happening, what is understand This, then, is our first mode of syncretism: the denial of syncretism and the the and of syncretism denial the mode of syncretism: first our is then, This, messy the about all denial it in is that means which utopian, is system The Social Studies Studies Social noticed particular : this is the definition of a failure. On the other hand, hand, other the On of afailure. definition the is : this - farmer and can carry on even if some of them some of if them on even carry can and farmer nology, and Human Values Values Human and nology, Action STS,” Action in Past — ofthe Future the and of Science of

38 , no. , no. 16 6 ( 2008 denial ): ): 37 899 , no. , no. : – 917 ne ne 4 n n n ( 2012 ; Asdal, “Contexts in in “Contexts ; Asdal, ): ): 379 Science, Tech Science, – ties, all of of all ties, on of the on of the 403 al about al gement ons are are ons rs it is itrs is . ight on, on, he he m s . - -

17 other. But Parliament and the Norwegian electoral system can can system electoral Norwegian the and Butother. Parliament the inside nested one assembled, were logics The society. protecting a chapte in embedded itself was section but this act, of the tion one sec in addressed was logic individualist the instance, for Textually, or imprisonment up to six six up to or imprisonment — selves ticating (while at the same time denying) noncoherence. In In noncoherence. denying) time same at the (while ticating men in receipt of poverty relief or convicted of particular crimes. of particular orconvicted relief of poverty receipt in men co Neither not vote. could of twenty-five age the under men and tended to favor the majority party. majority the favor to tended that system electoral skewed and acomplex in candidates particular for of domestication. This electorate voted mainly for for mainly voted electorate This of domestication. aform also was at all electorate an was there That it. within dissent of amount and of variety degree the presumably, thus, and electorate the limiting of denial, form obvious an was arrangement constitutional 1900 ral system amounted to around around to amounted system ral Odelsting, no. Odelsting, (Propos purposes.” scientific for animals on experiments ful pain conduct to places designated in persons appointed allowing from authority, bestowed has King the whom to orsomeone King, the der gations indi gations (albeit inferior) as count should — animals perhaps and obli and rights with of individuals acollection argued, some is, society individualist and liberal was logic body. A second the in circumstances p of particular product body, the the within site a definite as recognized of being process the in was pain science: medical from came One at were work. logics noncoherent various agreement, an to coming rather than a violation of animal rights. of animal aviolation than rather society to adanger was animals to order. Cruelty social the to damaging and people for bad was animals to cruelty For them, of society. basis moral the erode turn in might dulling ethical such that and insensible, morally them rendering people, corrupt might animals to cruelty that worried were Conservatives sensibilities. moral and norms moral on dependent order social established an was Here society collectivist. and hierarchic conservative, was This too. involved logic different quite pain. unnecessary from freedom including rights, own their with als islative text: ticating the issue of cruelty to animals were both written in written were both animals to of cruelty issue the ticating ske Borgere,” December December Borgere,” ske /blandet/stemrett_valg.pdf (accessed June June (accessed /blandet/stemrett_valg.pdf . This rule of exclusion in a rapidly changing electo changing arapidly in ofexclusion rule This . . Statistics Norway, “Stemmeberettigede ere de nor de ere “Stemmeberettigede Norway, . Statistics also be understood as a set of practices for recognizing and domes and recognizing for of practices a set as understood be also The two radically different different radically two The — conflicting even — above for do contexts In In These first two logics are individualist, but there was another another was there but individualist, are logics two first These 1902 Parliament passed this bill into law. In the process of process law. the into In bill this passed Parliament 24 : 1898 2 / , 99 2010 ) , www.ssb.no/a/magasinet 5 6 percent of the voters in in voters the of percent —months. This decision does not hin does decision This —months. 18 This arrangement was a second asecond was arrangement This 24 , 2013 ). - -

parties Gyldendal, Gyldendal, 18 [ The Norwegian Parliament through 150 Years . Rolf Danielsen, Danielsen, Rolf . 1900 rather than hysiological hysiological ition to the the to ition women women r about r about 17 1964 them This This vidu to the proposed leg proposed the to uld uld al, al, ). ------: : Det norske Storting gjennom 150 år gjennom Storting norske Det mes - - ],

vol. vol. 2 (Oslo: (Oslo:

Law, Afdal, Asdal, Lin, Moser, and Singleton • Fuzzy Studies 179 COMMON KNOWLEDGE 180 ment difference. — homogenized also that a process tion is a mode of purification, so it necessarily depends on impu depends it so necessarily a mode is of purification, tion question. Finally, decisions were arrived at by a majority vote vote ata majority by arrived were decisions Finally, question. out of the was fighting and denied, were others permissible, were ing again, differences were being domesticated: certain forms of forms certain domesticated: being were differences again, Once of debate. conduct proper the erode might that leaflets, as such materi of extraparliamentary circulation the to given was sideration rendered commensurable, and turned into quantitative differen quantitative into turned and commensurable, rendered differe qualitative of system, kind this in butcoherences, overall, interventions; shouting and insults were forbidden; and seriou and forbidden; were insults and shouting interventions; of ornumber length the on limits no formal were there of speaking; order aparticular was there Parliament: in debate for rules the involved 114 reduce were of voters of thousands hundreds while homogeneities, party into aligned were of views amultiplicity denial: and domestication ter are rendered univocal in a decision. This second mode of syncretism, mode second of syncretism, This adecision. in rendered univocal are ter want to say that there is a is there that say to want We of migh coherence never arises. absence or issue its the then never meet, and separ live put together. they are If noncoherent they are if only Practices Separation all. after coheres t something into difference of noncoherence turning by fangs the you draw mode second of syncretis the is this So example. parliamentary the in found or c talking involve the amode of it not ordering, does necessarily As tication used to lean against the partitions looking at the cows. Michael says that that says Michael cows. at the looking partitions the against lean to used father how about his he talks Then laugh. him it makes funny: is there one over The soon. calve one will that unwell; been one has this cows: of one the about something he says but occasionally silent, been he has Mostl waiting. and watching Just cattle. at the looking minutes, twenty for this doing been He has apartition. on leaning barn, the in is Michael ejected. be do to we so, will we try If there. or vote excluded. You speak are Icannot of difference and forms most which fro amore space secluded is or less latter The Parliament. Norwegian the and mode of domestic syncretic about the again Think apart. holdto practices ef takes it often because is This easy, passive. too too sound process the makes wa But this issue. noncoherence and an put together are becomes or ot some location in until, not realized get does potential members of Parliament. A third set of homogenizing practices practices of homogenizing set Athird of Parliament. members Of course matters were more complicated than this suggests. Dome suggests. this were than more complicated matters course Of To think about the effort that holds practices apart, we ba go apart, holds practices that effort aboutTo the think , is a multilayered and thoroughly material set of set homogenizin material thoroughly and a multilayered , is potential for syncretism lurking in the wings, but the but the wings, the in lurking for syncretism in Parlia in speak s con her, different practices her, practices different d to d to als, als, y y - - -

ces. Then the lat the Then ces. y of describing it y of describing nces are tamed, tamed, are nces rities, on non rities, ck to the farm. the to ck g practices. g practices. ounting ounting ate lives ate lives domes stica ation ation fort fort hat m: m: m m - - - - t t /SingletonLaw at www.heterogeneities.net/publications available also John Law, “Devices as Rituals,” Rituals,” as Law, “Devices John 19 different times. Another part of the answer is: by is: by answer of the part Another times. different the cattle. And these two kinds of separation imply a third, that of that athird, imply of separation kinds two these And cattle. the f responsibility takes another while paperwork, on the concentrates Michael, how did his father, find the time to do to it all? time the father, find how his did Michael, how do pressure, under others the puts task each Since books. the balancing haymak market, to going hedges, and fences the maintaining paperwork, but do so time, takes much do. to too Caring always is there farm: on the modity com of way one ascarce is another. Time the do not in get they that so apart need to they time held need be to same together. that the At logics tive lot of different logics. There are logics of care, economic logics, and adm and logics, economic of care, logics are There logics. lot of different embedd are practices alot of different cases, of these each noncoherent. In it i time coherent, but of most the looks and together comes everything which separation 6 tion However, so too are what one might think of as of as However, what one think might are too so a noncoherent of keeping ways practices important are of these fields. All tell this story because it illustrates the argument that we w that argument the it illustrates because story this tell Howe partition. the against he leans as passports about cattle thinking TracingP System. Cattle of the penalties and demands about the ahurry. in done be can that thing not some is For, this problems. yes, any were there orwhether well, were they whether understand to time spending He was cattle. the for caring was father his that he now understands says Michael fields. the of one in them watching agate, against orleaning cattle; the watching barn the in him find and him for looking go would they work.” Then from “escape to trying he was “gone or that he had missing,” that ing say father, his about joke to used family how the He remembers work. of aform actually It is of “doing nothing.” amatter not just is watching realize he never father his from farm the on over he took until hours against a partition watching the cows. They are are They cows. the watching apartition against hours f lean father his and when Michael happening what is is separation it that take and the farmer are being set apart to create a space for caring. aspace create to apart set being are farmer the and outside: th the from insulated time and space a privileged creates waiting pra the ritual, version of areligious asecular like something In space. and , no. , no. . This topic is explored more fully in Vicky Singleton and and Singleton Vicky in fully more explored is topic This . : the paperwork is done in the kitchen, and the cattle are in the barn or barn the in are cattle the and kitchen, the done is in paperwork : the 3 ( A part of the answer is: by is: by answer of the A part As with London Transport, so with the farm: there are some contexts in in some contexts are there farm: the with so London Transport, with As This is the same farm we discussed earlier. No doubt Michael is worrying earlier. worrying No is doubt Michael we discussed farm same the is This 2013 . ): ): 259–77 2012 DevicesAsRituals.pdf , doi: 10 . 1080 Journal of Cultural Economy Cultural of Journal / 17530350 temporal distribution . 2012 . 754365 ;

practices for separating social distribution social . Different tasks are done at are tasks . Different creating d that d that ant to make about make to ant 19 - - a sealed off time time off asealed spatial segrega spatial . One person person . One erhaps heerhaps is or feeding or feeding . And we . And be held be ing, and and ing, inistra ctice of ctice e cattle e cattle ver, we ed in a a in ed part. part. the the or or es es - - - s s

Law, Afdal, Asdal, Lin, Moser, and Singleton • Fuzzy Studies 181 this bit of data and for sharing their results. For a discus results. their sharing for and bit of data this use us letting for them to grateful We deeply are Carlsen. Berit Liv and Svartvassmo, Irene Aud Rønning, Ruud end- hospital on project of- clinical Elisabeth by care life 20

. This case draws on material collected in relation to a a to relation in collected material on draws case This . COMMON KNOWLEDGE 182 the materials at hand, and feeling your way. It is a question of being sensitive t way. sensitive your of being It aquestion feeling is and at hand, materials the negotiatio gentle of judgment, amatter is and happening on whatdepends is co that it contingency is relate. For logics caregivers two about how these no hard- are there that us telling is “social.” nurse The latter and- the f c loved We ones. with will relations are there other on the and varied), very it (which is biomedicine is there one hand, the On logics. different two embed experience. the share and them with there be to at least again, yet or, differently and of dying process of the control take and on going “own” is to what professionals the want might member family the differently, Or, and practice. professional and care of advanced need in and ill very be might patient the times, at other But passed. just orhas close, very is moment of death the helpfor when call only They dying. is who person the with alone be to want relatives possible as themselve care — the organize let to them or, indeed, person dying the with time much as relatives give to then and peace, in and alone patient the leave to important it is sometimes that say Nurses it is: varies. answer The doit to well. and ones loved with relations and the dying [person].” dying the and have they what entering about cautious — careful, family very I am the thin to I tend so? much too Perhaps relatives. the for arena the We leave that. like alittle it feels Or longer? any don’t anything need they suddenly and relatives and members family come then and lot, a who need they judgment, and monitoring clinical continuous need they care, oral need they changed, clothes and dressings their have to need they turned, be to have They professionalism. our and presence our need patients Terminal phenomenon. astrange is this think “I End- case: Third of- Norway in care life The fourth mode of syncretism takes us to end- end- to us takes mode of syncretism of- fourth The Norway. in care life Care time. and space same the into to do not collapse they long so as coexist can logics Different syncretism. next case study a nurse is speaking. is anurse study case next The issue is how to relate a patient’s medical care to his or her his to care a medical patient’s how relate to is issue The Here, to simplify, we are in the presence of two kinds of practice that that of practice kinds of two presence the in we are Here, simplify, to Division , then, and practices that divide, constitute a third mode or style of mode or style athird constitute divide, that practices and , then, - ning, ning, Røn see work, oftheir context the in project ofthe sion Nurse in Hospital in Nurse Nær døden døden Nær — i sykehus sykepleier som ] (Oslo: Diakonhjemmet Høgskole, Høgskole, Diakonhjemmet ] (Oslo: k so. But But k so. s. Often Often s. le s s

[ Near Death — as a a —as Death Near 20 ast rules rules ast unts. It unts. In our our In gether gether 2013 self self all all n, n, o o ). - theology professor argued that the church should be careful ab careful be should church the that argued professor theology political and religious both in legitimate therefore was church of the initiative the that and matter achurch indeed is God’s creation 21 is seen as environmentally dangerous. In In dangerous. environmentally as seen is and limit the to technologies It pushes contested. and controversial is of Nor coast northern the off Ocean Arctic the in oil for Drilling Norway in science and religion, politics, Economics, case: Fourth conflict. is there then And Conflict Choice Mol, rie 22 2010 Pols, editors. newspa and commentators, television professors, university leaders, u politicians, bishops, included media mass the in debate ensuing The areas. these in afive- for drilling argued on They moratorium year argument. the in joined of Norway Church Lutheran of the ership we want to call this fourth mode of syncretism mode of syncretism fourth this call to we want rebalanced being constantly are that but balances balances, strikes adaptably, provisionally, a imperfectly, together holds them th away in tension in also are that uncertainties unfolding need handle to the is at what is stake So due course. needed in be may fix adifferent and change, thin that recognizing time same at the while socially, and medically both wo that for afix error. searching by and It unfolds of trial aform experimental, It is connotations. word mechanical of the its we would need divest to though later. hours at right for what is one needs, moment and not afew right may be hints, nuances, not drill for oil.” for not drill shalt “Thou saying commandment no eleventh is there that and war and poverty, addiction, drug on opinions have can church the that argued scien of political professor Aprominent religion. than rather ence sci on based be should drilling about decisions that argued A second Sundays. on pews empty filling on efforts its focus it should that church told the politician One politics. and religion on but also oil on not only focused followed that debate The political. and green both rendered was Norway in religion that meant this and organization, ronmental [“Church of Norway Asked for Moratorium on Oil Dril Oil on Moratorium for Asked ofNorway [“Church . The literature on care as tinkering includes Annema includes tinkering as care on literature The . . See, for instance, “Kirke- “Kirke- oljestans” om ba instance, Norge for See, . ). Care in Practice in Care (London: Routledge, Routledge, (London: So what is the logic? This mode of syncretism is a little like tinkering, tinkering, like alittle is mode of syncretism This logic? the what is So The Logic of Care: Health and the Problem of Patient Patient of Problem the and Health Care: of Logic The 22 One particular bishop claimed that the church is an envi an is church the that claimed bishop particular One 23 A well- Awell- of care held that editor newspaper known (Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript, Transcript, Germany: (Bielefeld, 2008 ), and Mol, Moser, and and Moser, Mol, ), and 2009 , the bishops and lead and bishops , the - - care ling”], in 23 tiative”], in in tiative”], Ini Oil after Slaughtered [“Church oljeutspill” etter ken red after Oil Initiative”], Initiative”], Oil after red . “Slakter kirken etter oljeutspill” [“Church Slaughte [“Church oljeutspill” etter kirken “Slakter . . 21 out join terms. A A terms. Vårt Land Vårt Verdens Gang Verdens nd responsively, which nd responsively, which nion nion way way per per ce ce - - - -

, February , February , which is why why is , which , February , February Verdens Gang Verdens 17 gs may may gs , 2009 17 rks, rks, , . at 2009 , or “Slakter kir “Slakter , or . - - - Law, Afdal, Asdal, Lin, Moser, and Singleton • Fuzzy Studies 183 zer, zer, Wal e.g., Michael see, decades; few past the over losophy phi in explored been has reasoning normative or of justice 24 Thévenot, Thévenot, (Oxford: Blackwell, Blackwell, (Oxford: e.g., Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, Schaffer, Simon and Shapin e.g., Steven see, literature; ofSTS deal agood in raised implicitly is ton, NJ: Princeton University Press, Press, University Princeton NJ: ton,

. The idea that there are (or should be) separate spheres spheres be) separate (or should are there that idea The . COMMON KNOWLEDGE 184 Spheres of Justice: A Defence of Pluralism and Equality and Pluralism of ADefence Justice: of Spheres On Justification: Economies of Worth of Economies Justification: On should they perhaps be even more carefully separated? more even carefully be perhaps they should religion, and science. But how do they go together? together? go But science. how and do they religion, sphe different into differentiated play been have in logics politics. than rather theology of out gro should initiatives church that and parties political with forces ing our example, we turn from Europe to Asia. We are able to do so because the will We will the able Asia. to are because do to so Europe from we turn example, our natively, however, do not (seem that to) logics c fit simply may gitimate. Churches may engage in matters of ethics, even controversial s controversial even of ethics, matters in engage may Churches gitimate. When different logics come together in one place, conflict is apossibilit is one conflict place, in come together logics different When Collapse at work. also is domestication to or perhaps purity to will the that gests science and politics, and religion, about debate about not It is the also oil. So is just of sync style different represent aquite which politics, and of economics quest “big” the with should not tangle for people, but they care and issues, cal is conflict in an arena where noncoherence is taken to be undesirable, which s which undesirable, be to where noncoherence arena taken is an in conflict is be should these should relate. But conflict note, before wethese move that on, form of demonstrations or comments in the press. So our our So press. the in or comments of demonstrations form come together, for insta logics different the if only possible is cretism and of science. Here, then, to mobilize religion in environmental polit environmental in religion mobilize to Here, of then, science. and of econom of state, out nose of its keep to affairs needs church the of churches, bishops. leaders and its appointed authorities way, political and date the state was constitutionally committed to the Lutheran Church of N Church Lutheran the to committed constitutionally was state date the might swallow them up, as was the case in Norway until until Norway in case the was up, as them swallow might of syncretism, religion might might religion of syncretism, st this In coterminous. almost be to taken public are sphere of the the and tics, On the one hand, religion is said to be political and public. Indeed, religio Indeed, public. and political be to said is religion one hand, the On of syncretism. mode or style agood as about what counts also is conflict the that 1983 Here we see different logics at work. More than this, in modern times the the times modern in this, at More work. than logics Here we different see In an alternative way of thinking, while religion and ethics are the concer the are ethics and religion while of way thinking, alternative an In ), and Luc Boltanski and Laurent Laurent and Boltanski Luc ), and done . And, as a part of that task, it is also about authorities and how and about authorities it also is task, of that apart as . And, 2006 Leviathan and the ). The question question ). The (Prince include - - -

are Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life Experimental the and Boyle, Hobbes, Pump: Air ton, NJ: Princeton University Press, Press, University Princeton NJ: ton, this essay for discussion of how to frame normativities. frame to ofhow discussion for essay this of section final the See uncertain. is normativities their and ofsyncretism modes particular map) onto should (or map actually spheres social distinct which to extent and how coordinating and separating them them separating and how and coordinating these other spheres. Alternatively, politics politics Alternatively, spheres. other these syncretism. It about is what syncretism. Can 24 2012 This question tells us us tells question This fifth mode of syncretism of mode fifth they go together, or together, go they res, those of politics, of politics, those res, ollapse together. Forollapse , because until that that until , because w w as a style of syn a style as 1985 ). However, the the ). However, nce, in the the in nce, ics is ille is ics ocioethi y. Alter n, poli n, retism. retism. (Prince ions ions ug ics, ics, or yle yle n n ------

one hand, we have (various versions of) high- high- of) versions we (various have one hand, Western biomedicine tech th On logics. great two performing are of practices sets great two case this In marbles. three her given has god boy the Because three? Why implanted. embryos three has and clinic IVF the visits she advice, his taken having point, which At yes. he says but then sign, her no, abad he tells First, marbles). a wi boy, (remember, he plays just he is marbles some for him asks she And eat. to enough had he has whether fashion, Taiwanese friendly in asks, and him She teases again. yet temple his visits and perseveres But she much. too at on him going been has she that her and up with fed he is thinks her. Her family telling he is what not clear still It is he inter Will times. four him to it all She explains technologies. such about much understand to expected be a boy, he cannot only he is but because (IVF), fertilization vitro in and of IUI intricacies the about him tells and gifts more him She gives enough. not generous are god the to offerings her that clear becomes it but either, slowly saying he is what it not obvious is first At suggestion. her sister’s is so Doing god. up her mind. make cannot goddess the or perhaps jealous, are goddesses the and gods the Perhaps clear. not very is saying is goddess the but what of aresponse, signs She sees goddess. the to prays and offering an makes She asecond to goes she of children. goddess — the to one dedicated this it doesn’t work, that finds one and temple She visits goddesses. and gods their to prays and her home town in temples different visit to start she fails, this When IUI. insemination, intrauterine with tries First, pregnant. get to her attempts about blogs woman A young Taiwan in gods The case: Fifth mix blended and the embraced were into simply Western of logic purification worked powe noncoherently. of the products The knowingly and happily and pu to will the Taiwan, not people did share for instance, places, modernized narra grand this to However, a twist is there globalization. cri postcolonial development in theory, and theory, modernization in theoriz was purification to will The surfaces. smooth and lines, curves, world the turn geography; applied: forget the moral same the for but scale, on aglobal of London Transport, makeover modernist the like somethi was result The medicine. and technology, of science, shape the in subse and power, domination, economic as military and political eled as to purity traveled along with the worldwide of “modernization. project the with along traveled purity to John Law and Wen- yuan Lin, “Cultivating Disconcert Wen- and Law John “Cultivating Lin, yuan 25 Benson and Rolland Munro (Oxford: Wiley- Wiley- (Oxford: Munro Blackwell, Rolland and Benson ment,” in ment,” in . This case and its context are more fully explored in in explored fully more are context its and case This . So now the young woman visits a third temple, that of the boy boy of the that temple, athird visits woman young now the So Sociological Routes and Political Roots Political and Routes Sociological 25 , ed. Michaela Michaela , ed. - 2011 /publications/LawLin ), ), 135 – and so so and 53 vene? vene? tive. In some of these some of these In tive. , also available at www.heterogeneities.net available , also she she th th s into connections, connections, into

2009 CultivatingDisconcertment.pdf tiques of tiques ” It trav . On the the . On quently quently ed too, too, ed rful rful rity rity . ng e e -

Law, Afdal, Asdal, Lin, Moser, and Singleton • Fuzzy Studies 185 COMMON KNOWLEDGE 186 possibilities above, though there are no doubt many more. no doubt are many there though above, possibilities ways, different many be) to (and in been achieved continues nonco coherence The of the or necessary. desirable, possible, is cation times, and performatively, we have also attached ourselves to the idea th the to ourselves attached we also have performatively, and times, in question needs to be be to needs question in Firs one of practicalities. entirely is issue The procedures. medical in interv can gods principle, In at all. issue not is an blog, the this writing woman it self- is IV as such no have role procedures gods in that evident From perspective period. do abiomedical not, they then purity, to will the to ﬁt committ together. we are how If is these ever, issue exception.) the As the is driv (Christianity, singular. the than rather plural the in come mostly where gods asystem in gods differing) and other, we (various have a form of a form collapse the queasy: feel to going are purity to will the to ted commit Those combination. unproblematic an in together pushed being are “shopping a version of is for gods” sy This at this. good larly exams pass to help them — particu for being areputation have some gods and inter to gods ask routinely students where, for instance, context wanese at what is stake. understand to you als they that — of effectiveness) issue the to note (andthough we return help to persuaded way, right be may the in they them to talk and gifts generous you ma If work transactional. is they which in way the practical; utterly are We might twist Latour to say: say: to Latour We twist might What Follows? you shop and for gods. ments, here. You we described have treat that shop for medical of boundaries kinds worked in ways that were fuzzy, uncertain, multiple, and imp and multiple, uncertain, were fuzzy, that ways worked in another. But second, the chosen god needs to be be to needs god chosen another. But the second, one you if lets do and of gods, plenty are Fortunately, there god. syncretism, which we are calling calling we are which syncretism, mode of sixth this in So work. will combinations one of these that hoping next, one go from and another to You technique one biomedical move from d something or you move you try negotiate simply on and then work, out not to it turns If it atry. giving help, might it worthwhile is something If is: how c question The pragmatic. ruthlessly is that a logic in perf makes purists to a hodgepodge like looks it. What caught up in The quest the woman describes in her blog makes perfect sense in aTai in sense perfect her blog in makes describes woman the quest The excess . The crucial point, however, is that it is not excessive for those for however, those it not is point, excessive that is crucial . The effective : there is no point leaving offerings with a useless auseless with offerings leaving no is point : there we have never been unsyncretic we been have never collapse , there is no concern with purity or the or the purity with no is concern , there persuaded en by the will to purity, purity, to will the en by to intervene. The gods gods The intervene. to and we have listed six six we listed have and ure, though some though ure, an I get pregnant? pregnant? I get an ncretism. Things Things ncretism. . We always have looks confused, confused, looks wn you can try try you can wn F. But for the herent has herent has t, the god god the t, ect sense sense ect at puriﬁ ifferent. ifferent. d to the the d to vene to o need o need ene ene ed ed ke ke ------, ,

one another. one Cattle Tracing System shows that the the Tracing that shows System Cattle put operation. into been it has which in way the and heavy- about the press farming the in debates han political more ove are also there and practice, farming to indifference for its system criti farmers Individual conflicts. caught up in gets Tracing also System C the Finally, too. errors own its forgive it to ready is doubtless and farmers, into go of tinkeri kind on the rests it also then on collapse, depends system the if Tracing Syst Cattle the to necessary entirely is one that and too, collapse Taiwan, in but t pregnant get to trying woman of the case the and self- together. pushed are There literally being differen evident other and- on the Tracing System, Cattle the and one hand, on the — human, are empirically. Indeed, it shows that they do not just overlap but that they they overlap do not but just that they it that shows Indeed, empirically. ing System. System. ing e at the for instance, but look, empirical, be to needs question this to response it nonetheless. is but achimera powerful; is w for the yes, chimera, It a performative is a chimera. is out impurity things that do not quite fit together are similarly flexible and fuzzy. Purity w Purity fuzzy. and flexible similarly are do fit not together quite that things repertoir messy, or the noncoherent, fuzzy, then endlessly is reality exclusiv not mutually are of modes syncretism We these that too, seen, have Overlaps ogy of syncretisms implied in our first empirical example, that of that example, empirical first our in implied of syncretisms ogy 26 Thus, denial depends on particular forms of forms on depends particular denial Thus, called domestication. of what we have essence the is This ahomogeneous or of surface. space as think we migh that onto alocation or into flattened being are They tractable. are that int smoothed being are kind, in differences differences, qualitative base a data in entries Tracing electronic generates System Cattle w votes, into turned then are views whose aparliament in representatives syst electoral or homogeneous. An commensurable, tractable, being where it point e the to homogenized progressively is lumpy, variegated and heteroge is which that cases, both In tracing. cattle to well equally applies domestication Denia held is apart. which that also is not is seen be to which that hold the calf down to pin a tag to its ear, two different logics logics different ear, its two to atag pin — to down hold calf anim the something practices may be in conflict, dependent upon one another, another, one upon dependent conflict, in be may practices medical different where cases to respect with Mol marie . An analogous argument has been developed by Anne by developed been has argument analogous An . Thus, the modes of syncretism overlap in different ways, and the case of the of the case the and ways, different overlap in of syncretism modes the Thus, So how do these different modes of syncretism get blended together? Any blended get Any together? of modes syncretism different howSo do these However, there are further complexities in the ecology of sy ecology the in complexities However, further are there care . The Cattle Tracing System may forgive small errors committed by by committed errors small forgive Tracing may System Cattle . The Denial : what we said of the workings of the Norwegian electoral system system electoral Norwegian of the workings of: what we the said 26 The farm includes the logic of the Cattle Tracing System, while while Tracing System, Cattle of logic the the includes farm The of the impurities in the system necessarily implies implies necessarily system the in impurities of the ecologies of syncretism of ecologies - collapse NC: Duke University Press, Press, University Duke NC: Practice Medical in Ontology Multiple: Body The another one include — Mol, See together. ofthese all or . When the farmer has to has farmer the . When need to be understood understood need be to dedness of the system system of the dedness ces between this this between ces l further implies implies l further the Cattle Trac Cattle the o dissimilarities o dissimilarities he former is a a is he former es for holding for holding es . But in each, each, . But in em generates em generates ill to purity purity to ill ncretisms. ncretisms. separation 2002 ngs that that ngs cize the the cize em. Butem. hile the the hile include nds up up nds neous, neous, ). attle attle e. If If e. col rtly rtly ith al- al- - - - t t :

(Durham, (Durham,

Law, Afdal, Asdal, Lin, Moser, and Singleton • Fuzzy Studies 187 421 28 27 Science, Technology, and Human Values Human and Technology, Science, Practices,” Haemodialysis beyond and in Agency Patients’ of Enactment The of Agency: “Displacement Lin, yuan Wen- see therapy, religious and medicine), Chinese tional tradi as (such medicine other biomedicine, between laps of the argument, see, e.g., Donna J. Haraway, “Situated “Situated J. Haraway, e.g., Donna see, argument, of the version For afeminist politically. also but descriptively . For a more complex ecology of syncretism in the over the in ofsyncretism ecology For complex amore . . This is a standard position in social science, not only only not science, social in position a standard is This . COMMON KNOWLEDGE 188 – 43 . count as a as count about wh it anything say to possible Is ecologies? variable their and tisms But what of the politics or the normativities implied in the multiplicity o multiplicity the in implied normativities or the But politics what of the Modes of Normativity variable. complex and are ecologies resulti the and rule, the are of overlap inclusion and kinds These denial. by together, tho even collapsed gods the and biomedicine case, this In woman’s for pregnancy. young about the search Taiwaneseof story the for ins again, Think exception. the than rather rule the are inclusions and Such over farm. of the logics various the Tracing includes System Cattle the gent on context, location, commitments, and the issue at han issue the and commitments, location, gent on context, ally, they are also committed to the virtues of virtues the to committed also are ally, they tied to a particular and political version of the good. However, good. version of more the and gen political and aparticular to tied alrea are system of aparliamentary or other some to variant committed those as a political good. The lesson is that that is lesson The good. apolitical as what wil of way ordering overall an becomes domestication syncretism, st of other ecology anecessary embedded in Albeit difference. political normative or political contingency. or political normative an empirical an is one another place to from or appropriately carry, carry, they Whet located. and variable are philosophers, by preferred term the use to “good that means not This appropriate elsewhere. simply be may on politics tha framings Indeed, does. politics as far so only extend may ate politics to appropri framings the and mode of syncretism, agood as count what will frames hospice will be one that is essentially committed to a logic of tinkering and av and of alogic to tinkering committed essentially is one be that hospice will it seem Nevertheless, ﬁgures. conformable into heterogeneities bo turn for they too, domesticating are involved technologies Some of the appropriately is restr talk and or rudeness, no should be shouting there per dying the with who are those between negotiations sensitive the work in oper of syncretisms ecology no a doubt role the has in tication To see how this works, think again, for instance, of end- of end- for instance, again, of- To think works, Do how see this care. life good mode of syncretism of mode good

38 , no. 3 (May (May 2013 ): ): - - ? Any response to such questions will be contin be will questions such to response ? Any Duckworth, Duckworth, Walzer, Walzer, particular, in see, ofargument; kind this made have who too, philosophers, political are There Knowledges.pdf. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory Moral in AStudy Virtue: After www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~ewa/Haraway,% Free Association Books, Books, Association Free Nature of Reinvention The Women: in Perspective,” ofPartial Privilege the and Feminism in Question Science The Knowledges: 27 location Spheres of Justice of Spheres , together with purpose or concern, or concern, purpose with , together 1985 domestication ). 1991 , but also Alasdair MacIntyre, MacIntyre, Alasdair also , but as a mode of framing amode of as framing ), ), ugh the latter works works latter the ugh 183 , ed. Haraway (London: (London: Haraway , ed. s likely that a good a good that s likely d. ating here. It at is ating – Simians, Cyborgs, and 201 28 , 2 For instance, , also available at at available , also nd ed. (London: (London: nd ed. 20 Situated% f syncre at might at might l count l count yles ofyles t draw t draw tance, tance, icted. icted. mes son: son: dily dily laps laps her er er ng ng dy dy s,” 20 d d ------

29 sion of the good embedded in care. Here, then, and and Here, then, care. embedded in good sion of the because there is no “abstract.” Instead, there are concrete and nonc and concrete are there no Instead, is “abstract.” there because goods. enacted embedded and own their and of syncretism mod other ordering by this it and achieves good as what counts frames that care consequence is that there is a rich resource of goods (and of bads) goods and resource arich is there that is consequence T kind. in different themselves are goods that is This too. lesson apositive is But t good. as what counts stipulating rules no general are there that and line no is bottom there told be to that disappointing it be may purity, to will the by drive For contingency. alocated those do anecessarily it is and well doto this locati particular in and practice held in need be to together that tices different different underst be also may They difference. for handling strategies not simply a we described have that of modes syncretism six the that means better. It also about how order to practice for thinking aresource as us to available bads and terminology proposed by Annemarie Mol): Annemarie by proposed terminology • • • • ment, see Boltanski and Thévenot, Thévenot, and Boltanski see ment, argu of the For version one science. ofsocial areas in common is ofpractice kinds different in embedded ivity another, see Law, see another, Rehabilitation Practice,” Practice,” Rehabilitation Physical in Doctoring In/dependence: with “Dealing Swierstra, Tsjalling and Mol, Struhkamp, Rita including 2010 Gods Factish the of e.g., in, enunciation on work Latour’s mode of syncretic the In In In in It agood, is In In . The idea that there are different kinds ofnormat- kinds different are there that idea The . ), and work by Annemarie Mol and her collaborators, collaborators, her and Mol Annemarie by work ), and occupies all the available space. available the all occupies order, Agood appropriate order, an over and spreads mode of syncretism. first our in world how is rendered the is tractable not This fit. does which leads to dialogues between the deaf. the between dialogues leads to t incommensurability avoid to the good and violence It also is existence. i respecting also while tractable difference of way proper rendering the lumpy is how the world how is the be. should lumpy Indeed, difference. qualitative and for lumpy room is there separation aworld in words, of other of modes In ordering. of greedier ambitions the by squeezed be otherwise might that practices for minor space make reconciling noncoherent logics and practices by keeping differenc keeping by noncoherent practices and logics reconciling In the abstract there are no good (or bad) modes of syncretism, in part part in (or no good are of modes syncretism, bad) there abstract the In domestication care modes of normativity of modes , it is a good to tinker iteratively and find ways of temporarily of temporarily ways find and iteratively tinker to , it agood is (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, Press, University Duke NC: (Durham, Organizing Modernity Organizing separation , it is a good to flatten or homogenize difference. This is is This difference. or homogenize flatten to , it agood is Science, Technology, and Human Human and Technology, Science, , to keep differences apart. It is also a good to to agood It also is apart. differences keep , to On Justification denial (or as different kinds of “ontonorms,” the kinds use (or to different as On the Modern Cult Cult Modern the On . See also Bruno Bruno also . See , it is a good to refuse to recognize that that recognize to refuse to , it agood is ; for for ; 29 - Values Social Studies of Science of Studies Social Dieting,” ofDutch Ontonorms Your The Plate! “Mind forum Enacting, Interfering, and Doing Politics of Nature,” Nature,” of Politics Doing and Interfering, Enacting, Matter: Disease Alzheimer’s “Making Moser, Ingunn Journal of Cultural Economy Cultural of Journal Consumer- ofthe Citizen,” Normativity Embodied The in Mol, Moser, and Pols, Pols, and Moser, Mol, in Home,” Nursing the in Food Good Values: Its and “Care in this location this in

39 34 ( , no. , no. 2008 1 (January (January ): ): 98 – 110

, it probably is 43 styles oherent prac . 2009 , no. , no. Care in Practice in Care

es in in es 2 ons. Howons. , no. , no. of goods goods of ): ): 3 55 ( June ( June ood as as ood – 3 ts ts 76 here ( hat hat 2009 ; Mol, “Good Taste: “Good ; Mol, he es es re re 2013 n n - s s ): ): , ): ): 215 269 379 – – 34 – 83 96 ; Mol, ; Mol, ; Mol, ; Mol, ; and ; and Geo

- Law, Afdal, Asdal, Lin, Moser, and Singleton • Fuzzy Studies 189 COMMON KNOWLEDGE 190 • • To review: goods are multiple because different modes of syncretism are a are of modes syncretism different To because multiple are goods review: Politics andNormativities tension in are they that acknowledging while one another against good of the wrong consider denial will they general — differen balance to a refusal of logic denial the countenance sometimes may tinkering of careful that wh those we shown, have as democracy. To example, another take repres with when confronted of anarchism of view point the be perhaps, violence symbolic) of (possibly aform like looks domestication — whi of separati of view point the from other. for instance, So, every in bads finding a is mode of Each bad. normativity of versions the many equally of syncretism styles are there — as ity t that reciprocally, it follows, and does not fit. Relativism is a problem only from the point of view of the will to to will of the of view point the aproblem from is only not Relativism fit. does th recognize to decline and failure, as nonconformity treat characte about the terms, or ethical political either normatively, in say to nothing is there that mean world. But this does afuzzy in would expect circumstances — other in background the into what fade o is and indeed which particul in only important become normativities Particular goods. ecolo arich enacts and carries or of set practices location particular any pr in Thus, of modes syncretism. ordered different by practices geneous hetero materially the in do not world, float embedded above instead the but are Normati goods. different them with carry and ferent of modes normativity In In in differently, very and Finally, quite wrong to abandon them. abandon to wrong quite i and important, are principles mode of syncretism, this In impurities. with them or mix to principles, dilute to order proper of things, the proper. up and right for what is not it compromise to Therefore, agood is stand to It agood is good. of the versions different and knowing, and being ultimately be reconciled. be ultimately cannot and tension in necessarily are goods that understand to short, in long. not work for It very agood, is today’s will solution that likely highly it is that know to agood It also is balance. of (always precarious) a state to resolve it by whatever means happen to be available. be to happen it means resolve whatever to by attempt to problem and the at to hand, attend to pragmatic, be to desirable do to so. It is them of encouraging ways with experiment and explore to it agood is Indeed, overlap to mix. and distinct as understood be otherwise Thus, there are many versions of the good good of the versions many are there Thus, — of normativ modes many as The answer is that nothing can be said if we insist on purity and uniformity, uniformity, and on purity we insist if said be can nothing that is answer The conflict , it is a good to recognize the incompatibility of different ways of of ways of different incompatibility the recognize to , it agood is collapse it is a good for things that might might that for things it agood is e existence of whatever of whatever e existence lso a resource for for a resource lso r of practice? ose logic is is logic ose ar contexts contexts ar ch might, might, ch t versions t versions here are here are entative entative , but in , but in lso dif lso actice, actice, t is t is gy of gy vities vities on, on, ne ne - - - The interest in “fuzziness” signaled by the the by signaled “fuzziness” in interest The Afterword do not fit. they that and tension, in are they one another, that across cut they that knowledge full for brought amoment the together being in are good no is really there indeed, Often, no stable answers. are the and answer, no is single there arise, these about how balance to questions When Almighty. the face to for preparation time need and for prayer the as such conce aloved spiritual one, and with time precious of spending good social gests an increasing willingness to face up to and articulate the realitie the articulate up and to face to willingness increasing an gests our argument is most readily seen in relation to to relation in seen readily most is argument our but pe list, for of gods). our rest ping the We work way through could our the good. The cattle need to be registered, and registered in th in registered and registered, need be to cattle The good. the vers asingle of set rules, asingle impose to It seeks uniformity. normative demands purity to will The not. are or they visible, either are do not. They they worl version of the absolutist its world fit the either with Events in purity. of excellent biomedical treatment treatment of excellent biomedical — minimi for instance, end- of- having themselves find how and caregivers care life Collapse ass risk as such domains in common), is and (whereence quantification noncoherent goods. for relating possibilities many are there that we know world. And syncretic and anonpure in who live those to presented is a way of doing good that is at work in parliaments, in many forms of techn forms many in at is parliaments, work in that good of away is doing That is the normative puzzle puzzle normative the is That — politic and normative or the noncoherent toge holding and goods of relating ways good find to necessary the will to purity, you are saying that anything goes, normatively or polit normatively goes, anything that saying you are purity, to will the of of view point the from then, on context, baddepends and good as what counts you say, If we here, have tha as predicament. you or (if prefer) general case the gen the is syncretism normative that detect to it unable is Indeed, writ. its syncret of normative places endless are there that and far so run ever only version of normativity own its not that see does purity to will The everyw same the are bads and goods And same. the are cattle with farms is location every speaking, Normatively everywhere. appropriate a rules same the that it assumes addition, In afailure. that: just is do to this ure ognized; and what it to and is ognized; that the normative world starts to look very different once its syncretis once its different look to very world starts normative the that means of This noncoherent bads. a tangle and caught we in are goods practice noncoherent. Where essentially are Rather, they simple binaries. as gener Neither do they everywhere. do not travel normativities ticular Our argument is that normativities in practice are always syncretic. Pa syncretic. always are practice in normativities that is argument Our is hard at work in the pragmatic practices of shopping (including shop (including of shopping practices pragmatic at the work hard is in do good starts to look very different too. It becomes It too. becomes different look to very starts good Common Knowledge Common care . Our case study concerned concerned study case . Our zing pain pain zing — the against answer at all. Goods Goods at all. answer to balance the good good the balance to Domestication ism that lie beyond beyond lie that ism symposium sug symposium e right way. Fail al imperative imperative al — the same. All All same. the ver we go, in ver we in go, ally come come ally s of non m is rec m is essment. essment. ically. ? This ? This ion of rhaps rhaps here. osci d, or d, ther. eral eral rns rns re re re re r ------s s t t

Law, Afdal, Asdal, Lin, Moser, and Singleton • Fuzzy Studies 191 COMMON KNOWLEDGE 192 the idea that the opposite of opposite coherence is the idea that the of impurity arrangements — social messy and tensions, ambiguities, b jury- the to than rather box rigged curves, and lines leads straight to rede modernist beholden the to partially Perhaps still position? we are or p of amoral possibility we all abandoned have principles, political and gene into we buy unless told when we are that, at a selves disadvantage do we our feel of noncoherent. aworld is thought of Why the that scared often so why we is are puzzle The or politically. weway hold normatively together only not is the accordingly. Purity act to then and well how do to syncretism abo power, its talk to loses easier it becomes purity to will the coherence. As negative and positive. Negatively, it has been taken to connote sloppin connote to Negatively, taken been it positive. has and negative noncoherence is not incoherence, then neither is incomplete success af incomplete success noncoherence neither is not then is incoherence, for if empty. no scared, is need be to There we were had always once believed we that guarantees the and modern, we never have been but then guarantees, or normativ no be analytical about how do to noncoherences will There well. for thinking aresource into them work transmute modes and these which in ways We mode available. differe the need explore to syncretic only mony not is the and heterogeneities, then perhaps the will to purity is starting to lose its g its lose to starting is purity to will the perhaps then heterogeneities, and logi of fuzzy able we are talk to If changing. are things perhaps again, But then order to tap into and domesticate the indigenous gods. But as we have seen, heg But we seen, have as gods. indigenous the domesticate and order into tap to significanc of on sites pagan of worship houses its located church Christian notoriously, for inst hegemonically; accomplished been sometimes syncretis together. Religious them of holding ways finding by traditions power of many on the draw to ability and willingness of afluid indication an inclus and tolerance, of vitality, expression an as understood been has But one positively into pot. everything throw to attempt an as eclecticism, su intellectually and atheologically as treated clear. be been to It has ure In its religious context, the term term the context, religious its In syncretism in coherence rather than than coherence rather has been understood both as as both understood been has ance, the early early the ance, non es and wires, wires, and es iveness iveness — as coherence. eholden to ess: afail ess: ailure. ral moral moral ral sign that that sign olitical olitical rip. m has m has spect spect e in e in , it ut e nt cs cs e e - - -