INSIDERS& OUTSIDERSIN THE SOCIOLOGYO F SCIENCEO; R, HOW CAN WE FOSTER ?

Bruno Latour

Volumesh ave been written evaluatingt he prospectsf or developmento f social scientificm ethodologya s rigorousa s that of the natural sciences. They ask, should social scientists attempt to experiencet he "lived world" of the peoplet hey are studying?O r, in the pursuito f objectivity, shoulds ocial scientistsa ttempt to distancet hemselvesa s much as possi- ble from their subjects?C an sociologistsc onfidentlye xpectt he eventual appearanceo f a Newton of the social world? Or should they ignore the canon of the hard sciencesa nd formulate new forms of measurement, deficientb y the standardso f natural scientifici nquiry but suited to the distinctivec haracteristicso f the socialw orld? However interestingt hese

Knowledgea nd Society:S tudiesi n the Sociologyo f Past and Present,v olume 3, pages1 9-216. Copyright @ f98f by JAI PressI nc. All of reproduction in any forrn reserved. ISBN: 0-89232-161-X 2OO BRUNOL ATOL. questionsm ay be from the standpointo f most social scientists,t hey arc peculiarly inappropriatef or those sociologistsw ho are concernedt o er- plain the conduct of sciencei tself. All methodologicala rgumentsi n the social sciencesa re basedo r onc' tacit assumption:t hat scientifica ctivity is distinct from all other forms oi activity.t All methodologicadl isputesc an be viewed as argumentsa bour the place that social scientific method occupies on the objective- subjectivec ontinuum.2M ost of the debatesc oncern the direction the continuums ocialr esearchs houldt ake. But whethert he conclusioni s that more objectivity or more subjectivityi s neededi n socials cientifici nquiry. the existenceo f the continuum itself is never questioned. For the studento f science,t he legitimacyo f this continuumi s question- ableb ecauset he natureo f the hard sciencesis itself problematic.3H ence. the methodologicalli teraturei s renderedu selessH. ow can the sociologist of scienceb e expectedt o approachh is researchw ith "scientific objectiv- ity" when the result of his researchi s the demonstrationt hat scientific "" are quintessentiallys ocialp henomena?W hy adviseh im to con- sidert he "meaning" that sociala ctionh asf or participantsw hen he knows that this "meaning" is inextricablef rom the scientificr esultsp roducedi n the laboratory he is studying?aW hy opposet he rationality of scientific inquiry to the -ladena ctivity of the "lived world" when he knows that there is no sucht hing as "pure" rationality?A ll of thesem ethodolo- gical injunctionsa re premisedo n the in pure and exact . What is left when this premisei s itself taken as the object of study? What methodologicaal lternativesc an one offer?sT o get an ideao f the peculiar problems sociologistso f science have when they formulate methodologyf or their own field, considert he following example.E very- one agreest hat a scientisth as to be somehowb oth "inside" and "out- side" the object under study. To combines omed egreeo f "insiderness" and "outsiderness" can indeedb e taken as the most generalm ethodolo- gical injunction. Even this does not hold for the sociologisto f science, however.I f you say to a biologist," You cannots tudy a frog becausey ou are not a frog," you will be laugheda t. Similarly, the sociologistc an defend himself against the businessmanw ho says that the sociologist cannot study businessb ecauseh e has not participatedi n corporatel ife; the businessman'so bjections are explained away as defenseso f his vestedi nterests.O nly when sciencei s the object of study is the merit of the outsider'sp ositiond enied.I fI sayt o a groupo fphysicistst hat (a) I do not needt o be a physicisti n order to study ,( b) I oughtn ot to be a physicisti n order to study physics,( c) I shouldn ot havet o believei n the rationality of the natural sciencesin order to accountf or them in my own terms, and (d) I shouldn ot use any tool from any sciencee ven in my own analysiso f physics-no doubt I would immediatelyb e thrown into an HowC anW eF osteAr gnosticism? 201 asylum.T his is curious, in contrastt o what is expectedo f a sociologisto f ,f or example.N o one deniest hat the sociologisto f religionc an be both an agnostica nd a good sociologist,b ut a sociologisto f sciencei s not permittedt o be an agnostic. When such a fundamentali nversiono f the usualm ethodologicapl rinci- ples occurs, we have evidently nearedt he referencep oint for all these .A ll the methodologicala dvice points toward what one may metaphoricallys tyle the magneticp ole of Exact Science.R egardlesso f whethero ne sailst o the North. East, South, or West, once one reaches the magneticp ole, all compassesg o wild. This is what happensi n the sociologyo f science,c ommon sensen o longerh olds.T hosew ho want to travel toward this pole needt o find anotherw ay of orientingt hemselves. The solution to the problem seemst o be that one can study scienceb y somehow outside science. In the first part of this article I will examinew hat it might meant o be outside.I n the secondp art I will show that it is impossiblet o be outside scienceb ecauset his position requires sciencet o have an inside. In the final part I will considert he constraints thus imposedo n the sociologyo f science.6

THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS All methodologiesm ust derivef rom this : no accountq ualifiesa sa n explanationi f it simply restatest he account iÎ is supposedt o explain. The differenceb etweent he two accountsi s the qualificationw hich permitsu s to seeo ne accounta s an explanationo f the other.TT here are, of course, other important methodologicapl rinciples,b ut this is the most important onef or the purposeso f this discussion.H ow haves ocials cientistss tudy- ing scienced ealtw ith it? Have the sciencesb eene xplaineda t all?I n order to answer these questions,I will consider seriatim a variety of actual solutionst o the problem of studying science,l eading the reader on a seven-stagjeo urney throught he lookingg lasso f science.W e are goingt o be led in a direction opposite to the one that prevailingm ethodologies usuallyi ndicate.

1. All analysess tart with the assumptiont hat scientistsa re "mere practitioners"i n their fields and are entirely unconsciouso f the meaning of their activity. Sucha nalysiso f scientificp racticeu suallyf ocusesn ot on ordinarys cientistsb ut on Great Scientists.T heseG reat Scientistsa re, as leaderso f their fields( not infrequentlyr ecipientso f the Nobel Prize),t he essentia"l insiders". They are so high in the scientifich ierarchyt hat they interprett he mysterieso f sciencen ot only to laymen but also to their fellow scientists.L ibrary bookshelvesa ref ull of the thoughts,r eflections, memoriesa nd opinionso f theseG reat Scientists.sB ut thought his group 202 BRU\JOL A1OUR is certainly the most vocal of those explainings ciencet o the public at large, it is rare to meet a social scientistw ho takes its opinions at face ;it is easyt o show that the GreatS cientists'explanationo f scientific discovery is mere tautology, mere celebrationo f victories in scientific battles. Hence, a secondg roup comesi nto the picture: the social scien- tists who treat the Great Scientistsa s "informants" whose "explana- tions" have to be carefullyc heckedb y other methodsc omingf rom other sciences. 2. How doest his group implemento ur central methodologicaal xiom? First, theseh istoriansa nd sociologistsw ant to understands cientifica cti- vities as much as possible,a nd havet hrougha variety of meansm astered the technicald etailso f the fields they study, thereby transformingt hem- selves from "outsiders" into "insiders."e But they do not lose their "outsider" statusa ltogether,f or they approachs ciencef rom the perspec- tives of and ,a nd they publish the resultso f their work not in scientificb ut in sociologicaol r historicalj ournals. Their accounto f scienceis thus in with our centrala xiom andm ight count asa n .B ut these studentso f sciences ucceeds o well in achieving "insider" status that they lose their "outsider" perspective,f ailing to account even in the most basic of their own terms for the made by their informants.roC ertainly, they make a show of defiance toward Great Scientists,f or they qualify the testimonyg iven in individual accounts. But they do not question the assumptionso f the scientificc ommunity. We might comparet hem to a hypotheticals tudent of witchcraft practices,w ho returnsf rom the field expectingb oth a Ph.D. and recognitionf rom fellow sorcerers.N o matterh ow hard working these studentso f sciencea re, they cannott ranscendt heir contradictoryl oyal- ties. In , they replaceo ur centralm ethodologicaal xiom with another: sciencei s its own justification, and only sciencec an explain itself.rr 3. The third groupo f studentso f sciencem eetso ur standardo f retaining their "outsider" statusb y a peculiar strategem---completieg noranceo f science.O ne does not need to be a physicist to count the number of Ph.D.'s in physicsf rom the earliestd ays of the field to the present.B ut this group mimics "insider" statusb y adoptingw hat they believet o be the methodso f the natural sciences,e mphasizingt he quantitativem ea- sureso f scientifica ctivity.1 2O ne subseto f this groupi s the sociologistso f sciencew ho work in the Mertoniant radition; they sharet he quantitative of this group as a whole but approach sciencew ith an agnostic ,t reating it as if it were any other sociologicapl henomenonT. he Mertonians have developedc oncepts to study sciencew hich did not originatei n sciencei tself, analyzings ciencei n such terms as "invisible colleges," "cocitation clusters," "stratification patterns," "norms of science" and the like. Unfortunately, Mertonian methodsh ave not pro- HowC anW eF osteAr gnosticism? 203 duceda true "outsiders"' analysiso f science,f or thosew ho employt hem sufferf rom completei dentificationw ith the ethoso f science.A t no point is this identificationt aken as the problemt o be studied.A nother problem with the Mertonian approachi s that it leads to the study of scientists rather than science.A second subseto f this group merely repeatst he technicald etails of the field they are studying,m akingo nly minor mod- ificationsi n framing. Finally, a third subsetl eavest he groundt o scientists entirely, and repeats the scientific establishments trategy in its own attemptst o establishi tself. It should now be clear to the reader how the is played among historiansa nd sociologistsw ho study science.T he right to explain can only be basedo n "inside" knowledgeo f a field, and such claimsc an be refutedo nly by demonstrationt hat suchk nowledgei s lacking.T he result is a process of infinite regress,s uch as that summarizedi n Figure l. Whateverp osition one takes, it can be negatedb y a subsequenct laimant who basesh is caseo n a greaterd egreeo f "outsider" status.W e are now approachingt he middle of the diagram,f urther from mere practitioners of science,b ut more in keepingw ith the central axiom that we must study sciencea nd not merely repeat it.l3 4. A fourth group of investigatorsh asd efinedi ts positioni n opposition to the previousg roups.T heir theoreticala pproachi s derivedf rom anthro- pologicalm ethod. What do they hope to learn from ?T hey canf ollow the centrala xiom in a new way becauseth ey attemptt o realize the anthropologicalg oal of simultaneousi nsidernessa nd outsiderness. The investigatorh as no desire to become a scientist, an insider, and acceptso n face value not a word of his informants' claims. Whatever the sociologistr epeatsm ust be translatedi nto the terms of the sociologist's own explanatory scheme. All of these "taken for granted" acts becomep roblematic:d uplicatinga n experiment;w riting a paper;d raftinga n article; accountingf or a discovery;d efininga test ofan hypothesis;c hoosingt o sees omethinga s a problem.raO n the other hand, however, this fourth group of investigatorsw ants to study sciencea t much closerr anget han any of its predecessorsI.t s methodi s like that of an anthropologists tudyinga n unknown tribe. It treatss cientistsa s stran- gers, yet observest hem in the midst of laboratory activity.15V iewed in these terms, all previous investigatorsh ave been simultaneouslyin suf- ficiently and excessivelyi nvolved with science; they neither account independentlyf or scientific activity nor follow this activity closely. Have we now reachedt he limit of the central axiom and found that scienceh as as last beene xplained?T here is one belief that we sharew ith scientists-the possibility of studying science "scientifically"on which we baseo ur disbeliefi n scientificp rejudices." If sociology,"w rites Bloor, "could not be appliedi n a thorough-goingw ay to scientifick nowledgei t - z .3Éa + \ : È â é Y E r ù \ . Y O > = = ! €s d F-:à: o \ u IÉ3-e ,E\ ' o , \ a ç - ; . = o q tT É â - . - ^ d , \ b È ) 9 d - \ & o ËE,Ë, q) o 0 . \ :3 Ês o ô H Ë . : E ! ù : , o 2 2 - - o a €: c; =Ëo ; -t 9 =! ù ; : - o h = = r * r Ë 6 . 5 6 6 o ! Ê f € t s oo iËbË É E E ; .V . ! . e ô Z , É . : . ! o : e b E : - : e - Ëir=s É : 5 8 Ë èo i s a i - 9 0 . = ! à 6 : E lJ HgËË s o ? 9 l c.) sË€g: - i*Ee; ^ ' E E b 0,) èo

- E := ! Ëo 5Ïs U) E o l E g È . 9 - i 9 È o 2 ? Ç Ë = c) " ! & R l U) ;ÈËF ; ! t s : J J Â ! { l - o i iEËiË I Ë ; 9 €; OO 5 b t r Ë . . r , !se;â ËËi ! g à 2 = = i Z - É . a 8 " 3 a = a ) c s= o ,;- OËo Ps Ë 3 E g E Ë::;C \ !:-;ë A. t gË; FËë z Ë ; s E 204 How Can We FosterA gnosticism? 205 would mean that science could not scientificallyk now itself."r6 This fourth group, like other studentso f science,a lso imitatess cientists,b ut, unlike them, it imitates scientistsb y adoptingt he critical, disrespectful and slightly iconoclastic aspect of science. The same movement that debunkedr eligion is now leadingt o the demystificationo f science,i n the name of science.It is not only the generalp rogram of sciencet hat we share,i t is also the safety, pleasure,r ewards,a nd prejudiceo f academic science.W e producea new subdiscipline-the anthropologyo f science- in order to achievec redibility and supercedeo ther approaches. 5. Hence, in order to obey our centralm ethodologicaal xiom, we must find a form of investigationt hat is outside the realm of professional science.M any people,a mongt hem Marxists of somes ort, claim to bring to their analysiso f sciencet he perspectiveo f anothers ociety,e veni f that society is hypotheticalr ather than actual. No what the value of their work, these people are certainly methodologicallys ound. If you sharem aterially the vested interestso f the scientifice stablishmenta, nd share intellectually the beliefs and ethos of science( no matter which ones),y ou lose the right to explainw hat sciencei s all about; you can only repeat it, and add a science to the other sciences. The Marxist investigatorslTu rge us to adopt the same method employedb y science fiction writers; they formulate a "thought experiment" by urging us to imaginet he form sciencew ould take in a societyw ith an entirelyd ifferent form of social .lET hus, we can become consciouso f the degree to which science and technology are historically determined, "bourgeois" phenomena. At this point on our regressived iagram,t he problemi s no longert o be outsides cienceb ut to be sufficientlyi nsidei t to be able to say something abouti t. This new problemi s as hard to overcomea s the former one. The resulti s easyt o imagine:s ciencesa re criticizedi n a very generalw ay, but nothingi n particulari s really said.reD iscussionq uickly enterst he realm of abstraction.I n the caseo f Marxist investigators,t he problem is com- poundedb y the claim that Marxism itself is a science!M arxistsd enounce academica nd bourgeoiss cience,b ut themselvesh avet he most crudes ort of "scientific" pretensions.T hese contradictionsa re not easily over- come.H ence, we must now considera sixth sort of approacht o the study of science. 6. For many people, investigatingt he of sciencer equires not academicr esearch( even of a Marxist variety) but active interventiono f somes ort. From materialm odificationw e learn the fundamentapl roces- ses of science.T hese activistsa re evident outsiders;t heir notion of criticism of any scientifica ctivity-recombinant DNA research,c reation of alternativet echnology,w ork with nuclearp ower-is politicalp ressure. The fact that scientificw ork can be alteredb y political pressurec onsti- 206 BRUNOL ATOUR tutes experimentalp roof that any ostensibly" purely" scientifico r tech- nical issuei s fraughtw ith socialf actors.W hat is soft?W hat is hard?W hat is logical?W hat is political? What is scientific?A ll these questionsc an only be solved experimentally.O ne such experimenti nvolved the Cam- bridge City Council in the recombinantD NA controversy. It can be shown that eacho f the council membersu nderwenta n intellectualt rans- formation as the result of the controversy,b ecominga ware,f or example, that conflictingj udgments about the necessaryl evels of safety precau- tions are functionso fthe diversei nterestso fthe partiest o suchd isputes. These activists are much more efficient than the anthropologistso f science;t hey provide the only experimentabl asisf or a scienceo f science. They bring into the sacredg round of sciencea disreputablec rowd of outsiders,o vercominge ach successives etbackw ith a renewedi nvasion of mixed protestors-politicians, businessmenl,a wyers, and even some respecteds cientists.I n consequencet,h ought hey add nothingt o the body of scholarlyl iteratureo n the culture of science,t hey legallyo r politically modify the flow or outcome of a given scientificc ontroversy.20 This last group of investigatorsd emonstratest hat the boundary be- tween scientific outsiders and insiders is very vague, subject to the fluctuationso f social debate. When this boundary becomesi ndetermin- ate, it is difficult to extenda pplicationo f the centrala xiom. There is one further way to appreciates ciencef rom the outside:t o imagines omeone who could accountf or elementaryc onceptsl ike "observing," "explain- ing," "studying," or "recording" in entirely new terms. We are so imbued with the notion of the scientific vision that we can scarcely conceiveo f a person who could look clearly dt this vision. But we can imaginea hypotheticali nvestigatorc apableo f such skepticism,s omeone sucha s lalo Barassowaha, hunterf rom the nationo f Youme in the lvory Coast.W hat if Ialo, not I, a Europeans ocial scientistt o whom scientific activity seemsn atural, spentt wo yearsi n a biology laboratory?2Sr ucha situationr epresentsth e maximump ossibled istanceb etweent he inside and outside of the natural sciencesa nd then also representst he best possibility for really explaining science.I f we cannot stage such a sit- uation experimentally, we can approximatei t through literature. The most famous characterw ith whom we can identify is Ulrich in Musil's The Man Without Qualities.U lrich has an intimatek nowledgeo f several sciences( mathematicsa nd engineering)b, ut he strivest o distanceh imself from them, so that he never repeats them. This is the endo four seven-stagejournethyr ought he studyo fscience. lf we look at the progressiont hat led us from the practitionerst o the pure outsiders,w e seet hat our reflexiveq pproacht o scienceh as dictateda n approacha ntitheticalt o the usualm ethodologicapl rescription.G enerally, one is enjoined to get closer to science.H ere, objective treatment of HowC anW eF osteAr gnosticism? 207 sciencer equireso ne to draw away from it. In most sciences( naturala nd social),t he problemso f methoda re spreada longa continuuml inking the maximumo f objectivity to the maximumo f subjectivity.W hethera given scientistw ants to go upward or downward along this continuum,h e will not cut across the regressivel ine that forms when the same general is applied to the study of science.T he two lines---onel eading toward science,t he other away from it-are obtained by applying the samep rinciple,a nd do not reacht he samep oint; at the bottom of the first line there is a state of pure unconsciouss ubjectivity;a t the end of the progressiona way from science,t here is a maximum of awarenessa nd objectivity. Our conclusioni s paradoxical:i f the main problem in many fieldso f scienceis how to geti n (the data,t he field, the "meaning"), in the study of sciencet he main problemi s how to geto ut; it seemsa s if there is no outer space where one can go to forge an explanationo f it. The paradoxi s inescapablei:f the readert akes sciences eriously,h e has first to go to science.B ut once there he has to go away from it, in order to accountf or it. If, like most, he stops midway, this is the best proof that sciencei s not taken seriously since it cannot explain itself.

,,BEWAREO F PURITY,I T IS THE VITRIOL OF THE SOIJL''22 The progressioni n the foregoing analysis was made possible by one assumptiont hat I want now to question.W hy do I want to questioni t? Becausei t still arisesf rom sciencea nd then precludesa ny analysiso f sciencei f it is not challengedT. he centrala xiom statest hat no accounti s taken as an explanation if it simply repeats what is supposedt o be explained.I did not questiont his axiom sincet here was no alternativet o it. I did not use it as it stands,h owever. I used it as an interpretationo f this axiom which goesa s follows: the first accounta nd the seconda re not proposedo r uttered by the samep erson All along I supposedth at there were mere practitionersa nd others( calleds cientists)e xplainingw hat the mere practitionersw ere doing. It is this hidden assumptiont hat I want now to question.E thnomethodologistsh ave undertakent o demonstrate that there is no qualitative differenceb etweeno bservationsm ade by a "competent member" and a sociologist.T he samei s true, I think of a scientista nd a sociologist,a s I will show with illustrationsf rom my own work. With Steve Woolgar23I showed that after a few years of work with biologistst he sociologistc an no longerd istinguishb etweenh is insidera nd outsider roles. He cannot decide if the biologists are like him, or if whatever differences obtain between him and them are of degree or of kind. This occurs less becauseo f the familiar processo f assimilationo f 208 BRUNO LATOUR the observeri nto the group he is observingt han becauset he difference between "practice" and "explanation of this practice" is largely arti- ficial. The sociologiste xplains what his informants are doing. But his informantsd o that as well. In fact, his informantsd o their own autosociol- ogy, and they do so in order to go about their work. When a project interestsa given scientist,h e mustj ustify his interest.H ow doesh e do so? Contrary to our expectations,h e does so with referencet o social and personalf actors. The following quotation from a conversationb etween two scientistsi llustratest his point.

But they don't know their business.I t may be that they seep rogesteronew hich has been known for years to be an analgesic. . Also there is a flag in all that. The English have discoveredt hat, they push it. That's normal.

In one singleu tterance,t he statementin disputei s rephrasedb y the use of four "extrascientific" allusions:t o the incompetenceo f one group of experimenterst;o their ignorance;t o their nationality;a nd to the normso f science-in this caset he counter-norTnsIt. is not possibleh eret o discrim- inate between a "pure" scientific sentence,a nd an explanationo f it provided by the sociologist.I nsidersa re constantlyu sing "outside" con- ceptsa nd tools to accountf or any fact in construction.T he centrala xiom is applied,b ut the samep ersono r group providest he explanandaa nd the ad explanandum.I n this processt he sociologisti s not really an outsider: he feels very much at home in a laboratory becauseh e does the same thing.2a The pervasivep resenceo fautosociologyi s striking eveni n a "harder" science.I showede lsewherez5th at a peptide chemistw ishing to modify the chemical nature of a given molecule could not rely on a logical process.H e had to use many heterogeneous"a ccounts" of his former moves in order to decidet he next modification.( The accountsi ncluded: colleagues's trategies;e valuationo f the reliability of chemicalf actories; various interpretationso f the sameb it of chemicalk nowledge;c hances and outcomes of the "black art" of chemistry; reception of previous articles;r eactionso f patent lawyers; availabilityo f supplies,a nd so on.) There is no differenceb etweent he sociologist'sr econstructiono f the re- searchp rocessa nd the actualn egotiationo fthis processb y the scientist; the latter does not fit the stereotypeso f either the relentlesslyl ogicalo r entirely unselfconsciousre searcher.I ndeed, the chemisth ad to practice autosociology,c onstantlyr econstructingh is prior activity, in order to go on with his research. He had to synthesizea mass of contradictory accountso f his and his colleaguesb' ehavior-rationalizations,p ure lies, systematicc lassificationsl,i terary devices,a nd somel ogicalr ules. How, for example,i s the chemistt o assimilatea serieso f papersw hich may all HowC anW eF osteAr gnosticism? 209 identify an identical changei n a moleculeb ut in each instancef ollow a different sequenceo f reasoning?T he differenceb etweent he inside and outsideo f scienced isappearsw hen one looks empiricallya t the research process:t he inside of sciencei s full of outside factors. So the central axiom of this paper is applied by the scientistst hemselves,n ot because they are more competent sociologistst han the sociologist,b ut because the sociologisto f sciencei s often, as we say in French, "plus royalistes que le roi."26 What is clear in a hard field is even more evident in a soft science. Invited by a group of primatologistst o observe their meeting, I was caught in a very strange situation. I had written a preliminary paper, "Observing ScientistsO bservingB aboonsO bserving. ."27 This pap- er infuriated two primatologistsw ho did not wish to be observed,a nd I was persuadedt o sign a waiver that I would not "observe" the meeting. Interestingly,t hough, the conferencem embersw ere also observingt heir colleaguesi ntensely, doing just what I would have done. They were observinge ach other's reactionsa nd taking notes on the attitudes and positionst hey held. Moreover, they were "explaining" these attitudes and positionsb y referring them to "social factors": nationality,g ender, careerh istory, . The of "dominance" that a zoologist usedw as, for example,c riticizedb y otherso n the basist hat the zoologist was male, American, a student of De Vore (a major exponent of the theory of dominanceh ierarchiesi n primate studies),t hat he used field notesw ritten ad libitum, and that he followed his baboonsa nd observed them from the top of a Land Rover. An older woman, working in an anthropologyd epartmenti n England,s awt he concepto f dominanceq uite differently,b ut it was notedt hat sheh adf illed in heets,h ada backgroundi n the humanities,h ad followed her baboonso n foot, and supportedt he Labour Party. The primatologistsd iscussedp sychoanaly- sis, cultural history, microsociologya nd ,n ot in order to make smallt alk but in order to definet heir work and to probe their preferences for theoretical approachesa nd data selection. The most ironic scene occurred when the gentlemanw ho had tried to exclude me from the meetinga sked all of us to fill in a sociologicalq uestionnairein order to check if the positions we had taken could be relatedt o our educational background.T he amount of autosociologyw as so astoundingt hat, with- out breakingm y pledget o not observe,I could gathere xcellents ociolog- ical data on the field, simply by writing down what they said about themselves. All thesee xampless how the erroneousc haractero f the hiddena ssump- tion. You cannot study sciencef rom the outsideb ecauset his would be admittingt hat scienceh as an inside. Conversely,i t is quite easyt o apply the centrala xiom in every field of science,b ecauset he distancer equired 210 tsRUNOL A'TOUR by the axiom is always there: scientistst hemselvesa re at somed istance from their own field so they cane xplains ciencei n differentt erms.A field is a heterogeneouws orld that has to be observedf rom the outsideo nly in the sociologist'so r the textbook writer's imagination.T o get into it and to apply the centrala xiom with the help of the many scientistse ngagedin the same work is not much of a problem. It is only by granting at the beginningt hat there are internal and externalb oundariesb etweens cien- tists and nonscientists,s cientific assertionsa nd "indexical" assertions that the study of sciencei s forestalled.2s The hidden assumptioni s not limited to science.I t is a generalp re- judice, a belief in boundaries.O n one side there are objectso f study, on the other there are people studyingt hese objects.T his belief in bound- aries is essentialt o the study project. But in order to study scientific practicew e mustt ake the drawingo f theseb oundariesa s the objecto f our study. I do not mean to suggestt hat there are no boundaries,n o differ- encesb etweenh ard and soft sciences,e xpertsa nd laymen,s cientifica nd unscientific procedures, laboratory rats and people studying them, ethnographersa nd tribesmen.I am sayings imply that the constructiono f thesed ichotomousc ategoriesi s not unproblematicala, nd that this must be recognized if science is to be really explained. My point is best illustratedw ith the hypotheticalc aseo f Ialo from the Ivory Coast.W hat could be the result of allowing this preliterateh untert o observeW estern science for the first ? We cannot assumet hat sciencew ould be completelyi naccessiblef,o r that would be grantingt oo much to science. No mind is altogetheru nscientific,a nd the differenceb etween science seenf rom inside and outside is not that great. Scientistsd o too much autosociologyto persuadeu s ofthe existenceo fan inside,a nd conversely, every outsiderc an get into sciencea s easilya s scientistsc an get out. Oncet he impositiono f boundariesis broughti nto focus,t he violenceo f the operationa ppearsi n full light. Was the readerc onsciouso f the use I madeo f "small" wordsl ike "pure," "mere", "absolutelyp ure," "auto- matic," "irreflexive," "unconscious"? I imitatedw hat occurss o often in sciencete xts.2eIn the expressions"p ure science,"" purely logical" and so on, the crucialf eaturesa re not the words "science" and "logical," but the small word "pure." I showedp er absurdurnw here a pure study of sciencew ouldl ead( outsideo f anythingw e believe)I. cann ow showw hy. It is the belief in purity that imposed the hidden interpretationo f the central axiom: on one side of the line pure objects, on the other pure minds,w ith no contactb etweent hem. One hast he to explaina nd the other must be explained.I f we are to be agnostict oward sciencew e must give up even this last belief, this religiousr espectf or purity.30A t the end of the first sectiono f this paper I proposeda paradoxicals trategy:i f we take sciences eriouslyw e must both move toward anda wayf rom it. Short Hou,C an We FosterA gnosticism? 217 of this, sciencei s a belief that cannotb e accountedf or. Now this position seemsu ntenable,f or if we take sciences eriouslyw e cannot analyzei t from the outsideb ecauseit has no inside,n o boundaryt hat can be taken for granted. Short of that, sciencei s a belief that cannot be explained.

A CHEAP AND IMPURE RESEARCHS TRATEGY We saw the peculiarm ethodologicapl osition of someonew ho intendst o study science.W e saw how the usualn avigationi nstrumentsf ail to tell us in which direction to go. And finally we decidedt hat this confusiono f all limits between inside and outside, sciencea nd nonscience,o bject and subject,i s essentiatl o our analysisa nd shouldn ot be eliminated.W e now have to concoct a "provisional moral"-as Descartesw ould say-to get by in our study of sciencew ithout losingo ur way and without findingo ur way back to the usualp ath (which as we now know leadsu s to believeo r to repeat Sciencei nstead of explainingi t). This provisional moral has three components:a stylistic one, an ethical one, and an economico ne. Continentals emioticsa nd British ethnomethodologyh ave approached the study of sciencef rom a linguistico r evena stylisticp oint of view.3rI n these approachest he difference between scientific styles appearsa s a differencei n the literary genret hat is used.T he genrei s madeo f a corpus of literary devices( or linguistick eys andf rames)w hich canb e empirically studied.A ll these devicesc an also be deconstructedb y a careful use of other genres.I t is no coincidencet hat many of the most fruitful insights into the workings of scienceh ave been made by peoplew hose is completelya t variancew ith thc usuals cientificm ode,p eoples ucha s Paul Feyerabendo r Michel Serres. Most studies of sciencea re, however, measuredb y the degreet o which they approximates cientific styles of scholarship,r ather than by their distancef rom scientifics tyle. I recom- mend,i nstead,t hat the studento f scienced o somel iterary research,s o as to becomef amiliar with the stylistic tricks employedb y scientists.3B2 y drawingo n theset wo sources( fictiona nd science)t he socials cientistw ill soon realize that there is in fact only one large literary genre: that of sciencef iction (the best part of which is not written by sciencef iction writers). Sociologistso f sciencea re beginningt o put togethera pictureo f what a sciencei s. tt is made of three main elements:a n inscription device of some sort (questionnairef,i eld notes, bioassay,m ass spectrometera nd so on), a body of scripturesa nd an agonisticf ield of somes ort.33T hrough the use of inscription devicest he scientistm ight be able to modify the statuso f an assertioni nside the body of scriptures( its modality),i f he is ablet o win in an agonistice ncounter.T he agonisticf ield is madeo f people like him who stop being interestedi n the use-valueo f this assertion,a nd 272 BRUNO LATOUR any other, and becomee xclusivelyi nterestedin their exchangev alue;t his value is definedi n the market of the field only as far as it allows other scientistst o acceleratet heir own cycle of production. Needlesst o say, this "capitalist economicso f " as Michel Foucault says, bears no relation whatsoevert o truth. Truth effect and constructiona re only the consequenceosf successfuml ovesi nside( or outside)t he agonis- tic field to stabilizes omec ontroversies.N ow, here is the ethicalr equire- ment. Knowing what a sciencei s madeo f, we shouldn ot want to develop one. Instead of fighting for more chairs, insteado f excluding scientists and laymen alike from the study of science by drawing boundaries, insteado fenforcing stricterr uleso faccesst o the field, insteado fcreeping inside ministriesa nd corporater ooms to advertiseo ur trade and extend the domain of applicationo f our market words and -instead,i n a word, of imitatingt he peoplew e shoulds tudy,w e havet o do to make clear that we do not want and do not intend to be scientists.T he constraints that we put on agnosticisma re inescapable.I t would be unethicalf or a studento f sciencet o ask for the garment,s tatusa ndr ole of a scientist. A study of sciencei s not economicallyf easible.I t takesy earst o show that a scientificf act fabricatedb y a group of biologistsh as been socially constructed.3aT o study sciencea nd technologyw ould require as many social scientistsa s there are scientists.N ot only would this be absurdly expensive,i t would only result in duplicating the sciencei n a similar amounto f scienceo f sciencea nd so on ad infinitum (anda d nauseum)A. cheapers trategyi s possiblei f we act on the implicationso f the second sectiono f this essay. Scienceh as no well-definedi nside. Scientistsa re themselvesfi ghtingt o definet he boundarieso f their fieldsa nd to exclude or includes ociald eterminantsD. isciplines,e speciallyt he younger,s ofter, more applieda nd more controversialo nes, are heterogeneouas nd full of gaps and loopholes in which the sociologistc an easily find his way. Many scientifici ssuesa re alreadyu ndera ttackb y many outsiders( seet he discussiono f the sixth group in the first section),a nd each social and political controversy in which sciencef igures representsa cheap and conveniente xperimentf rom which the studento f sciencec an learn. The student of sciencem ust recognizet hat he has allies whom he has not exploited effectively, either becauseh e despisest hem or becauseh e admires them to excess. I recognize that an alliance between Great Scientists,w ell-connecteds ocial scientistsa nd high-rankinga dministra- tors, would not be a very illuminatingo ne, but all sortso f other alliances are imaginable,g iven that the territory which scienceo ccupies is so controversial.S o long as a scientificd isciplinei s still in the processo f formation, it is possiblef or the student of sciencet o apply the central axiom with little difficulty. Once a disciplinei s solidified,i t becomes How Can We FosterA gnosticism? 213 increasinglyc ostly and difficult to show that the disciplinei tself, and the factso n which it rests, must be viewed as sociallyc onstructed.T hus, the third injunction of my small provisional moral is that the student of sciencem uste nroll as many alliesa s possible,s o as to decreaseth e cost of explaininga given scientifici ssue.35 Onef inal examples houldi lluminatet he extento f the problem.A fter the primatology meeting I discussede arlier I was appalledt o see that the publishedr eportso mitted all the debatesa nd the autosociologyw hich had provided the dynamic behind the proceedings.T he participants had chosent o imitate the hard sciences,f ormally ignoringa ll materialp rob- lems and social controversies.B ecauset he primatologistsh ave adopted this strategy,t he cost to the studento f sciencew ho would persuadet he reader that primatology is a social constructioni s very high. If, on the other hand, my primatologistf riends had chosent o presenta reflexive, soft and subtle understandingo f baboon watching, it would be easy to show that my "explanation" of primatology is in fact made by many scientistst hemselves.B ut becauset he primatologistsh ave chosen to present an image of their discipline which is in keeping with the stereotypep eople have of science,t he student of scienceh as a much harder time to expose the social production of facts. They made the barriersb etweens ciencea nd non-sciencev ery high, althought hey were almost ready to accept that they were not different from non-scientists. How then shouldf uture studentso f sciencep roceed?S houldt he study of scienceb e cheap,i mpure, heterodox,u nscientific?S houldi t be linked with the constant struggleb etween scientistsa nd nonscientiststo forge some scientifica ssertions?S hould it strive to abrogatet he usual bound- ariesb etweens ciencea nd nonscience?S houldi t repudiates cientifics tyle and the strategy of the scientific establishment?If sociologistsa nswer theseq uestionsi n the affirmativet hey will be departingf rom their usual methodologicaild eals.S tranget houghi t may seem,h owever,t hey will be following the only possiblec ourse to take if they wish to take science seriously,t o reveal what it is made of and to be truly agonistic.

NOTES l. So many counterexamplecso uld be foundt hat I do not want to considert hem. As will becomec lear, I am not seekingp arity with sophisticatedm ethodologicaal nalysisi n social scienceO. nly the peculiars ituationo fthe sociologyo fsciencejustinestr eatingt hesei ssues so crudely. 2. The defenceo f subjectivityh as been madeb y writers like Cicourelo r Goffman. P. Winch's seminalT heI dea of a SocialS cience( London:R outledgea nd KeganP aul,1 958i)s premisedo n the oppositiono fthe sociala nd naturals cience,a ndt he subjectivec haractero f the former. a l I a t + BRUNO L,ATOUR

3. Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar,L aboratory Life (Lond,on;S age, 1979). 4. K. Knorr, "Producing and ReproducingK nowledge:D escriptiveo r Constructive?" SocialS cienceI nformotion 16( 1978)6: 69-96;B . Barnesa ndJ . , "WhateverS houldB e Done with Indexical Expressions?"T heorya nd Society3 (1976)2: 23-37. 5. One cannots peako f methodw ithout credentialsin empiricalw ork. This excursioni n methodologyi s based upon: a one-years tudy of black engineersi n the Ivory Coast; a two-years tudyo f a biologyl aboratoryi n California;a one-years tudyo f primatologistsa; nd a current three-yearw ork on Pasteur. 6. "Science" is an absurdlyg eneralt erm that hasn o strict meaning.I usei t in this article becauseb y usingt he word the belief in sciencei s reinforced;a n enchantedc ircle is drawn arounda ny enterprised esignateda s "science". SinceI intendt o generated isenchantmenIt, am not botheredb y the magicalq uality of this generalt erm. 7. "Repetition" shouldb e understoodi n a narrow sense.I f I record with great care a that is told to me, I am not repeatingi t; rather I am putting it in a new framework (field study,s heafo f papers);t his is enought o fulfill the requiremenot f the axiome veni f I haven o theory or grand explanationo f this myth. Also this article does not deal with the further requirementt hat an explanationb e good; it startso nly from the minimum requiredf or a study to take place. 8. Many namesc anb e proposedt o illustratee achs tepw e areg oingt o follow: Whitehead, Einstein,M edawar,M onod and Jacob are good examples. 9. The exemplaryw orks are D. Edge and M. Mulkay, Astronomy Transformed( New York: Wifey Interscience,1 976);a ndG . Lemaine,e d., Stratégiese t Choixd ansI a Recher- che (The Hague: Mouton, 1977),a t least in the narrow domain of sociology of science. 10. For a morec ompleted iscussions eeL atour andW oolgar( 1979a) ndt he worksc itedi n note 14. ll. lt is in France that this new axiom has receivedi ts grealeste xtension.P eoplel ike Bachelard, Canguilhem and Althusser have so worshipped sciencet hat no history---or at least no social history---of sciencec an be developed.A generalh istory of thought or of the of sciencei s added to the grandioseu nfoldingo f "scientificity." The of "explaining" sciencei s madet o seemb lasphemous. 12. Quotologyh as mainly developeda roundt he ScienceC itationI ndex inventedb y E. Garfield;t he Indicatorsh aveb eene speciallyd evelopedb y the NationalS cienceF oundation and the work of J. J. Salomona t the OECD in Paris.T he quantitativea pproachi s best representedb y D. de Solla Price. The semiquantitativea pproachi s well representedb y Merton, Hagstrom,C ole or Ben-David.F or a bibliographys eeI . Spiegel-Rôsinagn d D. de Solla Price eds., Science, Technologya nd Society: A Cross-DisciplinaryP erspective( Lon- don: Sage,1 977). 13. D. Bloor, Knowledgea nd SocialI magery( London:R outledgea nd KeganP aul,1 976). 14. SeeH . Collins," The SevenS exes:A Studyi n the Sociologyo f a Phenomenono,r the Replicationo f an Experimenti n Physics," Sociology9 (1975):2 05-24;B . Latour and P. Fabbri, "Pouvoir et Devoir dansu n Article de ScienceE xacte," Actes de la Recherchee n ScienceS ociale 13 (1977:8l-95); K. Knorr, "From Scenest o Scripts" (forthcoming); Woolgar,S ., "Writing an IntellectualH istory of ScientificD evelopmentS, ocialS tudieso f Science6 (1976):1 95-422;P inch, T., "Theoreticiansa nd the Productiono f Experimental Anomalies:T he Caseo f the Solar Neutrino", Callon, M', "De Problemese n Problemes: Itineraire d'un Laboratoire" in Soclblogy of the Sciences: A Yearbook. The Research ProcessK . Knorr, R. Krohn and R. Withley (eds.), 1980. 15. The frrst long-terml aboratorys tudy was performedb y myself, but severals tudies have since been made by other social scientists.T he field study of laboratoriesis not a panaceab ul it has a unique -it allows us to check what scientistss ay they do by observingw hat they do. How Can We FosterA gnosticism? 2t5

16. Bloor, 1976:40. 17. In England the most representativea re grouped around the Radical ScienceJ ournal and the work of Bob Young. In Italy, it is the work of A. Cicotti. In France,t he groups gathereda round Impasciencea nd J. M. Lévy-Leblond. 18. I use this word not to destroy the that the actual experimentsh ave taken place,b ut only becauseit is true that all sciencesa re part of sciencef iction.A nicee xample ofthis is providedi n the book publishedb y Sciencefo r the People:C hinaS cienceW alkso n Two Legs (New York: Locust Books, 1974),w hich is exactly like a good science-fiction novel by, say, LeGuin. 19. Exceptf or Bernal,M arxist scholarsh aven ot beenv ery interestedin scienceT. his is not only becauseth ey are not interestedin particulari ssues,b ut becauseth ey are excluded from the placesw here sciencei s done. Once again,i gnoranceo f the working detailso f scienceh as been most extreme( seeA lthusser,f or instance). 20. It would be wrong to confine this label to militant groups such as Nader's Raiderso r Sciencef or the People. The most important group is the administralors of science.A t the U.S. National ScienceF oundationo r at the French Centre Nationaled e la Recherche Scientifiquet he influenceo f high executivesi n directingf inancials upporta nd scientific prioritiese normouslyo utweighst hat of leftistg roups.T heir objectivesa re similar,h owever; they want to manipulate and interpret sciencew ithout permitting scientistst o do so. 21. For a more elegant,t entativef ormulation,s eeL amarosse," Le pygmée t la licorme "d'ascèse," Art PressI nternational,( Summer1 979),s pecials cienceis sue.I do not mean all who areo utsides cience,b ut the very rare caseo fpeople who areo utsideo fsciencea nd looking in at a very intimate and detailed part of the production of knowledge. 22. This is what the captaint ells RobinsonC rusoejustb eforet he shipwreck.I allude,o f course,n ot to Defoe's crude character,b ut to M. Tournier'sw onderful Vendredi,o u les Limbes du Pacifique,( Paris:G allimard, 1967). 23. Latour and Woolgar (1979). 24. The easiestw ay to presentt he issuei s to the following: either you have a science, then a scienceo f science,t hen the third-degreere view of the scienceo f science,a nd so on ad infnitum; or you havet he scienceo f sciencea s a subseto f science,s cienceit selft aking only a subseto f everyday practice. The consequenceas re clear: in the first approach, reflexivitya nd consciousnesgsa in a right to exist; in the second,r eflexivitya nd conscious- nessa reo nly subsetso fpractices.T hesea re the consequencetsh at peoplew ant to avoid by using the hidden interpretation of the central axiom. 25. B. Latour, "Is It Possiblet o Reconstructh e ResearchP rocessS: ociologyo fa Brain Peptide," Sociology of the Sciences:A Yearbook( 1980). 26. Thebeliefinsciencemightbetheinventionofepistemologists,philosophers,andnow the sociologistso f science-that is, peoplew hosem ethodi s patentlyu nscientificb ut who sciencea nd scientists.M any of thesep oints are obvioust o a scientistb ut quite absurdt o a sociologisto f scienceo r an epistemologist. 27. B. Latour, "Baboon Field Studies:M yths and Models," WennerG rennS ymposium, New York, June 1978.A ll the following referencesa re to this meetingo r to the papers (unpublished). 2E. This is not the resuscitationo f the prejudiceo f the first groups( Part l); I do not say that only scientistsc an explains cienceb ecauseo ausidersa re incompetentI; say that many timesi t is the outsider'sb elief that makess cienceu nexplainablea nd that "walking into a laboratory" is enough to demonstratet hat there is no inside becauses cientistsa re as much outsidea s outsidersa re. 29. I refer of courset o Kant's use of the word "pure" but also to the lessc onspicuous antinomies-hard/soft, rigorouslflzzy, strong/weak, perfect/imperfect-that are employed to differentiates ciencef rom nonscience. 216 BRUNO LATOUR

30. SeeD.B loor," PolyhedraandtheAbominationsLoef viticus,"B ritishJournalforthe History of ScienceI l(1978: 245-72),i n which Mary Douglas'sa nthropologicacl lassifica- tions are appliedt o mathematicadl isputes.T he most stimulatingi nsightsa re Nietzsche's aphorismsin Dief rôhliche Wissenschafte,s peciallyN o. 344:" Why are we still so devout?" 31. A review of the semioticl iteraturec an be found in A. J. Griemas,S emiotiquee t sciences ociale,P aris: (Seuil, 1976);t he unpublishedw ork of FrancoiseB astide,( Paris, CNRS), is crucial for issueso f scientific" genre." 32. Latour and Fabbri, op. cit. 33. The term "scriptures" is borrowedf rom Knorr (1978);f or a descriptions e€L atour and Woolgar( 1979). 34. Steve Woolgar spent four years reconstructingt he discovery of pulsars;M ichel Callon spent two years following the social negotiations surrounding the choice of the problems in fuel-cell research in the 1950s;F rancoise Bastide has already worked three yearso n a handfulo farticles by ClaudeB ernard.E ven ifthere are,a s Harry Collinsa rgues, strategicp oints to study, the sizeo fthe task is beyondt he reacho fa few socials cientists. 35. Their most useful allies must be intellectualh ybrids-alienated, marginalm en of researchw ho make ideal double agents:a nthropologistsw ho have turned to science; physiciansw ho have turned to history; militantsw ho have tumed to epistemologyc; on- sumerists turned to the social history of technology; engineersw ho have turned to the philosophyo f science,a nd so on. With their help, we will find so many gaps in the boundarieso f sciencet hat the distinctionb etweens ciencea nd nonsciencew ill finally be obliterated. KNOWLEDGEA ND SOCIETY: STUDIESIN THE SOCIOLOGYO F CULTUREP AST AND PRESENT

A ResearcAhn nual

Editors: ROBERTA LUN IONES Departmenot f Sociology Uniaersityo f Illinois

HENRIKA KUKLICK Departmenotf Historya nd Sociologoyf Science Uniaersityo f Pennsyluania

VOLUME 3 . 1981

Aftx PRESrSN C. Gree n wich . Co nnecticu t Copl-risht A l98l JAI PRESS INC. 165 West Putnam Avenue Gre en u,ich. Co n nect ic ut 06830

All rights reserved. No part of this publication mû!- be reproduced, srored on a reîrieval system, or lransmifted, in an.vf orm or bv any means, electronic, mechanicol, flming, photocopl,ing, recording or otherwise u'ithout prior permission in v'riting front the publisher.

I SBN N UMBER : 0-89232-16 I -X

Manufactured in the United States of America

Volumesl and 2 publisheda s: RESEARCHI N SOCIOLOGYO F KNOWLEDGE, SCIENCESA ND ART CONTENTS

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS vii

SOME SOCIAL ROOTSO F THE MAD GENIUS CONTROVERSY GeorgeB ecker COOLEY'S "GENIUS, FAME AND THE COMPARISON OF RACES" Robert M. Greenfield 35 SKINNERIAN PSYCHOLOGYA S FACTORY PSYCHOLOCY Barry Schwartz 79 THE ENLIGHTENMENT AND ADAM SMITH'S CONCEPTION OF SCIENCE Josep R. Llobera r09 THE FUNCTIONS OF CLASSICAL THEORY IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH: THE CASE OF MAX WEBER Kiku Adatto and StephenC ole 137 PROBLEM CHOICE AND THE SOCIOLOGY AND SCIENTIFICC OMPETIÏON: AN INTERNATIONAL CASE STUDY IN PARTICLE PHYSICS Daniel Sullivan, Edward J. Barboni and D. Hywel White 163 WHO IS AGNOSTIC? OR WHAT COULD IT MEAN TO STUDY SCIENCE? Bruno Latour 199 THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF ARTISTIC STYLE: IMPRESSIONISMI N FRANCE AND CRITICAL REALISM IN RUSSIA Liah Greenfeld 2 1 7 AFFLUENCE AND AFTER: THEMES OF SUCCESSIN AMERICAN BESTSELLINGN OVELS. 7945-7975 Elizabeth Lons 257