Insiders and Outsiders in the Sociology of Science, Or How Can We Foster
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INSIDERS& OUTSIDERSIN THE SOCIOLOGYO F SCIENCEO; R, HOW CAN WE FOSTER AGNOSTICISM? 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 Culture Past and Present,v olume 3, pages1 9-216. Copyright @ f98f by JAI PressI nc. All rights 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 "facts" 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 emotion-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 belief in pure and exact knowledge. 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 physics,( 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 religion,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 principles.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 being 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 axiom: no accountq ualifiesa s an 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 value;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 history and sociology,a nd they publish the resultso f their work not in scientificb ut in sociologicaol r historicalj ournals. Their accounto f sciencei s thus in conformity with our centrala xiom andm ight count asa n explanation.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 explanations 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 collective 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 fact, 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 bias of this group as a whole but approach sciencew ith an agnostic attitude,t reating it as if it were any other sociologicapl henomenonT.