DOCSLIB.ORG

Bruno Latour in Pieces

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bruno Latour in Pieces Bruno Latour in Pieces Stefanos Geroulanos and Todd Meyers, series editors Bruno Latour in Pieces An Intellectual Biography Henning Schmidgen Translated by Gloria Custance Fordham University Press New York 2015 Copyright © 2015 Fordham University Press All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be repro- duced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means— electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other— except for brief quotations in printed reviews, without the prior permission of the publisher. This work was originally published in German as Henning Schmidgen, Bruno Latour zur Einführung © 2011, Junius Verlag. Fordham University Press has no responsibility for the persis- tence or accuracy of URLs for external or third- party Internet websites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. Fordham University Press also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books. Library of Congress Cataloging-in- Publication Data is available from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America 17 16 15 5 4 3 2 1 First edition Contents List of Abbreviations for Frequently Cited Works ix Acknow ledg ments xiii Introduction 1 1. Exegesis and Ethnology 9 2. A Phi los o pher in the Laboratory 25 3. Machines of Tradition 40 4. Pandora and the History of Modernity 54 5. Of Actants, Forces, and Things 68 6. Science and Action 83 7. Questions Concerning Technology 96 8. The Coming Parliament 114 Conclusion 133 Timeline 141 Notes 145 Bibliography 165 Index 167 vii Abbreviations for Frequently Cited Works AT Aramis, or the Love of Technology. Trans. Catherine Porter. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1996. CB La clef de Berlin et autres leçons d’un amateur de sciences. Paris: La Découverte, 1993. CR “Comment rédistribuer le Grand Partage?” Revue de synthèse 3, no. 110 (1983): 203– 236. EC “The Enlightenment Without the Critique: A Word on Michel Serres’ Philosophy.” In Contemporary French Philosophy, ed. A. Phillips Griffi ths, 83– 97. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. FR “The Force and the Reason of Experiment.” In Experimental Inquiries: Historical, Philosophical, and Social Studies of Experimentation in Science, ed. Homer E. Le Grand, 49– 80. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1990. IC Les idéologies de la compétence en milieu industriel à Abidjan. Sciences Humaines, Série études industrielles 9. Abidjan: ORSTOM, 1974. LL1 Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientifi c Facts. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1979 (with Steve Woolgar). LL2 Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientifi c Facts. 2nd ed., with a new postscript and index by the authors. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1986 (with Steve Woolgar). LLF La vie de laboratoire: La production des faits scientifi ques. Trans. Michel Biezunski. Paris: La Découverte, 1988 (with Steve Woolgar). ix x Abbreviations for Frequently Cited Works MI Les microbes: Guerre et paix, suivi de Irréductions. Collection Pandore 3. Paris: Métalié, 1984. ML The Making of Law: An Ethnography of the Conseil d’État. Trans. Marina Brilman and Alain Pottage, and revised by the author. Cambridge: Polity, 2010. MoE An Inquiry into Modes of Existence: An Anthropology of the Moderns. Trans. Catherine Porter. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2013. NB We Have Never Been Modern. Trans. Catherine Porter. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993. PF The Pasteurization of France. Trans. John Law and Alan Sheridan. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988 (revised version of MI). PH Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999. PN Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences Into Democracy. Trans. Catherine Porter. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004. PV Paris ville invisible. Paris: La Découverte/Les empêcheur de penser en rond, 1998 (with Emilie Hermant). PVE Paris: Invisible City. Trans. Liz Carey- Libbrecht. Online ed., without images. http:// www.bruno -latour .fr /sites /default /fi les / downloads /viii _paris -city -gb .pdf . RC “On Recalling ANT.” In Actor Network Theory and After, ed. John Law and John Hassard, 15– 25. Oxford: Blackwell/Malden, Mass.: So cio log i cal Review, 1999. RdS “La rhétorique de la science: Pouvoir et devoir dans un article de science exacte.” Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 13 (1977): 81– 95 (with Paolo Fabbri). RP “Pourquoi Péguy se répète-t-il? Pourquoi est- il illisible?” in Péguy écrivain. Colloque du centenaire, Orléans, Septembre 1973, 76– 102. Paris: Klincksieck, 1977. RS Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor- Network- Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. SIA Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987. Abbreviations for Frequently Cited Works xi TD “Technology Is Society Made Durable.” In A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology, and Domination, ed. John Law, 103– 131. London: Routledge, 1991. TRS Rejoicing: Or the Torments of Religious Speech. Trans. Julie Rose. Cambridge: Polity, 2013. VE “Les ‘vues’ de l’esprit: Une introduction à l’anthropologie des sciences et des techniques.” Culture technique 14 (1985): 5– 29. Ac know ledg ments This book is an extended and updated version of the second edition of Bruno Latour zur Einführung, published with Junius Press in Hamburg in 2013 (1st ed., 2011). The themes and arguments developed in this book were fi rst presented at the fi fth Eu ro pe an Conference of the Society for Science, Literature, and the Arts (SLSA) in Berlin in 2008. An extended version of this pre sen ta tion was published in German as “Die Materialität der Dinge? Bruno Latour und die Wissenschaftsge- schichte” in Bruno Latours Kollektive: Kontroversen zur Entgrenzung des Sozi- alen, ed. Georg Kneer, Markus Schroer, and Erhard Schüttpelz (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2008), 15– 46. A slightly revised En glish version of this paper appeared as “The Materiality of Things? Bruno Latour, Charles Péguy, and the History of Science,” History of the Human Sciences 26, no. 1 (2013): 3– 28. I would like to express my sincere thanks for the critical discussions of my initial thoughts and arguments with Hans- Jörg Rheinberger, Andrew Pickering, Michael Lynch, Robyn Smith, Steven Meyer, Didier Debaise, and Bruno Latour. In the course of the research that followed, many people gave their kind support. Roger Guillemin, Paolo Fabbri, and Bernward Joerges agreed im- mediately to answer my questions. Bruno Latour provided biographical and bibliographic information and responded to my inquiries almost at the speed of light. The anonymous referees of HHS offered valuable comments and criticism. xiii xiv Ac know ledg ments Conversations with Bruce Clarke, Pamela Kort, Peter Weingart, and particularly my ongoing dialogue with Gustav Roßler, the principal trans- lator of Latour’s writings into German, did much to clarify my ideas. Equally important was the interaction with the students in my Latour and ANT seminars in Weimar and Cambridge, Massachusetts, and the post- graduates at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science (Dept. III) in Berlin. My thanks again to Skúli Sigurdsson for his helpful suggestions and pointers. I am grateful to Christian Reiss and Tomoko Mamine for read- ing, correcting, and commenting on parts of the German version of the book. I also thank Gloria Custance for her translation and editing work on the En glish text as well as Stefanos Geroulanos and Todd Meyers for their stimulating support. Bruno Latour in Pieces Introduction . one never follows in order to reproduce. Bruno Latour has many faces.1 He is known to many as an ethnographer of the world of everyday technology who in meticulous studies has shown how seemingly trivial things, like a key or a safety belt, actively intervene in our behavior. Others know Latour as an essayist very well versed in the- ory who charged the phi los o phers of postmodernity— principally Lyotard and Baudrillard but also Barthes, Lacan, and Derrida—that their thinking merely revolves around artifi cial sign- worlds and who confronted them with the provocative assertion that “we have never been modern.” In addition, Latour is an enormously productive social scientist, who with empirical studies such as Laboratory Life and Aramis has largely con- tributed to defi ning the fi eld of research known internationally as science and technology studies (STS). In this role, Latour is also known— despite having critiqued postmodernism himself— as an instigator of the so-called science wars, which raged especially in the United States and France over 1 2 Introduction the alleged misappropriation of natural science by postmodernism-infl uenced representatives of the humanities and social sciences. Over and above this, Latour has more recently distinguished himself as the visionary of a “parliament of things,” in which the barriers between nature and society are to be broken down in the name of a politi cal ecol ogy, and he is also the programmatic spokesperson of a “new sociology for a new society,” a theory and practice of social science whose core focus is the sci- entifi c and technological networks that have contributed to the genesis and dissemination of “hybrids” and “quasi- objects,” of seminatural, semiartifi - cial issues of contention— from the AIDS virus to global climate change. Bruno Latour has indeed many faces. He is the author of an oeuvre that is as extensive as it is diverse. Since the late 1970s, Latour has produced fourteen monographs and published around 120 articles, mainly in inter- national peer- reviewed journals. He has published a series of anthologies (including with Michel Callon and Pierre Lemonnier), several interview books (including with Michel Serres and François Ewald), and an avant- garde illustrated essay about the city of Paris with the photographer and author Emilie Hermant.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Forty Years After Laboratory Life*
    Philos Theor Pract Biol (2020) 12:3 RESEARCH ARTICLE Forty Years after Laboratory Life* Joyce C. Havstady There is an ongoing and robust tradition of science and technology studies (STS) scholars conducting ethnographic laboratory studies. These laboratory studies—like all ethnogra- phies—are each conducted at a particular time, are situated in a particular place, and are about a particular (scientific) culture. Presumably, this contextual specificity means that such ethnographies have limited applicability beyond the narrow slice of time, place, and culture that they each subject to examination. But we (STS scholars) do not always or even often treat them that way. It is beyond common for us to speak about what one or another laboratory study reveals about the laboratory, or “science” much more broadly. Given the contextual specificity of our ethnographic laboratory studies, what justifies this presumed generalizability? Initially, this manuscript surveys typical responses to this question, but then it pursues an unusual one: the potential replicability of ethnographic results. This potential is hereby explored, via an ethnographic replication attempt—one designed and conducted in order to test the generalizability of a particular laboratory study, that of Latour and Woolgar’s classic Laboratory Life (1979). The results of the ethnographic replication attempt are reported, and a remarkable degree of replicability is established. Keywords ethnography • generalizability • Laboratory Life • laboratory studies • replicability • science and technology studies 1 The Motivating Question Ethnographic laboratory studies are an important part of the ongoing science and technology studies (STS) tradition. But to what extent can the results of a particular laboratory study be generalized to other contexts? In other words, do STS ethnographies have any so-called “external validity” (Campbell and Stanley 1966; Calder, Phillips, and Tybout 1982), or perhaps *In 1988, Ian Hacking wrote: “Soon it will be time to write ‘Ten Years after Laboratory Life’ ” (Hacking 1988, 277).
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Henning Schmidgen, Bruno Latour in Pieces: an Intellectual Biography
    ISSN 1918-7351 Volume 10 (2018) Review of Henning Schmidgen, Bruno Latour in Pieces: An Intellectual Biography. Translated by Gloria Custance. New York: Fordham University Press, 2014. xvi + 175 pages. Bruno Latour in Pieces (BLP) offers a brief but extensive introduction to Latour’s education, career, collaborations, and collaborators. BLP is Latourean in its insistence on pointing to the “ego, hic, nunc” (17). By following Latour’s method of indexing, of pointing to people, places, and times, Schmidgen aptly follows Latour. Like any biography worth its salt, Schmidgen’s research follows the influences that played a role in transforming Latour into the thinker he is, but also plays it close to the ear by not only articulating the bibliographical information, but in attempting a genealogy of Latourian philosophy. Schmidgen reveals the sources of a rearticulation of many key Science and Technology Studies themes in relationships developed in biblical hermeneutics through his ethnography of the Guillemin’s Laboratory. BLP is after all an “intellectual biography,” so it is hardly surprising that Schmidgen attempts what his project plainly sets out to do. But, what is pleasantly surprising is the interconnected mosaic generated in graphing historical bibliographical details onto Latour’s intellectual development. The imagine of Latourian studies is circulated, and in turn transformed (there is no circulation, no translation, without transformation), but what is up for debate is whether these transformations are felicitous in maintaining the relationships that make them possible. A key insight that Schmidgen brings to light in BLP is the influence that André Malet, Rudolf Bultmann, and Charles Péguy had on Latour.
    [Show full text]
  • Miguel García-Sancho Talks with Karin Knorr Cetina
    Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 4 (2018), 246-266 DOI:10.17351/ests2018.239 “These Were Not Boring Meetings”: Miguel García-Sancho Talks with Karin Knorr Cetina MIGUEL GARCÍA-SANCHO1 UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH KARIN KNORR CETINA2 UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO Abstract In this interview, Karin Knorr Cetina evokes the first Annual Meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science at Cornell University in 1976 as a foundational moment for science and technology studies (STS). This conference consolidated a new approach to the study of science based on the anthropological observation of scientists at work in the laboratory. Knorr Cetina argues that, despite geographically cementing in the United States, this approach originated mainly through the work of European scholars. The years that followed the Cornell meeting were marked by intense debates between the defenders of this anthropological approach and other scholars more focused on ideas than on scientific practice. Knorr Cetina describes these debates as “bloodbaths” and recalls having first coined the term “constructivist” as applied to science studies in 1977. For Knorr Cetina, STS is now shifting its attention from the production to the consumption of technoscientific knowledge. Her current interest in the financial markets and other forms of screen technologies is an example of this transition. She argues that STS needs to overcome its current fragmentation and emphasis in isolated case studies. The establishment of basic research centers with the financial resources to develop collective and long-term programs would help scholars to expand their horizons. In his following reflection, Miguel García-Sancho explores the connections between STS and travel in both a sense of intellectual shift and a more mundane meaning of physical movement.
    [Show full text]
  • Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists Author(S): Thomas F
    Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists Author(s): Thomas F. Gieryn Source: American Sociological Review, Vol. 48, No. 6 (Dec., 1983), pp. 781-795 Published by: American Sociological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2095325 . Accessed: 20/10/2014 20:34 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Sociological Review. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 128.173.127.127 on Mon, 20 Oct 2014 20:34:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions BOUNDARY-WORK AND THE DEMARCATION OF SCIENCE FROM NON-SCIENCE: STRAINS AND INTERESTS IN PROFESSIONAL IDEOLOGIES OF SCIENTISTS* THOMAS F. GIERYN Indiana University The demarcation of science from other intellectual activities-long an analytic problemfor philosophersand sociologists-is here examinedas a practicalproblem for scientists. Construction of a boundary between science and varieties of non-science is useful for scientists' pursuit of professional goals: acquisition of intellectual authority and career opportunities; denial of these resources to "pseudoscientists"; and protection of the autonomy of scientific research from political interference.
    [Show full text]
  • Doing Actor-Network Theory: Integrating Network Analysis with Empirical Philosophy in the Study of Research Into Genetically Modified Organisms in New Zealand
    Lincoln University Digital Thesis Copyright Statement The digital copy of this thesis is protected by the Copyright Act 1994 (New Zealand). This thesis may be consulted by you, provided you comply with the provisions of the Act and the following conditions of use: you will use the copy only for the purposes of research or private study you will recognise the author's right to be identified as the author of the thesis and due acknowledgement will be made to the author where appropriate you will obtain the author's permission before publishing any material from the thesis. Doing Actor-Network Theory: Integrating network analysis with empirical philosophy in the study of research into Genetically Modified Organisms in New Zealand __________________________________ A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Lincoln University by Sarah Edwards _______________________________ Lincoln University 2014 Abstract Abstract of a thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Doing Actor-Network Theory: Integrating network analysis with empirical philosophy in the study of research into Genetically Modified Organisms in New Zealand by Sarah Edwards This thesis provides a critical examination of the theoretical and methodological tools provided by Actor-Network Theory (ANT). It does so by applying ANT to the analysis of research into Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in New Zealand: first, in the case of a particular programme of GMO research; second, by considering the organisation and control of GMO research in more general terms. While ANT as a field of scholarship has grown substantially since its development in the 1980s, the early network analyses upon which it was originally founded still offer the most substantial methodological guidelines for researchers.
    [Show full text]
  • Actor Network Theory and Media: Do They Connect and on What Terms?
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by LSE Research Online Nick Couldry Actor network theory and media: do they connect and on what terms? Book section Original citation: Originally published in Hepp, A., Krotz, F., Moores, S. and Winter, C. (eds.), Connectivity, networks and flows: conceptualizing contemporary communications. Cresskill, NJ, USA: Hampton Press, Inc., 2008, pp. 93-110. ISBN 9781572738577 © 2008 Hampton Press, Inc. This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/52481/ Available in LSE Research Online: Sept 2013 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s submitted version of the book section. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. Six ACTOR NETWORK THEORY AND MEDIA Do They Connect and on What Terms? Nick Couldry Actor Network Theory (ANT) is a highly influential account within the sociology of science that seeks to explain social order not through an essentialized notion of “the social” but through the networks of connec- tions among human agents, technologies, and objects.
    [Show full text]
  • Malte Ziewitz Talks with Michael Lynch Keywords
    Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 4 (2018), 366-385 DOI:10.17351/ests2018.220 It’s Important to Go to the Laboratory: Malte Ziewitz Talks with Michael Lynch MALTE ZIEWITZ1 CORNELL UNIVERSITY MICHAEL LYNCH2 CORNELL UNIVERSITY Abstract Why would anyone still want to go to the laboratory in 2018? In this interview, Michael Lynch answers this and other questions, reflecting on his own journey in, through, and alongside the field of science and technology studies (STS). Starting from his days as a student of Harold Garfinkel’s at UCLA to more recent times as editor of Social Studies of Science, Lynch talks about the rise of origin stories in the field; the role of ethnomethodology in his thinking; the early days of laboratory studies; why “turns” and “waves” might better be called “spins”; what he learned from David Edge; why we should be skeptical of the presumption that STS enhances the democratization of science; and why it might be time to “blow up STS”––an appealing idea that Malte Ziewitz takes up in his reflection following the interview. Keywords history of STS; Michael Lynch; interview; laboratory; ethnomethodology; parasites; explosive STS MZ The field of STS now seems to be at a point where people enjoy a good origin story. Do you have one you would like to share? ML I’ll give you one that’s very familiar, which gives a lot of credit to Edinburgh. I think there’s a solid basis for this story, certainly other people will tell a different one and we all know that these things are constructed in light of where we are in the present.
    [Show full text]
  • REVIEW: Bruno Latour. Reassembling the Social: an Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory
    REVIEW: Bruno Latour. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Author(s): Nicholas J. Rowland, Jan-Hendrik Passoth, and Alexander B. Kinney Source: Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science, Vol. 5, No. 1 (2011) 95-99. Published by: The University of Toronto DOI: 10.4245/sponge.v5i1.14968 EDITORIALOFFICES Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology Room 316 Victoria College, 91 Charles Street West Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1K7 [email protected] Published online at jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/SpontaneousGenerations ISSN 1913 0465 Founded in 2006, Spontaneous Generations is an online academic journal published by graduate students at the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology, University of Toronto. There is no subscription or membership fee. Spontaneous Generations provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. R Latour’s Greatest Hits, Reassembled Bruno Latour. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. 328pp. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, USA, 2005.∗ Nicholas J. Rowland† Jan-Hendrik Passoth‡ Alexander B. Kinney§ It seems peculiar that a non-theory, anti-method has managed to become canonical, but that is what Bruno Latour will introduce you to in his book; the post-pluralist, post-humanist aitude called Actor-Network-Theory (ANT). Drawing together heaps of controversial research, Latour resuscitates ANT aer its 1999 death (see Law and Hassard 1999). Like Graham Harman’s book about Latour, The Prince of Networks (2009), Reassembling the Social is the outcome of various lectures and seminars, and must be read as such.
    [Show full text]
  • Bourdieu and Latour in STS: “Let’S Leave Aside All the Facts for a While”
    Bourdieu and Latour in STS: “Let’s Leave Aside All the Facts for A While” by Lee Claiborne Nelson M.A., Aarhus University, 2011 B.A., Dalhousie University, 2008 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in The Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (Science and Technology Studies) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) September 2014 © Lee Claiborne Nelson, 2014 Abstract Through the lens of the English-speaking Science and Technology Studies (STS) community, the relationship between Pierre Bourdieu and Bruno Latour has remained semi-opaque. This thesis problematizes the Anglo understanding of the Bourdieu-Latour relationship and unsettles the resolve that maintains the distance that STS has kept from Bourdieu. Despite many similarities between these two scholars, Bourdieu has remained a distant figure to STS despite his predominance in disciplines from which STS frequently borrows and the relevance of his corpus to topics dear to the heart of STS. This is in part due to Latour's frequent criticisms of Bourdieu by name, Latour’s philosophical disagreements with Kant and neoKantians, and Latour’s prestige in STS, and partially due to Bourdieu’s somewhat indirect or orthogonal ways of addressing natural and physical sciences and technology. Due to the fact that the writings of both needed to be translated from the original French to be received by Anglo audiences, important cultural, stylistic, and rhetorical nuances were lost, mistranslated, or not translated across the linguistic and geographical divides. Including these distinctions is invaluable to understanding their relationship and further weakens the justification for Bourdieu's absence from STS.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    FORUM: QUALITATIVE Volume 3, No. 3, Art. 15 SOCIAL RESEARCH September 2002 SOZIALFORSCHUNG Signing for Reflexivity: Constructionist Rhetorics and Its Reflexive Critique in Science and Technology Studies Tarja Knuuttila Key words: Abstract: I argue that reflexivity should not be seen as being primarily about the relationship of reflexivity, Science scientific writing to the realities studied—as it is often understood. In trying to establish this point I and Technology examine the discussion about reflexivity in science and technology studies (STS). The STS reflexiv- Studies, ists claimed that the relativist and constructionist STS undermined reflexively themselves by argu- representation, ing that all knowledge is situated and socially constructed. In the face of this reflexive problematics constructionism, they suggested that "new literary forms", which manifest the constructed nature of scientific text, relativism should be adopted. It seems to me that this program of inscribing reflexivity was semiotically misguided, which contributed to its demise. On the other hand, I argue that the basic reflexive point about the paradoxicality of making general claims about the local and contingent "nature" of knowl- edge is sound and that it should have deserved more attention in the constructionist rhetoric. The second part of my paper draws some more general methodological points from the STS case presented. I am especially interested in the performative aspects of signing for methodological novelties and ask whether it is sensible to talk about "reflexive methodology". Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2. Turn, Turn, Turn—Reflexivity in STS 2.1 Science "as it actually happens"? 2.2 The possibility of a writerly mode of STS writing 2.3 Reflexivity re-examined 3.
    [Show full text]
  • The Routledge Companion to Actor-Network Theory
    The Routledge Companion to Actor-Network Theory This companion explores ANT as an intellectual practice, tracking its movements and engagements with a wide range of other academic and activist projects. Showcasing the work of a diverse set of ‘second generation’ ANT scholars from around the world, it highlights the exciting depth and breadth of contemporary ANT and its future possibilities. The companion has 38 chapters, each answering a key question about ANT and its capacities. Early chapters explore ANT as an intellectual practice and highlight ANT’s dialogues with other fields and key theorists. Others open critical, provocative discussions of its limitations. Later sections explore how ANT has been developed in a range of so cial scientific fields and how it has been used to explore a wide range of scales and sites. Chapters in the final section discuss ANT’s involvement in ‘real world’ endeavours such as disability and environmental activism, and even running a Chilean hospital. Each chapter contains an overview of relevant work and introduces original examples and ideas from the authors’ recent research. The chapters orient readers in rich, complex fields and can be read in any order or combination. Throughout the volume, authors mobilise ANT to explore and account for a range of exciting case studies: from wheelchair activism to parliamentary decision-making; from racial profiling to energy consumption monitoring; from queer sex to Korean cities. A comprehensive introduction by the editors explores the significance of ANT more broadly and provides an overview of the volume. The Routledge Companion to Actor-Network Theory will be an inspiring and lively companion to aca- demics and advanced undergraduates and postgraduates from across many disciplines across the social sciences, including Sociology, Geography, Politics and Urban Studies, Environmental Studies and STS, and anyone wishing to engage with ANT, to understand what it has already been used to do and to imagine what it might do in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • We Have Never Been Modern Pdf Free Download
    WE HAVE NEVER BEEN MODERN PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Bruno Latour | 168 pages | 04 May 2011 | HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS | 9780674948396 | English | Cambridge, Mass, United States We Have Never Been Modern PDF Book What difference does the scientific method make? Home About Publications Archive Index. We often encounter attempts to gauge the strength of faiths and denominations Act the Man and Build. The domains interact with one another, but they cannot, ought not, be confused. Skip to search form Skip to main content You are currently offline. View 4 excerpts, cites background. We have to keep up appearances, because being modern simply is the pretense that We are not Them. This forms the basis for Harman's Object Oriented Ontology. Church and ministry leadership resources to better equip, train and provide ideas for today's church and ministry leaders, like you. On March 24, I submitted the final copyedits for my new book …. Childish primitives that they were and are , pre-moderns muck everything up. With the rise of science, we moderns believe, the world changed irrevocably, separating us forever from our primitive, premodern ancestors. For moderns, the purification process is overt, while hybrids are denied even though modernity proliferates them. The imbroglios and networks that had no place now have the whole place to themselves. Inauguration and Vocation. Paradox 2: Nature is immanent, we construct it in a lab; society is not out construction, it is bio-fact that transcends us. Latour's book is largely a rumination on the phenomenon of modernity and how to create for ourselves a nonmodern world by ending the divide between social life and natural life.
    [Show full text]