What makes us modern? This is a classic question in philosophy as well as in political science. However it is often raised without including science and technology in its definition. The argument of this book is that we are modern as long as we split our political process in two - between politics proper, and science and technology. This division allows the formidable expansion of the Western empires. However it has become more and more difficult to maintain this distance between science and politics. Hence the postmodern predicament - the feeling that the modern stance is no longer acceptable but that there is no alternative. The solution, advances one of France's leading sociologists of science, is to realize that we have never been modern to begin with. The comparative anthropology this text provides reintroduces science to the fabric of daily life and aims to make us compatible both with our past and with other cultures wrongly called pre-modern.

We Have Never Been Modern

This paper outlines a new approach to the study of power, that of the sociology of translation. Starting from three principles, those of agnosticism (impartiality between actors engaged in controversy), generalised symmetry (the commitment to explain conflicting viewpoints in the same terms) and free association (the abandonment of all a priori distinctions between the natural and the social), the paper describes a scientific and economic controversy about the causes for the decline in the population of scallops in St. Brieuc Bay and the attempts by three marine biologists to develop a conservation strategy for that population. Four ‘moments’ of translation are discerned in the attempts by these researchers to impose themselves and their definition of the situation on others: (a) problematisation: the researchers sought to become indispensable to other actors in the drama by denning the nature and the problems of the latter and then suggesting that these would be resolved if the actors negotiated the ‘obl...

Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay

This paper outlines a new approach to the study of power, that of the sociology of translation. Starting from three principles, those of agnosticism (impartiality between actors engaged in controversy), generalised symmetry (the commitment to explain conflicting viewpoints in the same terms) and free association (the abandonment of all a priori distinctions between the natural and the social), the paper describes a scientific and economic controversy about the causes for the decline in the population of scallops in St. Brieuc Bay and the attempts by three marine biologists to develop a conservation strategy for that population. Four ‘moments’ of translation are discerned in the attempts by these researchers to impose themselves and their definition of the situation on others: (a) problematisation: the researchers sought to become indispensable to other actors in the drama by defining the nature and the problems of the latter and then suggesting that these would be resolved if the actors negotiated the ‘obligatory passage point’ of the researchers’ programme of investigation; (b) interessement: a series of processes by which the researchers sought to lock the other actors into the roles that had been proposed for them in that programme; (c) enrolment: a set of strategies in which the researchers sought to define and interrelate the various roles they had allocated to others; (d) mobilisation: a set of methods used by the researchers to ensure that supposed spokesmen for various relevant collectivities were properly able to represent those collectivities and not betrayed by the latter. In conclusion it is noted that translation is a process, never a completed accomplishment, and it may (as in the empirical case considered) fail.

/pdf/some-elements-of-a-sociology-of-translation-domestication-of-26e92jufue.pdf

What do a seventeenth-century mortality table (whose causes of death include "fainted in a bath," "frighted," and "itch"); the identification of South Africans during apartheid as European, Asian, colored, or black; and the separation of machine- from hand-washables have in common? All are examples of classification -- the scaffolding of information infrastructures. In Sorting Things Out, Geoffrey C. Bowker and Susan Leigh Star explore the role of categories and standards in shaping the modern world. In a clear and lively style, they investigate a variety of classification systems, including the International Classification of Diseases, the Nursing Interventions Classification, race classification under apartheid in South Africa, and the classification of viruses and of tuberculosis. The authors emphasize the role of invisibility in the process by which classification orders human interaction. They examine how categories are made and kept invisible, and how people can change this invisibility when necessary. They also explore systems of classification as part of the built information environment. Much as an urban historian would review highway permits and zoning decisions to tell a city's story, the authors review archives of classification design to understand how decisions have been made. Sorting Things Out has a moral agenda, for each standard and category valorizes some point of view and silences another. Standards and classifications produce advantage or suffering. Jobs are made and lost; some regions benefit at the expense of others. How these choices are made and how we think about that process are at the moral and political core of this work. The book is an important empirical source for understanding the building of information infrastructures.

https://www.reciis.icict.fiocruz.br/index.php/reciis/article/download/794/1436

Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences

This paper sets out an approach to the analysis of political power in terms of problematics of government. It argues against an overvaluation of the 'problem of the State' in political debate and social theory. A number of conceptual tools are suggested for the analysis of the many and varied alliances between political and other authorities that seek to govern economic activity, social life and individual conduct. Modern political rationalities and governmental technologies are shown to be intrinsically linked to developments in knowledge and to the powers of expertise. The characteristics of liberal problematics of government are investigated, and it is argued that they are dependent upon technologies for 'governing at a distance', seeking to create locales, entities and persons able to operate a regulated autonomy. The analysis is exemplified through an investigation of welfarism as a mode of 'social' government. The paper concludes with a brief consideration of neo-liberalism which demonstrates that the analytical language structured by the philosophical opposition of state and civil society is unable to comprehend contemporary transformations in modes of exercise of political power.(1).

/pdf/political-power-beyond-the-state-problematics-of-government-2q2kkbnv2q.pdf

Political power beyond the State: problematics of government

Pragmatiques de la connaissance

From rejection of contemporary art to culture war

When taking part in a community and communicating disagreement or difference, one has to rely on common forms to be understood by others. And being understood by others is essential to composing the good of the community—the central task of politics. Given this, we should pay close attention to how intimate experiences and personal concerns are transformed into an accepted common format that makes sense to others during disputes. Rules govern these practices of communicating issues in a common format, disputing them and compromising to compose the good of the community. These rules are grouped together in different “grammars of commonality and difference,” which structure different ways of maintaining a composite and conflicting community: which kinds of disagreement are integrated, which kinds of difference are legitimate, even at the cost of sacrificing others? Identifying these grammars is all the more difficult because the categories of the social and political sciences themselves depend on these grammars. This results in bias when these categories are used in comparisons or even descriptions. Therefore, a detour abroad might be profitable not only to compare but also to correct biases of the research tools we use. The collaborative French-Russian program that I named “From close ties to public places” enabled the comparative study of learning politics in practice. The political and moral ethnography I conducted for this research focused on communal residences (in Russia, the USA, France, Brazil) where students live together and learn politics in practice from the most basic level of dwelling in a common habitat, having to transform personal familiarity into commonality and difference. The article also benefitted from studies by other researchers working in the same program as well as subsequent research using the same framework, which influenced both the so-called French “pragmatic sociology” and socioeconomic “convention theory.” The analytical framework I used evolved throughout this fieldwork as I identified commonality grounded on personal affinities to common places. In the context of “apolitics” and the rise of authoritarian populist politics which, in the East as in the West, tap into personal attachments, this article takes advantage of the detour via Russia to examine how close attachments are taken into account in various constructions of commonality and difference. It clarifies the tensions and possible combinations between them, as well as the democratic requirement of a public sphere.

Laurent Thévenot

Papers

Pragmatiques de la connaissance

From rejection of contemporary art to culture war

How Does Politics Take Closeness into Account? Returns from Russia

Essai sur les objets usuels

Une science de la vie ensemble dans le monde