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

Finding one's way in social space: a study based on games

La nomenclature des professions et categories socioprofessionnelles (PCS) est utilisee en France depuis plus d'un demi-siecle pour etudier les milieux sociaux et decrire les emplois. Elle combine le statut, le metier et la qualification.

Les catégories socioprofessionnelles

This paper aims to clarify some of the contributions that so-called ‘pragmatic sociology’ [sociologie pragmatique] might make to political and cultural sociology. The appellation is commonly used to encompass a research current that has contributed to the revival of the French social sciences for nearly 40 years, in sociology, anthropology, political science but also institutional economics and economic sociology – specifically ‘Economie des conventions’: convention theory – and law, and that has lately reached an international audience. I shall concentrate here on the line of research that originated in the foundational model of conflicting orders of worth that Luc Boltanski and I developed and which I expanded into a sociology of engagements.

Voicing concern and difference: from public spaces to common-places

﻿Equilibre et rationalite dans un univers complexe ; ; L'article propose de reinterpreter certaines difficultes rencontrees par la theorie neoclassique lorsqu'elle traite de situations eloignees de l'echange sur un marche concurrentiel parfait et qu'elle doit recourir a des notions etrangeres a son axiomatique originelle (organisation, reputation, confiance, etc.). En explicitant les contraintes generales d'une action justifiable qui suppose des raisons objectives d'agir et une forme de coordination ouvrant la possibilite d'un equilibre, l'auteur cherche a replacer l'action marchande au sein d'une pluralite d'autres formes d'actions justifiables. L'identification de ces differentes conventions constitutives qui peuvent servir de presuppose commun a l'action, et la mise en evidence de leurs rapports critiques, apportent un eclairage nouveau sur les problemes que souleve la reference conjointe aux notions de marche et d'organisation, ou d'institution. La prise en compte d'un univers complexe, dans lequel plusieurs formes de coordination et donc d'equilibre sont possibles, invite a reelaborer la notion de rationalite reclamee par le jeu flexible que permet cette pluralite.

Laurent Thévenot

Papers

Finding one's way in social space: a study based on games

Les catégories socioprofessionnelles

Voicing concern and difference: from public spaces to common-places

Équilibre et rationalité dans un univers complexe

Le régime de familiarité. Des choses en personne