Latour Contra Thompson

7/27/2019 Latour Contra Thompson

1/5

Science, Empiricism, and Marxism: Latour and Woolgar vs. E. P. ThompsonAuthor(s): Richard D. WolffReviewed work(s):Source: Social Text, No. 4 (Autumn, 1981), pp. 110-113Published by: Duke University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/466279 .

Accessed: 22/09/2012 21:07

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].

.

Duke University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Text.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dukehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/466279?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/466279?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=duke


2/5

Science,Empiricism,ndMarxism:Latour ndWoolgar* s.E. P.Thompson

The mystique ndmysticismurroundingheprocedures ndproducts f the naturalsciences in our era are beginning, inally nd fortunately,o disintegrate.he nearlytotallypervasiveempiricismharacterizingatural cientific iscourses nd thedescrip-tions natural cientists iveof their wnpracticessunder ncreasingttack.The fawningand imitativedulation fsocialscientistsorwhat hey, oo,tookto be thevastly reaterrigor nd realism f natural ciencewill, t s tobe hoped,disintegrateoon too.Perhaps tmaynotbe toomuch oexpect hat ocial scientists hoexpressed heir espectso naturalsciencebyarguingtsfundamental ifferencerom ocial sciencewill lsorecognize t astthattheir mperorhas clothesno differentrom heir wn.The Latour and Woolgarvolume s a piece ofheavyweaponrynthisdisintegrativeassaultuponthe elf-imagendprivilegedocial tatus f henatural cience stablishmentworld-wide. t deserves hecareful ttention f thewidest ossible udience.The authorsaccomplishnothingessthan nastonishinglylearexposition ftheway nwhichnaturalscientists,hapedbyandcomplexly esponsiveoallmanner f ocialprocesses, roceedto createstatements hich, ia consensus eclaration,hey hen ransformnto reality."The authors' thesis s that"reality" s to be understood s so many"facts" literallyconstructedsocially throughthe medium of the social subset of the remarkablydisorganized ommunityf natural cientists. asingthemselves oth n a critical eadingofthe literature f thesociology f natural cience andupona two-year nthropologicalstudy fone laboratory,heSalk nstitutenCalifornia,he uthors howhow,where, ndwhen omeofthemyriadtatementsroduced ynatural cientistsometobe endowedbythemwith a status above and beyondthatof statement--namely,ith he statusof a"reality" ndependent f that tatement,ndeed statuswhich imultaneouslyransformsthe statement reating he "reality" ntothe"discovery" fthat reality."LatourandWoolgarareboth ociologists,whileLatour s also trained s a laboratoryscientistnd hencedirectlyamiliar ith ll thetechnical etails f theresearch racticedin the aboratory hat heauthors tudied.Treating he aboratorymuch s conventionalanthropologistsreat ribal roupingshosenfor nsitu tudy, atour ndWoolgar eektodetermine ust exactlywhat "typical"naturalscientists o in theirparticular ocialpractice.Thisbook is a report n whatthey ound.Noteworthy,oo,is their xemplaryself-consciousness. hey remind readers repeatedly hat their nvestigationf whatscientists o is itself n exampleof what cientists o. Theyapply heir onclusions boutsciencesto their wn work s well.Latour and Woolgarunderstand he scientificrocess s thecreation forderout ofdisorder.The raw materials f theprocess rea disorder fobservations,measurements,readings,findings,laims,and counterclaims. t anytime,there re many lternativepossibleorderings hat an be "constructed"theirword)within he field fdisordered*Bruno LatourandSteveWoolgar,Laboratory ife:TheSocial ConstructionfScientificacts. ntroductionbyJonasSalk. (BeverlyHills and London: Sage Publications, 979),272 pp. $9.45.

110


3/5

LaboratoryLife 111scientific awmaterials.These orderings onsistof setsof statementsonstructed ndlinkedtogether n particularways. Amongthe scientists here s a complexstruggle,shaped bydiversepersonal,professional,nd socialrelationsnvolvingheorists,or ndagainstthe differentossibleordered ets. These strugglesmayeventuatensomethingapproachingnearlyuniversal greement or time. Whenthis s thecase, a marvelous"splitting" rocessoccurs.Frombeing nitially ut one ofseveralpossibleordered ets,the one gaining agreement s split nto two distinct ntities.This splitting ignifiesprivileged tatus onferredponthechosenordered etby nd for he greeing cientists.The agreed ordered set has been transformednto twothings t once: an independentreality eyonddiscourse nd a statementdiscovering"his eality. atourandWoolgarstrengthenheir rgumentydemonstratingowthe"reality" onstructedn thiswaycanalso be "deconstructed"theirword) f nd when ater cientistsetransformtatements-become-realitiesback into statements ot agreedupon, subjectto doubt,statementsreconverted acktoa status f truggle ith lternative rdered etswhoseproponentsreseeking o confer ponthem heprivilegedtatus esignated ythe ugust erm reality."Pages 174to183comprise nexcellentummaryfthe pistemological unchmounted ytheauthors'findingsn the actualnatural cientificrocess.Now some of theirfindings,s theyreadily cknowledge, an also be found n theworks fmajorwritersfthecurrentiterature n the ociology fnatural cience nd thesociology fknowledgemoregenerally. owever, hey rgue onvincinglyhat heirworkgoes furtherChapter6). That is,their ontributionstocarry ertainnsightsrom hatliterature urther,nto a differentasis.What hey laim s that ertain social factors" onotonly"influence" r "effect" r "condition" hedevelopmentf the cientificrocess;more, or ratherdifferently,hey argue that the procedures nd products f science,including he constructionsesignated s "realities," renothing ut theproducts f the"social factors."The thrustftheirwork s,as they epeat,not oquestion he mportanceor significancef the scientificrocess,butrather o sever t from purious laims to amystical onvergencebetweenthe theories heyvariously hampion nd "reality." npositiveterms, atour andWoolgarseek toapply, llustrate,nddevelopJ.F.Lyotard'sconceptofthe"agonistic ield" f trugglemong lternative rdered etsof tatementssthe actual terrain of the sciences. The authors' work is also an important urthercontributiono the ineof nquiry pened upintheUnitedStatesbyThomasS. Kuhn: "Irefuse . . tocomparetheories s representationsfnature, s statementsbout what sreallyout there.'"'1

In and forthe Marxian theoretical radition, aboratory ife's critique f scientists'claims that their theories"discover" a "reality" ndependent f theirtheoryhas aparticularmportance. heir ritique ddsyet nother ormulationgainst he mpiricismthatpervadesthe Marxian tradition. hisempiricisms typicallyxpressed n claimsbyone or anotherMarxist endencyhat t"is truer o" or "validatedby"a "reality,"whichLatourandWoolgarwould how snothingut he split"other ideof he ametendency.I canperhapsbest llustrate heir ontributionoMarxism y ettingheirwork gainst helogicof E. P. Thompson'srecent ssay, The PovertyfTheory r AnOrreryfErrors."The essay is particularlynstructiveecause it is a self-defensegainstthe chargeof'Thomas Kuhn,"Reflections n MyCritics," nImre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave eds.), Criticismnd theGrowth f Knowledge Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityress,1970),p. 265.2See E. P. Thompson,ThePoverty f Theory nd OtherEssays New York andLondon:MonthlyReviewPress, 1978), p. 1-210.


4/5

112 Unequal Developmentsempiricism, brusquerejection fempiricisms "obviously"nadequate, ndnonethelessalso a thoroughlympiricistiscourse.The essayanditsreception ymany f tsreadersexemplifyhecontinuingtrengthftheempiricistpistemologicaltandpoint ithin heMarxisttradition.Thompsonrepeatedlytates hat t s "obvious"that oncepts re never denticalwith"the real" (pp. 211,223,andpassim).Nonetheless, e writes aragraph fter aragraphnegatingustthis obvious" point. n theseparagraphs ediscourses t lengthbout therelationbetween "historical nowledge" nd "itsobject." Thisrelationsunderstood sthatbetweenconceptand realitys ifthesewere ndependentntities. husThompsonwrites discourse bout"reality," pparentlynaware hathe must fcoursebe dealingwith , orrather, isconcept fthat eality.WhatThompsonsdoing sdiscoursingponrelationbetweentwoconcepts: hat f "historical nowledge" nd that f"theobjectofthatknowledge."To impute reality" o the atter oncept,which hompson epeatedlydoes, isprecisely ocollapse concept ndrealityntoone another, he elf-sameobviousimpossibility"he elsewhere rejects. Thompson is guiltyof exactlythe "marveloussplitting" rocesswhichLatour andWoolgarso effectivelyriticize.To admit that differentheoriesor knowledges re basicallydistinguished,mongotherways,byhowtheydifferentlyonceiveoftheir ifferentbjects s apparentlyoomuch forThompson. For him, the Latour-and-Woolgar-typeotionof theory s aparticularterrainof ceaseless contest and struggle f alternative ossible orderingsamounts ocutting heory rknowledge rom ts onnection o "thereal."Hisreaction,owidelyproduced by otherswithin nd without he Marxisttradition,s to save theconnectionbycollapsing t least one of hisconceptsnto dentity ith hereal.For Latour andWoolgar realitys the flux ndstruggle mong lternativeonceptualframeworks; orThompsontheremustbe a "reality" ndependentfall theorieswhichacts as final rbiter eterminingtruth" mongcontestingheories. orThompson, hehistorian,his ealitys"history,"he bjectofMarxistheories. rom his ositiont sbuta very hort tepto theepistemological tandpointf"history" s measure, est, f thevalidity f the differentheories.Thompson'sempiricismies in his assertion hathisconcept of history,his notion of a "reality" ndependent f theorywhichvalidatescontestingheories, s notonlyhisconceptbut ssimultaneouslyealitytself. hompsonevidently eeds and claims rather bsolute sort f truth.That Thompsonmakes his conceptualframeworkhe standpoint romwhich toevaluate allotherss,for atourandWoolgar,what ll thedifferentrameworkso; thatsthestruggle mongthem.WhatLatour andWoolgarreject sThompson's laimto rankothertheoriesnotmerely n terms f their ikeness o his but in terms f hisposited"reality."Within heMarxian heoreticalradition,here as been andcontinues o be an intensedebateover ts pistemologicaltandpoint. hose,such sThompson,whoview heorysaiming t and moreor essaccomplishinghe epresentationfthe reality" avecontestedagainstthoseclaiming hatMarxformulated very ifferentpistemologicaltandpoint.The latter,mostnotably enin, Lukics, andAlthusser, avedevelopedMarx'snotions fdialectical materialism s thecoreof Marxist heory's pistemologicaltandpoint.3ne

3See particularlyenin,"Conspectus fHegel's Book, TheScience f Logic, inhisCollectedWorks,Vol.38(Moscow: ProgressPublishers, 972),pp. 85-326. The contributionsfLukics can be foundnthefollowingthree works particularly: Reification and the Consciousnessof the Proletariat," n History nd ClassConsciousness,trans.RodneyLivingstoneLondon: MerlinPress,1971), especially p. 178-222; "Art and


5/5

Laboratory Life 113centralthemeforthem s thatMarxist heory ejectstheepistemological otionoftwoindependent ealms, hinkingndbeing, nwhich heformerims tthe ruth fthe atter.They prefer he formulationhat hinkings one constituentspectof,orprocesswithin,the social totality.As such, thinkings both determined y all the other constituentprocessesofsociety ndparticipatesndeterminingach ofthem.Moreover, ike llotherconstituentocialprocesses, hinkings characterizedy omplex ontradictionsesultingfromthe complexmannerof itsdeterminationy all the othersocial processes.Thecontradictions ithin he hinking rocess ppear,then, sopposedtheoriesnd ndeed sopposed statementswithinxistingheories.The strugglendchangewithinnd amongtheories mergesfrom he contradictionsfthethinking rocess.LatourandWoolgarhaveproduced volume nmanyways onsonantwith his eneralformulation fMarxisttheory's pistemological tandpoint,tsconceptoftherelationbetweenthinkingndbeing.Theirwork s, believe, mportantboveall for hat eason;Marxists hould read itbecause of its contributionso the centralMarxistdebate overepistemology. specially ntheAnglo-Saxonworld,wheremattersfepisteinologyndmethodology suallyreceive short hrift,Marxists eed to contendwith henature ndcrucialtheoretical nd political onsequencesofall thepositionswithin hisdebate.

RichardD. Wolff

ObjectiveTruth," nWriterndCritic,rans.Arthur ahn London:Merlin ress,1970),pp.25-60; andMarx'sBasic OntologicalPrinciples, rans.David FernbachLondon:Merlin ress,1978),especially arts1 and 2 andpp. 106-109. Althusser's rgumentsn thesepoints re found n"OverdeterminationndContradiction,"nFor Marx, trans. Ben BrewsterNew York: VintageBooks, 1970),pp. 87-128; ReadingCapital,trans.BenBrewster London: NewLeftBooks, 1970),especially p.91-164; andEssays nSelf-Criticism,rans.GrahameLock (London: NewLeftBooks, 1976),especially ages 105-50 and 163-207.

(f)K_

?X>

Latour Contra Thompson

Documents

Transcript of Latour Contra Thompson