Ubc 2014 November Nelson Lee

8/21/2019 Ubc 2014 November Nelson Lee

1/62

Bourdieu and Latour in STS: “Let’s Leave Aside All the

Facts for A While”

by

Lee Claiborne Nelson

!A!" Aarhus #niversity" $%&&

B!A!" 'alhousie #niversity" $%%(

A T)*S+S S#B+TT*' +N ,A-T+AL F#LF+LL*NT .F T)* -*/#+-**NTS F.- T)* '*0-** .F

AST*- .F A-TS

in

The Faculty of 0raduate and ,ostdoctoral Studies

1Science and Technolo2y Studies3

T)* #N+4*-S+T5 .F B-+T+S) C.L#B+A14ancouver3

Se6te7ber $%&8

9 Lee Claiborne Nelson" $%&8


2/62

Abstract

Throu2h the lens of the *n2lishs6ea;in2 Science and Technolo2y Studies 1STS3 co77unity" the

relationshi6 bet


3/62

Preface

This thesis is ori2inal" un6ublished" inde6endent


4/62

Table of Contents

Abstract!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!i i

,reface!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!iiiTable of Contents!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!iv

List of Tables!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!v

Ac;no


5/62

List of Tables

Table &! Bourdieu and Latour’s ethods and Conce6tual

Tools!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!&$

v


6/62

Acknowledgements

First and fore7ost +

havin2 7e as his Teachin2 Assistant! +n addition" + a7 also indebted to Steven Taubenec; for his

su66ort and 7entorshi6" and for fosterin2 a co77unity


7/62

Dedication

To my loving parents for your

unrelenting support and all that you

have given me, … and to spell

check, without which I would not

have been able to act/be as I have in

the world.

vii


8/62

1. Introduction

This article addresses the history of Science and Technolo2y Studies 1STS3 in li2ht of

lon2standin2 anta2onis7s bet by Latour" + a7 not sure BourdieuM s eventual banish7ent is interestin2 in relation to the reli2ious 7eta6hor Steve

Fuller invo;es to describe the history of STS! !rivate email correspondence on "ctober #rd , $%. $ +n his obituary for Bourdieu" for instance Breslau ends 7atter of factly: “The field of science studies since &GD

has not follo


9/62

This article problematizes our understandin2 of the relationshi6 I the controversy I

bet


10/62

sociolo2ists" and historians of science" s criticis7s of Bourdieu" rarely is Bourdieu

reco2niQed


11/62

0iven that STS" li;e Latour>s


12/62

Bourdieu!

Anders Blo; and Torben Hensen" in runo 2atour' *ybrid Thoughts in a *ybrid 0orld "

7a;e note of an i76ortant 6oint that runs the ris; of bein2 2lossed over in the historical

understandin2 of the BourdieuLatour conflict! “+t is s 7ore s6ecific 6oints of criticis7

7ay 6erha6s be defensible in the deli7ited conteEt of this s and


13/62

2. Social/Practice

What is 6erha6s sur6risin2 in vie< of so 7uch tension bets! +n the 0lossary of !andora4s *ope" Latour notes" “Science

studies is not defined by the eEtension of social eE6lanations to science" but by e76hasis on the

local" 7aterial" 7undane sites


14/62

in ho< 6ractice constitutes the social


15/62

are inert" the other accordin2 to the old 'ur;hei7ian 6rece6t" and thus leave out

everythin2 that they o


16/62

thus 7eans difference" and difference i76lies hierarchy" s 7ove to avoid the dichoto7y alto2ether echoes both Alfred North Whitehead

and 0illes 'eleuQe: Whitehead in identifyin2 the bifurcation and avoidin2 it by focusin2 on

events" and 'eleuQe for develo6in2 an alternative 6hiloso6hical 2enealo2y fro7 6re?antian

6hiloso6hers to 6ost?antian 6hiloso6hers


17/62

situated conteEt of nonhu7ans! Althou2h in so doin2 he co7es under the


18/62

. Culture/Ca!ital

While Latour states that the role of anthro6olo2ists is to “account for the 7ulti6licity of

a2encies entertained by the collectives s fra7e


19/62

7ethodolo2y" thou2h their su22estions are =uite differentO their concerns 7anifest the7selves in

the ty6e of anthro6olo2y they advocate! “Bourdieu>s eEe76lary sciences are theoretical ones" and

6erha6s the 6rototy6e of the7 all is theoretical sociolo2y" allo


20/62

notion of capital ! For eEa76le" in describin2 social ca6ital" Bourdieu and Wac=uant state"

“ca6ital is the su7 of the resources" actual or virtual" that accrue to an individual or a 2rou6 by

virtue of 6ossessin2 a durable net a ts 6ro@ect is a

consideration of not si76ly


21/62

enca6sulated in the see7in2ly synony7ous ter7s they each

de6loy" na7ely “field” and “fra7e” or “nets field is a sy7bolic re6resentation

of the distribution of individuals accordin2 to their ca6ital alon2 6articular coordinates"


22/62

s6eech" clothes" and 6ossessions! )o

one another do you 2et a visual descri6tion of stren2thenin2 or s use of the AN'.- distinction! Thou2h there is not roo7 for it here"

co76arin2 Latour>s AN'.- 2ra6hs s Field 2ra6hs 7i2ht identify additional si7ilarities 2iven

that they both de6end u6on the inclusion of hu7ans and nonhu7ans" thou2h for Bourdieu the nonhu7ans are

albehind> hu7ans rather than >neEt to> as for Latour! i2ht these be co76le7entaryJ

&D


23/62

". #ant/$ield/%etwork

Both Latour and Bourdieu resolve or at least avoid the 6roble7atic i76osition of such

distinctions such as the sub@ectob@ect dichoto7y! +ndeed" the first sentence of the +ntroduction to

Bourdieu>s The 2ogic of !ractice is: “.f all the o66ositions that artificially divide social

sciences" the 7ost funda7ental" and the 7ost ruinous" is the one that is set u6 bet


24/62

Latour sees hi7! Latour states that “7ost of the social sciences and 7ost of 6hiloso6hy since

?ant have been the social s

and Latour>s analysis! +t is on this conce6t that the t


25/62

co76etition 1it bein2 understood that"


26/62

co7es in three 6rinci6le s6ecies: econo7ic 17aterial and financial assets3" cultural

1scarce sy7bolic 2oods" s;ills and titles3 and social 1resources accrued by virtue of

7e7bershi6 in a 2rou63! A fourth s6ecies" sy7bolic ca6ital" desi2nates the effects ofany for7 of ca6ital


27/62

cultural" scientific" and sy7bolicI are nonhu7ans reco2niQed and con2ealed in titles" na7es" and

7aterials ter7inolo2y of =uasisub@ects and =uasiob@ects" Latour is

interested in the eEchan2e of 6ro6erties bet


28/62

of the event of the 2ras6in2 itself by science as bein2 so7ethin2 that ha66ens not only in the

calculative abilities of individuals>" or the >6o as


29/62

at the fore and nonhu7an ca6ital in the bac;2round" Bourdieu nonetheless" in his notion of

habitus" li;e


30/62

&. 'efle(i)it*/P+iloso!+*

What should not 2o unnoticed is the result of Bourdieu>s refleEivity" or of sociolo2y of

sociolo2y! To avoid the sub@ect 1researcher3 ob@ect 1society3 divide" li;e Bourdieu and his directive for

refleEivity and says such sociolo2ists believe that they are able to see thin2s as they really are

and that they ;no< 7ore than their infor7ants! )o


31/62

ar2ued by )Ulne ialet" an avid follos last boo;" titled “The >-i2hteous Wrath> of ,ierre Bourdieu"” that

instead of “allos a66roach -i2hteous Wrath> of ,ierre Bourdieu"” Social Studies of Science 1$%%3: &(!& Bourdieu" !ractical eason" viii!$ Latour" eassembling the Social " $!

$8


32/62

analytic 7ani6ulation! )e scoffs that “it see7s that only sociolo2ists of the socialRes6ecially

critical sociolo2istsRcan 7ana2e to efficiently 7uffle their infor7ants> 6recise vocabulary into

their os concern


33/62

“7y de2ree of refleEivity on 7yself is nil"” “+ a7 not very refleEive about 7y o


34/62

i77ediately first 6hiloso6hy"> Science Studies

rarely a66ly the sa7e a66roach to the7selves" to understand the7selves as 6olitical and

e7bedded in a social conteEt!” +n res6onse to Lorraine 'aston"( 'ear and Hasanoff ar2ue that

the distinction bet


35/62

,. Anglo/$renc+

When readin2 Latour’s 7usin2s on and criticis7s of


36/62

“


37/62

it s


38/62

correct 7isunderstandin2s by nonFrench audiences as in the follos insistence on refleEivity

insures that" at least in 6art" any theoretical 1analytic3 bifurcation are of a different ty6e than any


39/62

relationshi6 by


40/62

secession to the throne of the French scientific field 1the chair of sociolo2y at the Colle2e de

France" 6ro6het>3” is “a

stru22le over the le2iti7ate classificatory sche7es” in


41/62

7oved onto a 7eta6hysical 6lane divorced fro7 the social and 6olitical realities of everyday life!

+f he started his career s criticis7s 7ay in fact be @ustified" i2norin2 the

French conteEt considerably s cha6ter contribution on Latour to The 0iley)lackwell -ompanion to a9or

Social Theorists, 4ol! $" entitled “Bruno Latour: The .nce and Future ,hiloso6her"”


42/62

French inbred sy7biosis bet in the 6ro6er s introduction to A7erica" cautionin2 that

“A7erican intellectual 7yo6ia functions in a fashion o66osite to that of s7aller national

sociolo2ies" such as Scandinavian or 'utch sociolo2yO for


43/62

A7erican Social Sciences and can even be blinded by it to the 6oint


44/62

This last 6oint should not be 6assed over too =uic;ly" as it re7ains stres cor6us! +n Latour and *7ilie )er7ant>s !aris' Invisible -ity" a ty6e of diora7a

travelo2ue in search of the entity referred to as “,aris"” Latour includes the follo


45/62

7i2ht STS have 7issed this 6ointJ i2ht the conflict bets eEa22erations" leadin2 to a 6re7ature or un2rounded ostracis7 of

BourdieuJ

+t should be noted that Bourdieu hi7self


46/62

I it is not about Laissons de cZtU tous les faits> R let>s leave aside all the facts for a s a66arent

destruction of Bourdieu


47/62

Bourdieu" Latour res6onded" ad7ittin2

+2norance! First of all i2norance! +>7 too i2norant in sociolo2y! +t is not a fi2ht" it is!!!

+>7 snea;in2 in at a 6arty s 7ost 5an;ee

yahoois7>!”&$ )e 2oes on to say"


48/62

7ore difficult to cross in the #nited States!”&$8 Wac=uant states that “the 7oral of the story”

re2ardin2 the eE6ortation of Bourdieu “is that intellectual 6roducts such as social theories should"

s rece6tion in the An2lo6hone s criticis7s of not only Bourdieu

but also of critical theory and the Fran;furt School been too readily acce6ted 2iven the hitherto

o6acity of Latour>s os seniority" there has been a sufficient a7ount of ti7e that allo


49/62

necessary for understandin2 the often i2nored theolo2ical as6ects of so7e of Latour>s s &GD doctoral thesis

and a “Christian rationalist>!”&$G Latour describes hi7self as havin2 been “trained in 6hiloso6hy

and biblical eEe2esis!”&% *arly in his career" he lectured and then 6ublished on Charles ,U2uy>s

-lio' 1ialogue between *istory and the !agan Soul " 6rovidin2 a “structuralist readin2 !!! 7a;in2

co76arison


50/62

has not translated s criticis7s of Bourdieu have translated fairly


51/62

-. Conclusion

The a66raisal of Bourdieu>s 6rolific s sin2le teEt

on STS discourses and issues! +n li2ht of considerations 7entioned above" the inclusion of

Bourdieu’s


52/62

stands in need ofP sociolo2y of associations!”&8% Save for the fissure over ?ant" this 7ay in fact

account for a different s sociolo2y


53/62

+t is s early criticis7s of Bourdieu have 7aintained their

a66arent devastatin2 blo

sociolo2ical tradition fro7 fathers> of ANT and STS"

ichel Callon and Hohn Las 6rinci6le of refleEivity 1thou2h" 6erha6s"

this is chan2in23! Latour has said he is a bricoleur and that his 6hiloso6hy is a bricola2e" s 6hiloso6hy has been described as eclectic!&8D Thou2h these ter7s are used in 2eneral"

it is first 6hiloso6her of technolo2y3!

There thus far has been no literature on this 6ossible relationshi6" and 7uch of Si7ondon>s


54/62

focus is to understand the distinctions! +n STS" the tfollo< the actors the7selves> as they restructure the hetero2eneous

collective! The lo2ical i76lications of such an eEclusive focus on restructurin2s is that"


55/62

of the 6re and 6ostcontroversy t" tell us ho< to choose

able to navi2ate around the differences bet


56/62

ibliogra!+*

Edited Volumes

( Sociology of onsters' ssays on !ower, Technology and 1omination" ed! Hohn La


57/62

,ress" &GGD!

The *andbook of Science and Technology Studies, #rd edition" ed! *dudgment of Taste" Ca7brid2e: )arvard #niversity

,ress" &G(8!

] ! 2anguage and Symbolic !ower " Ca7brid2e: ,olity ,ress" &GG&!

D%


58/62

] ! !ractical eason' "n the Theory of (ction" Stanford: Stanford #niversity ,ress" &GG(!

] ! !ascalian editations" Stanford: Stanford #niversity ,ress" &GG!

] ! Science of Science and efle3ivity" Chica2o: #niversity of Chica2o ,ress" $%%8!

] ! “Social S6ace and Sy7bolic ,os Cleft Sociolo2y of Science"” inerva 8G 1$%&&3: $D$G!

'aston" Lorraine! “Science Studies and the )istory of Science!” -ritical In8uiry D 1$%%G3: G((&!

'ear" ,eter" Sheila Hasanoff! “'is7antlin2 Boundaries in Science and Technolo2y Studies!” Isis

&%& 1$%&%3: DG8!

Fuller" Steve! “Science Studies throu2h the Loo;in2 0lass: An +ntellectual +tinerary"” in eyond

the Science 0ars' The issing 1iscourse about science and society" ed! #llicaSe2erstrale! Albany: State #niversity of Ne< 5or; ,ress 1$%%%3: &(D$&(!

] ! “Why Science Studies )as Never Been Critical of Science: So7e -ecent Lessons on )o< toBe a )el6ful Nuisance and a )ar7less -adical!” !hilosophy of the Social Sciences %

1$%%%3: D$!

0u22enhei7" ichael" Hr2 ,otthast! “Sy77etrical t


59/62

Net.b@ect> in Translation

and +nter6retin2 Studies! The Translator && 1$%%D3: &$D&8D!

Hohnson" Hi7 1Bruno Latour3! “iEin2 )u7ans and Nonhu7ans To2ether: The Sociolo2y of a'oorCloser"” Social !roblems" S6ecial +ssue: The Sociolo2y of Science and Technolo2y

D 1&G((3: $G(&%!

?i7" ?yun2an! “What ,hiloso6hy"” in

D$


60/62

-ontemporary 7rench !hilosophy" ed! A! ,hilli6s 0riffiths" Ca7brid2e: Ca7brid2e

#niversity ,ress" &G(" (G!

] ! “The ,olitics of *E6lanation: an Alternative” in 6nowledge and efle3ivity, 5ew 7rontiers in

the Sociology of Science" ed Steve Wool2ar" London: Sa2e ,ublications" &G((" &DD&!

] ! “The -ecall of odernity: Anthro6olo2ical A66roaches"” -ultural Studies eview & 1$%%3:

&&%!

] ! “4isualiQation and Co2nition: 'ra as drea7> I a 6resentation of A+*"” ?eynote

lecture at (merican (nthropological (ssociation eeting, $%" Chica2o" $&st

Nove7ber! htt6:

] ! “Why )as Criti=ue -un .ut of Stea7J Fro7 atters of Fact to atters of Concern"”

-ritical In8uiry % 1$%%83: $$D$8(!

Latour" Bruno" *7ile )er7ant" !aris ville invisible 1,aris: La 'UcouverteLes *7Y6cheurs de

s6ense en rond" &GG(3" *n2lish translation htt6:

Latour" Bruno" ,hili66e au2uin" and 0enevive Teil" “A Note on SocioTechnical 0ra6hs!”

Social Studies of Science $$ 1&GG$3: D!

Latour" Bruno" To7Xs SXncheQCriado! “a;in2 the > es ,ublic>!” phemera 1$%%3: 8&!

La


61/62

c-ae" ?! '! “Louis )artQ>s Conce6t of the Fra27ent Society and its A66lication to Canada"”

-anadian Studies D 1&G(3: &%!

ialet" )Ulne! “The >-i2hteous Wrath> of ,ierre Bourdieu"” Social Studies of Science 1$%%3:

&$&!

] ! “Where s -ationalist Science of Science: So7e ,ro7ises and Li7itations"”

-ultural Sociology" 4ol! D" No! & 1$%&&3: (G!

St! Clair" -obert N!" Walter *! -odri2ueQ" and Car7a Nelson" “)abitus and Co77unication

Theory"” Intercultural -ommunication Studies &8 1$%%D3: &&D%!

Sterne" Honathan! “Bourdieu" Techni=ue and Technolo2y!” -ultural Studies & 1$%%3: (G!

Sterne" Honathan" and Hoan Leach" “The ,oint of Social Construction and the ,ur6ose of SocialCriti=ue"” Social pistemology &G 1$%%D3: &(G&G(!

Sul;unen" ,e;;a! “Society ade 4isible: .n the Cultural Sociolo2y of ,ierre Bourdieu!” (cta

Sociologica $D 1&G($3: &%&&D!

D8


62/62

S

Bourdieu>s 0enerative Structuralis7!” Sociological Theory & 1arch &GGG3: $!

Wac=uant" Loc H! '! “Bourdieu in A7erica: Notes on the Transatlantic +76ortation of Social

Theory"” in ourdieu' -ritical !erspectives" ed! Crai2 Calhoun" *d

Ubc 2014 November Nelson Lee

Documents

Transcript of Ubc 2014 November Nelson Lee