The politics of Science and Technology Studies (STS) Masters course, summer term, academic year 2013/14 Tuesdays from 16.00 to 18.00 in Neue Mensa 103 Endre Dányi Department of Sociology Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main PEG building 3G 043 (office hours by appointment) danyi@em.uni-frankfurt.de *** Please don’t forget to enrol on OLAT *** https://olat.server.uni-frankfurt.de/olat/url/RepositoryEntry/2122088460 Short description In the post-Second World War period, sociologists and anthropologists of science in the US, the UK, France, the Netherlands and Western Germany made considerable efforts to problematise scientists’ self-understanding of (scientific) knowledge-making as something external to (democratic) politics. The claim, which from the 1970s onwards came in different shapes and sizes, was that whatever was considered to be scientific was also necessarily political in the sense that it helped to legitimise important decisions and establish and maintain expensive institutions – from nuclear plants through space stations to the internet. But what about the politics of the sociology and anthropology of science itself? This course addresses this question by reviewing recent developments in science and technology studies (STS). Course structure and assessment More specifically, the course examines three distinct political strategies in science and technology studies, which (following John Law’s terminology) could be called prescriptive description, constitutionalism, and interference. In the seminars we will contrast these strategies with the help of three books – Wiebe Bijker, Roland Bal and Ruud Hendriks’ The paradox of scientific authority, Bruno Latour’s We have never been modern, and Annemarie Mol’s The logic of care – and related articles. Since this is a reading-heavy course, the posting of reading-related comments and regular attendance in the seminars are crucial requirements for all participants. Those who wish to get a final mark will also have write a final essay of 5000 words, due the 1st September 2014. Tentative schedule Introduction (15 April) In his classic essay, Max Weber identified two main characteristics of modern science. First, science had to concern itself with facts, rather than values, and second, it needed to be progressive. In the course of the twentieth century, both premises were radically questioned: the ideal of value-free science became difficult to maintain in light of the totalitarian experiences of Nazism and Stalinism, whereas the idea of progress was gradually replaced by that of scientific revolutions, triggered by the development of new paradigms. As the twentieth century was coming to an end, many social analysts worried about politics getting increasingly scientific (even scientistic), and science getting increasingly political. But what does this double transgression actually entail? How is it possible to study the science-politics interplay – scientifically? Recommended readings: (Weber 1958); (Merton 1973); (Kuhn 1996) Bijker et al.: The paradox of Scientific Authority 1 (22 April) One possible strategy to study the science-politics interplay is to interrogate the role of science in democratic decision-making. This strategy is nicely illustrated by Bijker et al.’s empirical study of the Gezondheidsraad – an advisory body specialised in a wide range of health-related issues in the Netherlands. In this session we’re going to discuss what the authors mean by the paradox of scientific authority, and how a constructivist approach – informed by recent developments in science and technology studies (STS) – might contribute to the analysis of this paradox. Required reading: (Bijker et al. 2009): Introduction + Chapters 1, 2 Recommended readings: (Ezrahi 1990); (Jasanoff 1994); (Weingart 1999) Bijker et al.: The paradox of Scientific Authority 2 (29 April) This session is dedicated to the empirical analysis of the Gezondheidsraad. By paying close attention to the definition of public problems, and the ways in which those problems are handled in practice by the Dutch advisory body, we will learn to see the distinction between science and politics as a precarious achievement that involves large amounts of work. As Bijker et al. show, the main outcome of that work in the Gezondheidsraad is the advisory report, which constitutes the frontstage of scientific advice. Required reading: (Bijker et al. 2009): Chapters 3, 4, 5 Recommended readings: (Riles 2006); (Scheffer 2010) There’s no class on the 6th May 2014! Bijker et al.: The paradox of Scientific Authority 3 (13 May) What about the backstage of scientific advice? From Bijker et al.’s account it becomes clear that the everyday practices of the Gezondheidsraad are hardly democratic, if democracy means transparency and public participation. Does this mean that advisory bodies like the Gezondheidsraad should be democratised? Bijker and his colleagues make a different argument. They argue that in order to strengthen the democratic character of the governance of our technological cultures, we need to acknowledge the non-democratic character of scientific advice, and learn to better integrate it into already existing mechanisms of decision-making. Required reading: (Bijker et al. 2009): Chapter 6 and Conclusion Recommended readings: (de Vries 2007); (Marres 2007); (Latour 2007) Latour: We have never been modern 1 (20 May) Bruno Latour’s seminal work can be seen as the outline of another distinct political strategy in STS. Like Bijker et al., Latour begins his diagnosis of ‘the moderns’ by focusing on the great divide between science and politics – a divide that has its roots in the late seventeenth century, but seems to have become largely untenable by the late twentieth century. Unlike Bijker et al., however, Latour doesn’t only concern himself with the politics of scientific authority. Rather, what he’s interested in is a symmetrical rethinking of the relationship between science and politics, which is supposed to lead to the drafting of a ‘nonmodern constitution’. Required reading: (Latour 1993): Chapters 1 and 2 Recommended readings: (Serres 1995); (Shapin & Schaffer 1985) Latour: We have never been modern 2 (27 May) We have never been modern is a dense philosophical text that has inspired many empirical research projects in STS, or more narrowly in Actor-Network Theory (ANT). In this session we’re going to connect Latour’s philosophical excursions to a number of case studies about technological zones and hybrid forums – places that supposedly defy the logic of the great divide between science and politics, and thereby open up the possibility of making new connections among various entities, humans and nonhumans alike. Required reading: (Latour 1993): Chapter 3 Recommended readings: (Barry 2001); (Callon et al. 2009) Latour: We have never been modern 3 (3 June) The main argument of We have never been modern is a negative one: if the ‘modern constitution’ is based on the assumption that science and politics can be neatly separated from each other, keeping Nature on one side of the great divide and Society on the other, then we need to realise that this constitution has never really worked in practice. This is already an important realisation, but Latour wants to go further and formulate a positive argument about the ongoing assembling of the collective. In this session we will trace this positive argument through the concept of ‘the parliament of things’, first introduced in We have never been modern and elaborated in Politics of Nature and in An inquiry into modes of existence. Required reading: (Latour 1993): Chapters 4 and 5 Recommended readings: (Latour 2004); (Latour 2013) Mol: The logic of care 1 (10 June) If the main question of Bijker et al.’s study was what counted as good scientific advice in a democratic setting, and the central concern of Latour’s essay was how a better science-politics configuration could be arrived at in general, then Annemarie Mol’s empirical philosophical analysis exemplifies yet another political strategy in STS. Unlike Latour, Mol has no general solutions or frameworks to offer: what can be considered as ‘good’ or ‘better’, she claims, needs to be articulated in and through specific practices. And unlike Bijker et al., Mol willingly accepts that as a researcher she’s deeply implicated in those very practices. In fact, her overall aim is to make some of them stronger or more visible, thereby actively interfering with the dominant ways in which modern medicine handles disease. Required reading: (Mol 2008): Prologue and Chapters 1 & 2 Recommended readings: (Mol et al. 2010) Mol: The logic of care 2 (17 June) How to describe the dominant ways in which modern medicine handles disease? Mol argues that these ways are, in some sense, variants of what she calls ‘the logic of choice’. In the world of medical products and services, the logic of choice is embodied in the figure of the consumer, whereas in the world of rights and informed decisions it is epitomised by the figure of the citizen. Both figures are supposed to be positioned against the figure of the professional, from whom – in the name of emancipation – we have by now learned to keep two steps of distance. But is this right? By introducing ‘the logic of care’, Mol suggests that we shift focus from figures and positions to different, continuously changing configurations that are called upon – but are by no means determined – by disease. Required reading: (Mol 2008): Chapters 3 & 4 Recommended readings: (Cochoy 2011; Cruikshank 1999; Mol 2002) 23-25 June 2014: ‘Hundred years of Critical Sociology’ conference – all seminar participants are asked to attend the talks at the ‘Technoscience, Knowledge, Power’ panel with Joan Fujimura, John Law and Catherine Waldby. More information is available at http://www.fb03.uni-frankfurt.de/49673137/Critical-Sociology---International-Conference There’s no class on the 1st July 2014! Mol: The logic of care 3 (8 July) One way of reading Mol’s study is to treat it as a critique of the logic of choice (which could just as well be called ‘neoliberalism’). But Mol herself advocates another reading – one that appreciates interventions in particular ordering processes, rather than general arguments against one hegemonic order or the other. Such interventions often happen through storytelling – through the telling of different stories, but also through the telling of familiar stories differently. Required reading: (Mol 2008): Chapters 5 & 6 Recommended readings: (Hoffman et al. 2011; Verran & Christie 2011; Haraway 2009) Discussion (15 July) The central concern of the course has been the science-politics interplay, and three distinct strategies within STS to tackle it. In this last session we’re going to compare and contrast these strategies with the help of John Law’s short article about prescriptive description, constitutionalism, and interference. Required reading: John Law’s contribution to (Akrich et al. 2010) Recommended readings: (Asdal et al. 2007) References Akrich, M. et al. eds., 2010. Débordements: Mélanges offerts à Michel Callon, Transvalor- Presses des Mines. Asdal, K., Brenna, B. & Moser, I., 2007. Technoscience, Oslo Academic Press. Barry, A., 2001. Political machines, Continuum. Bijker, W.E., Bal, R. & Hendriks, R., 2009. The Paradox of Scientific Authority: The Role of Scientific Advice in Democracies, The MIT Press. Callon, M., Lascoumes, P. & Barthe, Y., 2009. Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy, The MIT Press. Cochoy, F., 2011. De la curiosité, Armand Colin. Cruikshank, B., 1999. The Will to Empower: Democratic Citizens and Other Subjects, Cornell University Press. de Vries, G., 2007. What is Political in Sub-politics?: How Aristotle Might Help STS. Social Studies of Science, 37(5), pp.781–809. Ezrahi, Y., 1990. The Descent of Icarus: Science and the Transformation of Contemporary Democracy, Harvard University Press. Haraway, D., 2009. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, Routledge, New York. Hoffman, L., DeHart, M. & Collier, S.J., 2011. Notes on the Anthropology of Neoliberalism. Anthropology News, 47(6), pp.9–10. Jasanoff, S., 1994. The Fifth Branch, Harvard University Press. Kuhn, T.S., 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 3rd ed., University of Chicago Press. Latour, B., 2013. An Inquiry Into Modes of Existence, Harvard University Press. Latour, B., 2004. Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy, Harvard University Press. Latour, B., 2007. Turning Around Politics: A Note on Gerard de Vries' Paper. Social Studies of Science, 37(5), pp.811–820. Latour, B., 1993. We Have Never Been Modern, Harvard University Press. Marres, N., 2007. The Issues Deserve More Credit: Pragmatist Contributions to the Study of Public Involvement in Controversy. Social Studies of Science, 37(5), pp.759–780. Merton, R.K., 1973. The normative structure of science. In The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. University of Chicago Press, p. 605. Mol, A., 2002. The Body Multiple, Duke University Press. Mol, A., 2008. The Logic of Care: Health and the Problem of Patient Choice, Routledge. Mol, A., Moser, I. & Pols, J., 2010. Care in Practice, Transcript Verlag. Riles, A. ed., 2006. Documents: Artifacts of Modern Knowledge 1st ed., University of Michigan Press. Scheffer, T., 2010. Adversarial case-making, Brill Academic Pub. Serres, M., 1995. The Natural Contract, University of Michigan Press. Shapin, S. & Schaffer, S., 1985. Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life, Princeton University Press. Verran, H. & Christie, M., 2011. Doing Difference Together Towards a Dialogue with Aboriginal Knowledge Authorities through an Australian Comparative Empirical Philosophical Inquiry. Culture and Dialogue. Weber, M., 1958. Science as a Vocation. Daedalus, 87(1), pp.111–134. Weingart, P., 1999. Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics. Science and Public Policy, 26(3), pp.151–161. - 6 -