1 Method, Performativity and Politics John Law, Science Studies, Lancaster Centre for Science Studies Lancaster University All work is collaborative, so thanks to: Adrian Evans, Mara Miele (Cardiff) Endre Danyi, Vicky Singleton (Lancaster) Nick Bingham, Steve Hinchliffe (Open University) Kristin Asdal, Marianne Lien, Ingunn Moser (Oslo) Emma Roe (Southampton) Annemarie Mol (Twente)
Centre for Science Studies Lancaster University. Method, Performativity and Politics. John Law, Science Studies, Lancaster. All work is collaborative, so thanks to: Adrian Evans, Mara Miele (Cardiff) Endre Danyi, Vicky Singleton (Lancaster) Nick Bingham, Steve Hinchliffe (Open University) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Notes on the hinterland: How much does it cost to undo realities?
• Unsubstantiated hypotheses?
• Published papers?
• Embedded experimental techniques?
7
‘We say that the laws of Newton may be found in Gabon and that this is quite remarkable since that is a long way from England. But I have seen Lepetit camemberts in the supermarkets of California. This is also quite remarkable, since Lisieux is a long way from Los Angeles. Either there are two miracles that have to be admired together in the same way, or there are none.’ (Bruno Latour, Irreductions, 227)
The Consequences of Performativity 1
8
1. Science and its truths only exist within networks of practice.Truth not universal.
2. We can try to enact better versions of the real‘Ontological politics’
The Consequences of Performativity 2
9
1. Sex ≠ gender
2. There are multiple biologies (multiple sexes)
3. Which are to be preferred? A politics of the real (an ontological politics)
The Consequences of Performativity 3:Biology is not Destiny
10
So What do Surveys Do? An archaeology of the Eurobarometer
htt
p:/
/ww
w.d
kim
ag
es.
com
/dis
cove
r/H
om
e/H
isto
ry/A
rch
ae
olo
gy/
Te
chn
iqu
es/
Te
chn
iqu
es-
21
.htm
l
11
1. Attitudes
2. Opposed to Realities?
3. Or just very specific?(Real but only in thecontext of attitudesurveys?)
Layer 3: Subjectivity and the Location of Politics
‘The labelling of products would certainly help the consumer to opt for a greater selectivity of purchases in favour of animal welfare products.’ .’ (EB 2007, 49)
14
1. set of individuals,2. measurable attributes,3. aggregated4. isomorphous5. homogeneous European collective
space 6. Representational assumptions on
sample-population relations
Layer 4: Europe:a Container filled with Individuals
15
• Versions of Collectivity– Romantic collective = emergent
homogeneous whole containing parts known: (a) abstractly (b) explicitly, and (c) centrally
– Baroque collective = inside, non-coherent, heterogeneous assemblage known:(a) sensuously/specifically, (b) implicitly, and (c) resistant to overview
2. Citizens (and therefore polities) can demand it.
3. ‘Ontological politics’: enacting better versions of the real
Layer 6: the Citizen-Consumer
‘To make … choices [about purchasing animal products] it is crucial that the public has information that enables them to determine the welfare conditions that lie behind the products they see on shelves.’ (EB 2007, 49)
17
1. European Consumer
2. European Politics
3. Subjectivities and the Location of Politics
4. Europe: a container of individuals
5. Collectivity as emergent statistical collection (romanticism)
6. Citizen-consumer
Layers in Eurobarometer?
18
1. Endless
2. Enacted realities are non-coherent (practices are ramshackle)
3. Reality is not destiny: it is multiple
4. When we describe we are also creating: what do we think of the ontological politics of our reality-making machines?