El objeto de la tecnociencia como relacionalidad coconstitutiva

  1. Fernando J. García Selgas 1
  1. 1 Universidad Complutense de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Complutense de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR 02p0gd045

Revista:
Política y sociedad

ISSN: 1130-8001,  1988-3129

Año de publicación: 2020

Título del ejemplar: Monografía: La rebelión de los objetos en las ciencias sociales

Volumen: 57

Número: 2

Páginas: 459-478

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.5209/POSO.66453 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Política y sociedad

Resumen

Since it is not enough to see scientific knowledge’s objects as part and result of a sociodiscursive process, where they would work as “immutable mobiles” (Latour) or “boundary objects” (Star), we need to think theoretically how to describe them and how to underline their own agency and relationality. With this aim we start by considering them as “matters of care”, showing, therefore, the care chains in which they take part, being constituted and contributing to the constitution of other ingredients of technoscience. In order to clarify and develop this claim, they are identified as phenomena, in Bohr’s and Barad’s sense, which help us to see how objects and “subjects” of technoscience are mutually and differentially constituted as inseparable. It is, finally, argued that relationality is the key to the constitution, the activation and the modes of being of technoscience’ objects, as well as to the way they productively intervene in their own constitutions and the constitution of “subjects”. Co-constituted with them, they are an “active-and-open-becoming-with”.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Barad, K. (2007): Meeting the Universe Halfway, Durham, Duke U. P.
  • Clarke, A. y S. L. Star (2007): “The Social Worlds Framework: A Theory/Methods Package”, en E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska y M. Lynch, eds. Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (3rd Edition), Cambridge, MA, USA, MIT Press, pp. 113-137.
  • Cussins, C. (1996): “Ontological Choreography: Agency through Objectification in Infertility Clinics”, Social Studies of Science, 26 (3), 575-610.
  • Daston, L. (2002): “The Coming into Being of Scientific Objects”, en L. Daston (ed.) Biographies of Scientific Objects, London, University of Chicago Press, pp. 77-108.
  • Daston, L. y G. Peter (2010): Objectivity, New York, Zone Books.
  • Despret, V. (2013): “Responding bodies & partial affinities in human-animal worlds”, Theory, Culture & Society 30 (7-8), pp. 51-76.
  • Domínguez Rubio, F. (2016): “On the discrepancy between objects and things: An ecological approach”, Journal of Material Culture, 21(1), pp. 59-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1359183515624128
  • Griesemer, J. R. (2015): “Sharing Spaces, Crossing Boundaries”, en G. C. Bowker, S. Timmermans, A. Clarke y E. Balka (eds.), Boundary Objects and Beyond, Cambridge (Mass.), MIT press, pp. 201-218.
  • Hacking, I. (1983): Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Sciences, New York, Cambridge University Press.
  • Haraway, D. (1997): Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium, London, Routledge.
  • Haraway, D. (2004a, [2000]): “Cyborgs, Coyotes, and Dogs: A Kinship of Feminist Figurations”, en The Haraway Reader, New York, Routledge, pp. 321-342.
  • Haraway, D. (2004b, [2003]): “Cyborgs to Companion Species: Reconfiguring Kinship in Technoscience”, en The Haraway Reader, New York, Routledge, pp. 295-320.
  • Haraway, D. (2008): When Species Meet, London, University of Minnesota Press. Jasanoff, S. (2004): “The idiom of co-production”, en S. Jasanoff (ed), States of Knowledge, London, Routledge, pp. 1-12.
  • Knorr Cetina, K. (1997): “Sociality with Objects”, Theory, Culture & Society, vol. 4 (4), pp. 1-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026327697014004001
  • Latour, B. (1992 [1987]): Ciencia en acción, Barcelona, Labor.
  • Latour, B. (1993 [1991]): Nunca hemos sido modernos, Madrid, Debate.
  • Latour, B. (1996a): “On Intersubjectivity”, Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3 (4), pp. 228-245.
  • Latour, B. (1996b): “Do Scientific Objects Have a History?”, Common Knowledge, 5 (1), pp, 76-91.
  • Latour, B. (1998 [1991]): “La tecnología es la sociedad hecha para que dure”, en M. Doménech y F. Tirado (eds.), Sociología simétrica, Barcelona, Gedisa, pp. 109-142.
  • Latour, B. (2000): “When things strike back: a possible contribution of ‘science studies’ to the social sciences”, British Journal of Sociology, 51(1), pp. 107-123.
  • Latour, B. (2001 [1999]): La esperanza de Pandora, Barcelona, Gedisa.
  • Latour, B. (2004): “Why has critic run out of steam?”, Critical Inquiry 30, pp. 225-248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/421123
  • Latour, B. (2008): What is the style of matters of concern?, Amsterdam, Van Gorcum.
  • Law, J. y V. Singleton (2005): “Object Lessons”, Organization, 12 (3), pp. 331-355.
  • Luhmann, N. (2007): La sociedad de la sociedad, México, Herder.
  • Medina, E. (1989): Conocimiento y sociología de la ciencia, Madrid, CIS.
  • Mol, A. (2008): The Logic of Care, New York, Routledge.
  • Pickering, A. (1995): The Mangle of Practice: Time, Space, and Science, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
  • Puig de la Bellacas, M. (2011): “Matters of care in technoscience: Assembling neglected things”, Social Studies of Science, 41(1), pp. 85-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0306312710380301
  • Puig de la Bellacasa, M. (2012): “Nothing comes without its world: thinking with care”, The Sociological Review, 60 (2), pp. 197-216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2012.02070.x
  • Puig de la Bellacasa, M. (2017): Matters of Care, London, University of Minnesota Press.
  • Smith, B. C. (2015): “So Boundary as Not to Be an Object at All”, en G. C. Bowker, S. Timmermans, A. Clarke y E. Balka (eds.), Boundary Objects and Beyond, Cambridge (Mass.), MIT press, pp. 219-227.
  • Star, S. L. (2015b [1988]): “The Structure of Ill-Structure Solutions: Boundary Objects and Heterogeneous Distributed Problem Solving”, en G. C. Bowker, S. Timmermans, A. Clarke y E. Balka (eds.), Boundary Objects and Beyond, Cambridge (Mass.), MIT press, pp. 243-261.
  • Star, S. L. y J. R. Griesemer (1989): “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’, and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology”, Social Studies of Science, 19 (3), pp. 387-400.
  • Stengers, I. (2011): Thinking with Whitehead, Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard University Press.
  • Urieta, E. (2019): Grasa, cuerpo y subjetividad. Un ensamblaje sociocultural, tesis doctoral en curso, Universidad Complutense, Madrid.
  • Viveiros de Castro, E. (2010): Metafísicas caníbales, Madrid, Katz editorial.
  • Whitehead, A. (1920): The Concept of Nature, Cambridge (UK), Cambridge U.P.
  • Whitehead, A. (1978 [1929]): Process and Reality, New York, The Free Press.
  • Wiegman, R. (2012): Object Lessons, Durham, Duke U.P.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet