Empiricist Interventions: Strategy and Tactics on the Ontopolitical Battlefield

Anders Kristian Munk, Sebastian Abrahamsson

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

9 Citationer (Scopus)
2 Downloads (Pure)

Resumé

Recent papers by prominent scholars in science and technology studies (notably JohnLaw and Bruno Latour) have crystallized a fundamental disagreement about the scope and purpose of intervention in actor-network theory or what we here choose to bracket as empirical philosophy. While the precept of agnostic description is taken as a given, the desired eff ects of such descriptions are highly debated: Is the goal to interfere with the singularity of the real through the enactment of multiple and possibly conflicting ontologies? Or is it (also) to craft new and comprehensive common worlds supported by notions of due process and parliamentary procedure? In this paper we think about this disagreement as a question of research strategy (a normative discord about the desirable outcome of an intervention) in order to assess its implications for research tactics (a descriptive accord about the practical crafting of an adequate account). A key point here is to challenge the impermeability of such a division and show how the strategic dispute, if to be taken seriously, invariably spills over to swamp the level of tactics. To illustrate this point, we draw upon materials from our recent doctoral research projects and to facilitate the discussion we make two deliberate caricatures: Firstly, we operate with a simplifi ed history of actor-network theory in which a strategy of epistemological critique has been replaced by two contending agendas for ontological intervention. Secondly, we address these two contending agendas as distinct options which map on to the positions of our two main interlocutors. In doing so, it becomes possible to compare their respective tactical implications as we work through two examples of what might constitute an empiricist intervention.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftScience Studies
Vol/bind25
Udgave nummer1
Sider (fra-til)52-70
ISSN0786-3012
StatusUdgivet - 2012

Fingerprint

Empiricist
Tactics
Agenda
Actor-network Theory
Ontological
History
Crafting
Singularity
Discord
Parliamentary
Epistemological
Enactment
Interlocutors
Bruno Latour
Research Projects
Philosophy
Precepts
Dispute
Caricature
Fundamental

Citer dette

@article{d8f4d8345e8547b588e6fa27f91f4704,
title = "Empiricist Interventions: Strategy and Tactics on the Ontopolitical Battlefield",
abstract = "Recent papers by prominent scholars in science and technology studies (notably JohnLaw and Bruno Latour) have crystallized a fundamental disagreement about the scope and purpose of intervention in actor-network theory or what we here choose to bracket as empirical philosophy. While the precept of agnostic description is taken as a given, the desired eff ects of such descriptions are highly debated: Is the goal to interfere with the singularity of the real through the enactment of multiple and possibly conflicting ontologies? Or is it (also) to craft new and comprehensive common worlds supported by notions of due process and parliamentary procedure? In this paper we think about this disagreement as a question of research strategy (a normative discord about the desirable outcome of an intervention) in order to assess its implications for research tactics (a descriptive accord about the practical crafting of an adequate account). A key point here is to challenge the impermeability of such a division and show how the strategic dispute, if to be taken seriously, invariably spills over to swamp the level of tactics. To illustrate this point, we draw upon materials from our recent doctoral research projects and to facilitate the discussion we make two deliberate caricatures: Firstly, we operate with a simplifi ed history of actor-network theory in which a strategy of epistemological critique has been replaced by two contending agendas for ontological intervention. Secondly, we address these two contending agendas as distinct options which map on to the positions of our two main interlocutors. In doing so, it becomes possible to compare their respective tactical implications as we work through two examples of what might constitute an empiricist intervention.",
keywords = "Intervention, Empirical philosophy, STS, Ontology",
author = "Munk, {Anders Kristian} and Sebastian Abrahamsson",
year = "2012",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "52--70",
journal = "Science & Technology Studies",
issn = "0886-3040",
publisher = "Suomen tieteen- ja teknologiantutkimuksen seura ry",
number = "1",

}

Empiricist Interventions : Strategy and Tactics on the Ontopolitical Battlefield. / Munk, Anders Kristian; Abrahamsson, Sebastian.

I: Science Studies, Bind 25, Nr. 1, 2012, s. 52-70.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Empiricist Interventions

T2 - Strategy and Tactics on the Ontopolitical Battlefield

AU - Munk, Anders Kristian

AU - Abrahamsson, Sebastian

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - Recent papers by prominent scholars in science and technology studies (notably JohnLaw and Bruno Latour) have crystallized a fundamental disagreement about the scope and purpose of intervention in actor-network theory or what we here choose to bracket as empirical philosophy. While the precept of agnostic description is taken as a given, the desired eff ects of such descriptions are highly debated: Is the goal to interfere with the singularity of the real through the enactment of multiple and possibly conflicting ontologies? Or is it (also) to craft new and comprehensive common worlds supported by notions of due process and parliamentary procedure? In this paper we think about this disagreement as a question of research strategy (a normative discord about the desirable outcome of an intervention) in order to assess its implications for research tactics (a descriptive accord about the practical crafting of an adequate account). A key point here is to challenge the impermeability of such a division and show how the strategic dispute, if to be taken seriously, invariably spills over to swamp the level of tactics. To illustrate this point, we draw upon materials from our recent doctoral research projects and to facilitate the discussion we make two deliberate caricatures: Firstly, we operate with a simplifi ed history of actor-network theory in which a strategy of epistemological critique has been replaced by two contending agendas for ontological intervention. Secondly, we address these two contending agendas as distinct options which map on to the positions of our two main interlocutors. In doing so, it becomes possible to compare their respective tactical implications as we work through two examples of what might constitute an empiricist intervention.

AB - Recent papers by prominent scholars in science and technology studies (notably JohnLaw and Bruno Latour) have crystallized a fundamental disagreement about the scope and purpose of intervention in actor-network theory or what we here choose to bracket as empirical philosophy. While the precept of agnostic description is taken as a given, the desired eff ects of such descriptions are highly debated: Is the goal to interfere with the singularity of the real through the enactment of multiple and possibly conflicting ontologies? Or is it (also) to craft new and comprehensive common worlds supported by notions of due process and parliamentary procedure? In this paper we think about this disagreement as a question of research strategy (a normative discord about the desirable outcome of an intervention) in order to assess its implications for research tactics (a descriptive accord about the practical crafting of an adequate account). A key point here is to challenge the impermeability of such a division and show how the strategic dispute, if to be taken seriously, invariably spills over to swamp the level of tactics. To illustrate this point, we draw upon materials from our recent doctoral research projects and to facilitate the discussion we make two deliberate caricatures: Firstly, we operate with a simplifi ed history of actor-network theory in which a strategy of epistemological critique has been replaced by two contending agendas for ontological intervention. Secondly, we address these two contending agendas as distinct options which map on to the positions of our two main interlocutors. In doing so, it becomes possible to compare their respective tactical implications as we work through two examples of what might constitute an empiricist intervention.

KW - Intervention

KW - Empirical philosophy

KW - STS

KW - Ontology

M3 - Journal article

VL - 25

SP - 52

EP - 70

JO - Science & Technology Studies

JF - Science & Technology Studies

SN - 0886-3040

IS - 1

ER -