![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Political science and Science Studies both use the words “politics” and “science,” yet each applies such different meanings as to nearly appear incommensurable. Here, I explain to political scientists the various uses of these words by Science Studies practitioners and how they could relate to those used by political science. The paper shows that only one of these meanings of the word “science” (out of four possible meanings) distinguishes it in a radical way from “politics” (which may take on six different meanings). Once those meanings have been defined, I propose that a more fruitful collaboration between Science Studies and political science could be developed based on the method of “following issues,” rather than delimiting distinct domains for science and politics.
RESUMO
Tanto a ciência política quanto os Estudos Sociais da Ciência usam as palavras “política” e “ciência,” mas cada uma delas aplica significados tão diferentes que quase parecem incomensuráveis. Aqui, explico aos cientistas políticos os vários usos dessas palavras pelos profissionais dos Estudos Sociais da Ciência e como eles podem se relacionar com os usados pela ciência política. O artigo mostra que apenas um desses significados da palavra “ciência” (de quatro possíveis) a distingue de forma radical de “política” (que pode assumir seis significados diferentes). Uma vez definidos esses significados, proponho que uma colaboração mais frutífera entre os Estudos da Ciência e a ciência política poderia ser desenvolvida com base no método de “seguir questões,” em vez de delimitar domínios distintos para a ciência e a política.
RESUMEN
Tanto la ciencia política como los Estudios Sociales de la Ciencia utilizan las palabras “política” y “ciencia,” pero cada una aplica significados tan diferentes que parecen casi inconmensurables. Aquí explico a los politólogos los distintos usos de estas palabras como son usadas por los profesionales de los Estudios Sociales de la Ciencia y cómo podrían relacionarse con los utilizados por la ciencia política. Muestro que sólo uno de estos significados de la palabra “ciencia” (de los cuatro posibles) la distingue radicalmente de “política” (que puede adoptar seis significados diferentes). Una vez definidos esos significados, propongo que podría desarrollarse una colaboración más fructífera entre los Estudios Científicos y la ciencia política basada en el método de “seguir las cuestiones,” en lugar de delimitar ámbitos distintos para la ciencia y la política.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
5 Translator's note: “Science Studies” in the original French manuscript, and in subsequent appearances.
6 See thematic clusters put together in two leading journals in the field: Social Studies of Science, particularly Volume 37, October 2007, and Science, Technology and Human Values.
7 To provide a few examples as testament, and sticking to France, see among others, Lolive (Citation1999), Torny (Citation1999), Callon, Lascoumes, and Barthe (Citation2001), and Gilbert (Citation2003).
8 For an example of such incommensurability, see Donegani and Sadoun (Citation2007), where no definition overlaps with the ones proposed here.
9 Closely following the sense laid out in Boltanski et al. (Citation2007) and more generally, in the works of Luc Boltanski and the Groupe de Sociologie Politique et Morale (GSPM).
10 Translator’s note: see Desrosières (Citation1993).
11 See furthermore Marres (Citation2007).
12 The same point is made in Lagroye (Citation2003).
13 On the notion of “progressive construction of a common world,” see Latour (Citation1999).
14 Translator’s note: English “issues” also in the original.
15 This is the focus of the case by G. de Vries, which shows how an issue can, regardless of efforts deployed, never pass that state.
16 “Sect. 4. Article XXXV is added to the California Constitution, to read: There is hereby established a right to conduct stem cell research which includes research involving adult stem cells, cord blood stem cells, pluripotent stem cells, and/or progenitor cells. Pluripotent stem cells are cells that are capable of self-renewal, and have broad potential to differentiate into multiple adult cell types. Pluripotent stem cells may be derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer or from surplus products of in vitro fertilization treatments when such products are donated under appropriate informed consent procedures.”
17 See the amazing imbroglio drawn up in Barthe (Citation2006), where the issue of nuclear waste changes even the notion of decision as a topos of sovereignty theory.
18 This is the distinction introduced by M. Callon, Lascoumes, and Barthe (Citation2001) between “delegative democracy” and “dialogical democracy,” the latter becoming necessary because of the limits of the former in all controversial issues.
19 Translator's note: English “issues” in the original.
20 Translator’s note: this, of course, has changed remarkably in the post-COVID-19 world, lending even more strength to Latour’s idea that politics/science discussions can deeply change their interpretative loci up and down the political classification proposed here in times of crisis (see below); or even that these changes in and of themselves define times of crisis.
21 Translator’s note: in the original, Latour drives the coda of this sentence with an impossibly difficult metaphor referring to sovereignty across and under the Alps. It seemed to me that, with its publication in Tapuya, the definition of humanity across migratory borders would be much easier to grasp.
22 This is in contrast to Favre (Citation2005), which takes as its starting point that in order to discover the epistemological “foundation” of political science, it is necessary to first define a “scientific worldview.”
23 Care must always be taken to distinguish “political epistemology,” which encompasses studies of the origin and management of differences between science and politics, from “(political) epistemology,” which encompasses studies of the origin and management of differences between science and politics. Under the pretext of defining science, “(political) epistemology” puts in brackets the fact that it is all about politics and nothing else. See Latour (Citation2001b).
24 Translator’s note: “In this sign thou shalt conquer.”
25 Translator’s note: though Latour here probably referred to the two Lilliputian tribes in Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels which argue over the proper way to peel a hard-boiled egg (whether by starting at the big or smaller end), the terms have also been adopted by computer scientists in similarly obtuse debates regarding the “best” way in which information can be organized for storage. See Cohen (Citation1981).
26 Translator’s note: There is a pragmatist connotation here in the original French épreuves, which refers to experimentation oriented to settle controversies and which allows to stabilize what is conceived as “reality” until the next time it is put to the test.
27 Translator’s note: introduced as English/Latin data in the original, paired to the French données, which can be literally translated as “givens.” Latour drives hard the point that data/données are never passively “given” but are instead appropriated after a process of manufacture. Latour therefore proposes the French word obtenues (“obtaineds,” “takens”) as more appropriate terminology, in opposition to donnés/data. The sublata paired to obtenues is the vocative case of the Latin sublatus, which refers to having been (1) “raised, lifted or elevated,” (2) “removed, or taken away,” and (3) “destroyed or abolished.” I have instead chosen to translate “obtenues” as “crafteds” as a reflection on Latour's point that “data” (givens) require enormous amounts of skilled labor to be created. For the idea of data-production and its relation to data analysis as two forms of craftwork, particularly in data intensive sciences, see Bartlett et al. (Citation2018).
28 See Galison (Citation2005b).
29 In the sense of I. Stengers (Citation1996a, Citation1996b), but also in the sense of Beck (Citation2006).
30 I am very grateful to Dominique Linhardt and Dominique Pestre for their comments on this paper.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Bruno Latour
Bruno Latour (22 June 1947–9 October 2022), political/social scientist and philosopher, was one of the most influential scholars in Science and Technology Studies (STS). From groundbreaking early works, such as Laboratory Life, to conceptual/methodological frameworks such as Actor-Network Theory (ANT), and finally his focus on political ecology in his latter years, Latour's work spread far beyond STS's borders – cultural, linguistic, academic and geographical – to become familiar across a diverse spectrum of fields in the social sciences and humanities.