Technological Metaphors and the Emergence of Identities
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52712/issn.1850-0013-929Keywords:
social constructivism, social realism, actor-net theory, identity, technological representationsAbstract
This paper focuses on the relation between knowledge and the emergence of new identities. The starting point consists in developing a criticism to a certain kind of social constructivism which presupposes that society is constituted before the emergence, validation and acceptation of knowledge (social realism); in such a way that the relationship knowledge-society is asymmetric, at least at the level of explanation. This paper introduces the actor-network theory (ANT) as a model to elaborate such a criticism. In a second step, it adds a criticism focused on two premises underlying ANT. Finally, by introducing some concepts from D. Haraway’s proposal, it will explore some ways to articulate a model to understand the roll of technological representations in constructing new identities.
Downloads
References
BANÚS, M. (1992): “The description of technical objects”, en Bijker, W. y Law, J.(eds.): Shaping technology/building society, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, pp. 205-224.
BIJKER, W. y PINCH, T. (1984): “The social construction of facts and artifacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other”, Social Studies of Sience, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 399-441.
BIJKER, W., HUGHES, T. y PINCH, T. (eds.) (1989): The social construction of technological systems: new directions in sociology and history of technology; Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
BLOOR, D. (1990): “Anti-Latour”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Vol. 30, No. 1, 81-112.
BUCHANAN, A. R. (1991): “Theory and narrative in the history of technology”, Technological culture, No. 32, pp. 365-376.
CALLON, M. y LATOUR, B. (1992): “Don´t throw the baby out with the bath school! A reply to Collins and Yearley”, en Pickering, A. (ed.): Science as Practice and Culture, Chicago y Londres, The University of Chicago Press, pp. 343-368.
CASPERS, M. (1994): “Reframing and grounding nonhuman agency”, American Behavioral Scientists, Vol. 37, No. 3, 839-856.
CLAYTON, N. (2002): “SCOT: Does it answer?”, Technology and Culture, Vol. 43, pp. 351-360.
COLLINS, H. (1985): Changing order. Replication and induction in scientific practice, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
COLLINS, H. y PINCH, T. (1993): The Golem. What every one should know about science, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
COLLINS, H. y YEARLEY, S. (1992a): “Epistemological chicken”, en Pickering, A.(ed.): Science as practice and culture, Chicago y Londres, The University of Chicago Press, pp. 327-342.
COLLINS, H. y YEARLEY, S. (1992b): “Journey into space”, en Pickering, A. (ed.): Science as practice and culture, Chicago y Londres, The University of Chicago Press, pp. 369-389.
ECHEVERRÍA, J. (2003): La revolución tecnocientífica, Madrid, Fondo de Cultura Económica.
ELLUL, J. (1962): “The technological order”, Technology and Culture, Vol. 3, No. 4, Proceedings of the Encyclopaedia Britannica Conference on the Technological Order, pp. 394-421.
FULLER, S. (1994): “Making agency count. A brief foray into the foundations of social theory”, American Behavioral Scientists, Vol. 37, No. 6, pp. 741-753.
GALISON, P. (1987): How experiments end, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
GALISON, P. (1992): “Computer simulation and the trading zone”, en Glison, P. y Stump, D. (eds.): The disunity of science. Boundaries, context and power, Stanford, Stanford University Press, pp. 118-157.
HACKING, I. (1983): Representing and intervening. Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
HACKING, I. (1992): “The self-vindication of laboratory sciences”, en Pickering, A.(ed.): Science as practice and culture, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, pp. 29-64.
HARAWAY, D. (1991): “A cyborg manifesto: science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century”, en Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The reinvention of Nature, Nueva York, Routledge, 149-181.
HARAWAY, D. (1996): “Modest witness: feminist diffractions in science studies”, en Glison, P. y Stump, D. (eds.) (1996): The disunity of science, Stanford, Stanford University Press.
KEULARTZ, J., SCHEMER, M., KORTHALS, M. y SWIERSTRA, T. (2004): “Ethics in technological culture. A programmatic proposal for a pragmatist approach”, Science, Technology and Human Values, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 3-29.
LATOUR, B. (1983): “Give me a laboratory and I will rise the World”, en Knorr-Cetina, K. y Mulkay, M. (eds.): Science observed: perspectives on the social study of science, Londres, Sage, pp. 141-170.
LATOUR, B. (1991): “La tecnología es la sociedad hecha para que dure”, en Domenech, M. y Tirado F. (comps.) (1998): Sociología simétrica. Ensayos sobre ciencia, tecnología y sociedad, Barcelona, Gedisa, pp. 109-170.
LATOUR, B. (1992): “Where are de missing masses? Sociology for a few mundane objects”, en Bijker, W. y Law, J., (eds.): Shaping technology/building society. Studies in sociotechnical change, Cambridge, MIT Press, pp. 255-259.
LATOUR, B. (1994): “De la mediación técnica: filosofía, sociología, genealogía”, en Domenech M. y Tirado F. (comps.) (1998): Sociología simétrica. Ensayos sobre ciencia, tecnología y sociedad, Barcelona, Gedisa, pp. 249-302.
LATOUR, B. (1994b): “Pragmatogonies. A mythical account of how humans and nonhumans swap properties”, American Behavioral Scientists, Vol. 37, No. 6, pp. 791-808.
LATOUR, B. (1998): “Mixing humans and non humans together: the sociology of a door closer”, Social problems, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 298-310.
LATOUR, B. (2003): “The power of fac similes. A Turing test on science and literature”. Disponible en: http://www.bruno-latour.fr/articles/article/94-POWERS%20TURING.html.
LATOUR, B. y WOOLGAR, S. (1979, 1986): Laboratory life, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2ª Edición.
LAW, J. (1989): “Technology and heterogeneous engineering: the case of Portuguese expansion”, en Bijker, W., Hughes, T. y Pinch, T. (eds.): The social construction of technological systems: new directions in sociology and history of technology; Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, pp. 111-134.
LEE, N. y BROWN, S. (1994): “Otherness and the Actor-Network. The undiscovered continent”, American Behavioral Scientists, Vol. 37, No. 6, pp. 772-790.
RADDER, H. (1992): “Normative reflexions on constructivist approaches to science and technology”, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 22, pp. 141-173.
RUSSEL, S. (1986): “The social construction of artefacts. A response to Pinch and Bijker”, Social Studies of Science, Vol.16, pp. 331-346.
SHAPIN, S. (1996): The scientific revolution, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
SHAPIN, S. y SCHAFFER, S. (1985): Leviathan and the air-pump. Hobbes, Boyle and the experimental life, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
WINNER, L. (1993): “Upon opening the black box and finding it empty”, Science technology and human values, 18, pp. 362-378.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 CC Attribution 4.0
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All CTS's issues and academic articles are under a CC-BY license.
Since 2007, CTS has provided open and free access to all its contents, including the complete archive of its quarterly edition and the different products presented in its electronic platform. This decision is based on the belief that offering free access to published materials helps to build a greater and better exchange of knowledge.
In turn, for the quarterly edition, CTS allows institutional and thematic repositories, as well as personal web pages, to self-archive articles in their post-print or editorial version, immediately after the publication of the final version of each issue and under the condition that a link to the original source will be incorporated into the self-archive.
