Foundations of Science

, Volume 16, Issue 2–3, pp 161–171 | Cite as

In-Between Science and Politics

Article

Abstract

This paper gives a philosophical outline of the initial foundations of politics as presented in the work of Plato and argues why this traditional philosophical approach can no longer serve as the foundation of politics. The argumentation is mainly based on the work of Latour (1993, 1997, 1999a, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008) and consists of five parts. In the first section I elaborate on the initial categorization of politics and science as represented by Plato in his Republic. In the second section I discuss the gap between humans and non-humans and how they are tied together in actual real life political topics. In the third section I elaborate on the concepts of political and scientific discourse and how they are thought of as separated fields based on the ancient constitution of human society. In the fourth section I link the concepts of matter of fact and matter of concern. In a final section I present a redefinition of the nature of politics as represented in the work of Bruno Latour as an alternative foundation for the study of political systems.

Keywords

Latour Matters of fact Matters of concern Politics Science 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bloor D.: Knowledge and Social Imagery. Routledge & K. Paul, London (1976)Google Scholar
  2. Bloor D.: Anti-Latour. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 30(1), 81–112 (1999a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bloor D.: Discussion: Reply to Bruno Latour. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 30(1), 131–136 (1999b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. de Saussure, F. [1916] (1967). Cours de linguistique générale. Grande Bibliothèque Payot, Paris.Google Scholar
  5. François K., De Sutter L.: When mathematics becomes political. Representing (Non) Humans. Philosophica 74, 23–138 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. Goodin R. E., Klingemann H.-D.: Political science: The discipline. In: Goodin, R. E., Klingemann, H.-D. (eds) A new handbook of political science, pp. 3–49. Oxford University Press, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  7. Haraway, D. J. [1985] (1991). A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century. In D. J. Haraway (Ed.), Simians, Cyborgs, and Women. The reinvention of nature (pp. 149–181). London: Free Association Books.Google Scholar
  8. Haraway, D. J. [1987] (1991). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. In D. J. Haraway (Ed.), Simians, cyborgs, and women. The reinvention of nature (pp. 183–201). London: Free Association Books.Google Scholar
  9. Haraway D. J.: Simians, cyborgs, and women. The reinvention of nature. Routledge, New York (1991)Google Scholar
  10. Haraway, D. J. [1998] (2000). How like a leaf. An interview with Thyrza Nichols goodeve. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Husserl, E. (1936). The origin of geometry. In E. Husserl (Ed.), [1935–1937] (1962). Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften und die transzendentale Phänomenologie. Eine Einleitung in die phänomenologische Philosophie. Husserliana, Gesammelte Werke, Band 6, (Hua 6). Herausgegeben von Walter Biemel. 2 Auflage, Martinus Nijhoff, Den Haag.Google Scholar
  12. Kuhn, T. S. [1962] (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Second Edition, Enlarged. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern (Translated by Catherine Porter). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Latour, B. [1991] (1997). Nous n’avons jamais été modernes, Essai d’anthropologie symétrique. La Découverte/Poche 26. Paris: Sciences humaines et sociales.Google Scholar
  15. Latour B.: Politiques de la nature, Comment faire entrer les sciences en démocratie. La Découverte, Paris (1999a)Google Scholar
  16. Latour B.: Discussion: For David Bloor ... and beyond: A reply to David Bloor’s ‘Anti-Latour’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 30(1), 113–129 (1999b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Latour, B. (2004). Politics of nature. How to bring the sciences into democracy (Translated by Catherine Porter). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Latour B.: From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik—or How to Make Things Public. In: Latour, B., Weibel, P. (eds) Making Things Public. Atmospheres of Democracy, ZKM/Center for Art and Media Karlsruhe, pp. 14–41. The MIT Press, Cambridge MA (2005)Google Scholar
  19. Latour B.: Turning around politics. A note on Gerard de Vries’ paper. Social Studies of Science 37(5), 811–820 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Latour B.: Pour un dialogue entre science politique et science studies. Revue française de science politique 58(4), 657–678 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Merton, R. K. [1942] (1974). The normative structure of science. In N. W. Storer (Ed.), [1973] (1974). The sociology of science. Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 267–278). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Plato (1935). The republic. In Plato in twelve volumes VI the republic, II. The Loeb classical library edition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Stengers I.: L’Invention des sciences modernes. La Découverte, Paris (1993)Google Scholar
  24. Tickner A. J.: International relations: Post-positivist and feminist perspectives. In: Goodin, R. E., Klingemann, H.-D. (eds) A new handbook of political science, pp. 446–461. Oxford University Press, New York (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Logic and Philosophy of Sciences (CLWF), Department of Philosophy at the Faculty of Art and PhilosophyFree University of Brussels (VUB)BrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations