Advertisement

Human Studies

, 31:43 | Cite as

Postphenomenology: Learning Cultural Perception in Science

  • Cathrine HasseEmail author
Research Paper

Abstract

In this article I propose that a postphenomenological approach to science and technology can open new analytical understandings of how material artifacts, embodiment and social agency co-produce learned perceptions of objects. In particle physics, physicists work in huge groups of scientists from many cultural backgrounds. Communication to some extent depends on material hermeneutics of flowcharts, models and other visual presentations. As it appears in an examination of physicists’ scrutiny of visual renderings of different parts of a detector, perceptions vary in relation to social and bodily experiences. Vision in physics has seemingly allowed an objective perception at a convenient distance of the body. This article challenges this view and proposes that the variations can be analysed as cultural at two echelons with the help of a postphenomenological approach combined with cultural psychological theory of artifacts. A third echelon presumably constitutes the phenomenological limit to culture in science. Even this last resort of subjectivity can be embraced by a postphenomenological approach. The process of culturalization in physics can be defined as a process of situating knowledge in a body whose continuous learning of micro-and macro perceptions makes scientific renderings unstable. Taken together postphenomenology, following the distinctions between body one and body two, and combined with cultural psychological learning theory, enables new insight into what constitutes culture in science.

Keywords

Postphenomenology Science and technology studies Cultural psychology Situated knowledge Cultural learning processes 

References

  1. Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 801–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated knowledge and the culture of learning. Educational Researchers, 18(1), 32–42.Google Scholar
  3. Chaiklin, S., Hedegaard, M., & Juul Jensen, U. (1999). Activity theory and social practice: Cultural–historical approaches. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Clarke, M. (2003). Philosophy and technology session on bodies in technology. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 2(7). Retrieved December 12, 2007, from http://www.scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v7n2/clarke.html.
  5. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural–historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions. Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cole, M., Engeström, Y., & Vasquez, O. (Eds.). (1997). Mind, culture, and activity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Denegri, D. (2007). When CERN saw the end of the alphabet. Cern Courier. Retrieved October 16, 2007, from http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/43/4/13.
  9. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.Google Scholar
  10. Galison, P. (1997). Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1998). Seeing as situated activity: Formulating planes. In Y. Engeström & D. Middleton (Eds.), Cognition and communication at work, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Haraway, D. (1991). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. In Simians, cyborgs, and women (pp. 183–202). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Harding, S. (1993). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is strong objectivity? In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.) Feminist epistemologies (pp. 49–82). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Hasse, C. (Verbeek). Institutional creativity. The relational zone of proximal development. Culture & Psychology, 7, 199–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hasse, C. (2002a). Gender diversity in play with physics. The problem of premises for participation in activities. Mind, Culture and Activity, 9, 250–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hasse, C. (2002b) Learning physical space. The social designation of institutional culture. FOLK, 44, 171–195.Google Scholar
  17. Hasse, C. (2002c). Kulturelle læreprocesser i fysiske rum. Unge Pædagoger, 7/8, 3–13.Google Scholar
  18. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Ihde, D. (1993). Postphenomenology—essays in the postmodern context. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Ihde, D. (1999). Expanding hermeneutics: Visualism in science. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Ihde, D. (2002). Bodies in technology (Electronic mediations) (Vol. 5). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  22. Ihde, D. (2003a). If phenomenology is an albatross, is postphenomenology possible? In D. Ihde & E. Selinger (Eds.), Chasing technoscience: Matrix for materiality. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Ihde, D. (2003b). Postphenomenology—Again? Working Papers, 3, 1–26.Google Scholar
  24. Ihde, D. (2003c). A response to my critics. Techné, 7, 110.Google Scholar
  25. Jay, M. (1988). Scopic regimes of modernity. In H. Forster (Ed.), Vision and visuality (pp. 3–28). Seattle, WA: Bay Press.Google Scholar
  26. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1991). Epistemic cultures: Forms of reason in science. History of Political Economy, 23, 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Latour, B. (1986). Visualization and cognition: Thinking with eyes and hands. Knowledge and Society, 6, 1–40.Google Scholar
  29. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Leontiev, A.N. (1981). Problems of the development of mind. Moscow: Progress Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Lock, M. (1997). Decentering the natural body: Making difference matter. Configurations, 5, 267–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lynch, M. (1982). Technical work and critical inquiry: Investigations in a scientific laboratory. Social Studies of Science, 12, 499–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lynch, M. (1985). Discipline, and material form of images: An analysis of scientific visibility. Social Studies of Science, 15, 37–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lynch, M. (1988). The externalized retina: Selection and mathematization in the visual documentation of objects in the life sciences. Human Studies, 11, 201–234.Google Scholar
  37. Lynch, M., & Woolgar, S. (Eds.). (1988). Representation in scientific practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (Original work published 1988 in Human Studies, 11).Google Scholar
  38. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception (C. Smith, Trans.). London: Routledge (Original work published 1945).Google Scholar
  39. Rosenberger, R. (forthcoming). Quick-freezing philosophy: An analysis of imaging technologies in neurobiology. In J. B. Olsen, E. Selinger, & S. Riis (Eds.), New waves in philosophy of technology. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  40. Selinger, E. (2005). Towards a postphenomenology of artifacts: A review of Peter-Paul Verbeek’s What Things Do, Techné, 9, 128–134.Google Scholar
  41. Selinger E. (Eds.) (2006). Postphenomenology: A critical companion to Ihde. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  42. Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and lifetimes. The world of high energy physicists. London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Verbeek, P. P. (2003). Material hermeneutics. Techné, 6, 91–96.Google Scholar
  44. Verbeek, P. P. (2005). What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. State College: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Watson-Verran, H., & Turnbull, D. (1995). Science and other indigenous knowledge systems. In S. Jasanoff, G. Markle, J. Petersen, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 115–139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  47. Wertsch, J.V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Learning Lab DenmarkDPU, University of AarhusCopenhagen NVDenmark

Personalised recommendations