Archaeologies

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 290–294 | Cite as

Review of African Eve Effect by Aant Elzinga

Forum
  • 58 Downloads

Abstract

Alexandra Hofmänner’s paper is stimulating and provocative. For science and technology studies (STS) it importantly reintroduces a lost dimension, philosophical anthropology 1968; in a critique of Western science, Jürgen Habermas of the Frankfurt School retrieved this dimension and distinguished three “knowledge constitutive interests” whereof the “technical instrumental” associated an empirical-positivist ideal pinned on measurement and control. Such epistemic categories however soon fell outside mainstream science studies, even if Andrew Feenberg—a student of Herbert Marcuse—persistently pursues a broad critical theory of technology.

Keywords

African eve effect Reward systems of science Anthropological dimension of science Imaginative geographies Frontiers of science 

Résumé

L'étude d'Alexandra Hofmänner est stimulante et provocatrice. Pour les études en sciences et technologies, elle réintroduit surtout une dimension perdue, l'anthropologie philosophique. En 1968, dans une critique de la science occidentale, Jürgen Habermas de l'École de Francfort a récupéré cette dimension et a distingué trois « intérêts de connaissances », dont l'intérêt « technico-instrumental » a associé un idéal empirique positiviste reposant sur la mesure et le contrôle. Ces catégories épistémiques, cependant, ont bientôt dépassé les études scientifiques classiques, même si Andrew Feenberg – un élève de Herbert Marcuse – poursuit obstinément une vaste théorie critique sur la technologie.

Resumen

El trabajo de Alexandra Hofmänner es estimulante a la vez que provocativo. Su importancia en el campo de los estudios científicos y tecnológicos (STS) reside en que recupera una dimensión perdida, la antropología filosófica. En 1968, en una crítica a la ciencia occidental, Jürgen Habermas, de la Escuela de Frankfurt, recuperó esta dimensión y distinguió tres «intereses constitutivos de conocimientos», entre los cuales estaba la «técnica instrumental», que asociaba un ideal empírico-positivista basado en la medición y el control. No obstante, estas categorías epistémicas pronto quedaron fuera de los estudios tradicionales científicos, aunque Andrew Feenberg – estudiante de Herbert Marcuse, persiste en llevar a cabo una crítica generalizada de la teoría de la tecnología.

References cited

  1. Becher, Tony (editor). 1989. Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines, 2nd edn. Open University Press, Milton Keynes (2001 with co-author Paul W. Trowler).Google Scholar
  2. Elzinga, Aant (2006) Einstein’s Nobel Prize. A Glimpse Behind Closed Doors, Science History Publications, Sagamore Beach.Google Scholar
  3. Elzinga, Aant 2009. Through the Lens of the Polar Years: Changing Characteristics of Polar Research in Historical Perspective. Polar Record 45(235):313–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Feenberg, Andrew (1991) Critical Theory of Technology, University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  5. Feenberg, Andrew (2010) Between Reason and Experience: Essays in Technology and Modernity, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  6. Habermas, Jürgen (1968) Erkenntnis und Intresse, Suhrkamp verlag, Frankfurt a/M.Google Scholar
  7. Habermas, Jürgen (1987) The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory, Polity Press, London.Google Scholar
  8. Haraway, Donna. 1988. Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. In Human Geography: An Essential Anthology, edited by John A. Agnew, David N. Livingstone, and Alisdair Rogers. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  9. Harding, Sandra (ed.) (1993) The “Racial” Economy of Science. Toward a Democratic Future, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.Google Scholar
  10. Harvey, David, and Donna Haraway 1995. Nature, Politics, and Possibilities: A Debate and Discussion with David Harvey and Donna Haraway. From the Association of American Geographers, Chicago, March 17. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 13(5):507–527.Google Scholar
  11. Sardar, Ziauddin. 2002. Thomas Kuhn and the Science Wars. In Postmodernism and Big Science. Einstein Dawkins Kuhn Hawking Darwin, edited by Richard Appignanesi. Icon Books Ltd., Duxford, Cambridge, pp. 187–233.Google Scholar
  12. Schough, Katarina (2008) Hyperboré. Föreställningar om Sveriges plats i världen, Carlsson Bokförlag, Stockholm.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© World Archaeological Congress 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of ScienceUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations