Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 649–666 | Cite as

Technologies of Democracy: Experiments and Demonstrations

Article

Abstract

Technologies of democracy are instruments based on material apparatus, social practices and expert knowledge that organize the participation of various publics in the definition and treatment of public problems. Using three examples related to the engagement of publics in nanotechnology in France (a citizen conference, a series of public meetings, and an industrial design process), the paper argues that Science and Technology Studies provide useful tools and methods for the analysis of technologies of democracy. Operations of experiments and public demonstrations can be described, as well as controversies about technologies of democracy giving rise to counter-experiments and counter-demonstrations. The political value of the analysis of public engagement lies in the description of processes of stabilization of democratic orders and in the display of potential alternative political arrangements.

Keywords

Technology of democracy STS Public engagement 

References

  1. Akrich, M. (1992). The description of technical objects. In W. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 205–224). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barry, A. (1999). Demonstrations: sites and sights of direct action. Economy and Society, 28(1), 75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett, I., & Sarewitz, D. (2006). Too little, too late? Research policies on the societal implications of nanotechnology in the United States. Science as Culture, 15(4), 309–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blondiaux, L. (2005). L’idée de démocratie participative: enjeux, impensés et questions récurrentes. In M.-H. Bacqué et al. (Eds.), Gestion de proximité et démocratie participative. Une perspective comparative (pp. 119–135). Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, P. (2004). Science of science and reflexivity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bourg, D., & Boy, D. (2005). Conférences de citoyens, mode d’emploi. Paris: Ed. Charles Léopold Mayer.Google Scholar
  7. Boy, D., Donnet-Kamel, D., & Roquelpo, P. (2000). Un Exemple de Démocratie Participative: La Conférence de Citoyens sur les OGM. Revue Française de Science Politique, 50(4–5), 779–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Callon, M. (1998). The laws of the markets. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2001). Agir dans un monde incertain. Essai sur la démocratie technique. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  10. Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an uncertain world. Essay on technical democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Callon, M., Muniesa, F., & Millo, Y. (2007). Market devices. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Chambat, P. (1994). Usages des technologies de l’information de la communication: evolution des problématiques. TIS, 6(3), 249–270.Google Scholar
  13. Collins, H. (1975). The seven sexes: A study in the sociology of a phenomenon, or the replication of experiments in physics. Sociology, 9, 205–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Collins, H. (2004). Gravity shadows. The search for gravitational waves. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. de Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  16. Ellul, J. (1977). Le système technicien. Paris: Calmann-Lévy.Google Scholar
  17. Fisher, E., & Mahajan, R. L. (2006). Contradictory intent? US federal legislation on integrating societal concerns into nanotechnology research and development. Science and Public Policy, 33(1), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fung, A. (2003). Recipes for public spheres: Eight institutional design choices and their consequences. Journal of Political Philosophy, 11(3), 338–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ida, M., & Mallein, P. (2005). Haute technologie et sociologie des usages: Minatec Ideas Laboratory. Séminaire “Ressources Technologiques et Innovation”, Ecole de Paris du Management, September 14, 2005.Google Scholar
  20. Irwin, A. (2006). The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the ‘New’ scientific governance. Social Studies of Science, 36(2), 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Joly, P.-B., & Kaufman, A. (2008). Lost in translation. The need for upstream engagement with nanotechnology on trial. Science as Culture, 17(3), 225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Joss, S., & Durant, J. (1995). Public participation in science: The role of consensus conference in Europe. London: Science Museum.Google Scholar
  23. Jouet, J. (2000). Retour critique sur la sociologie des usages. Réseaux, 18(100), 487–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Latour, B. (1988). The pasteurization of France. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Laurent, B. (2007). Diverging convergences. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 20(4), 343–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Laurent, B. (2009). Replicating participatory devices. The consensus conference confronts nanotechnology. CSI Working Paper n°18. www.csi.ensmp.fr/Items/WorkingPapers/Download/DLWP.php?wp=WP_CSI_018.pdf.
  28. Laurent, B. (2010a). Les politiques des nanotechnologies. Pour un traitement démocratique d’une science émergente. Paris: Ed. Charles Léopold Mayer.Google Scholar
  29. Laurent, B. (2010b). Technologies of representation. Representing nanotechnology and society in the science museum. In A. Filippoupoliti (Ed.), Science exhibitions. Curation and design (pp. 178–208). Edinburgh: MuseumsEtc.Google Scholar
  30. Laurent, B. (forthcoming). Technologies of democracy. Problematizing nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Ph.D. dissertation, CSI—Mines ParisTech.Google Scholar
  31. Les Échos. (2007). Les citoyens d’Ile-de-France favorables aux nanotechnologies. January 23, 2007.Google Scholar
  32. Lezaun, J. (2007). A market of opinions. The political epistemology of focus groups. In M. Callon, F. Muniesa, & Y. Millo (Eds.), Market devices (pp. 130–151). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  33. Lezaun, J., & Soneryd, L. (2007). Consulting citizens: Technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 279–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. MacKenzie, D., Muniesa, F., & Siu, L. (2007). Do economists make markets? On the performativity of economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Macnaghten, P., Kearnes, M., & Wynne, B. (2005). Nanotechnology, governance and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? Science Communication, 27(2), 268–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mallein, P., Brun, M., Cros, M., & Favier, A. (2003). Les enjeux identitaires des Technologies d’Information et de Communication : les profils d’identité située dans l’usage des TICs. CNRS—LUCE—MSH Alpes.Google Scholar
  37. Mallein, P., & Toussaint, Y. (1994). L’intégration sociale des technologies d’information et de communication. Une sociologie des usages. Technologies de l’information et société, 4, 315–335.Google Scholar
  38. Miller, C. A. (2004). Interrogating the civic epistemology of American democracy. Stability and instability in the 2000 US Presidential Election. Social Studies of Science, 34(4), 501–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Proulx, S. (2005). Penser les usages des TIC aujourd’hui : enjeux – modèles – tendances. In L. Vieira & N. Pinède (Eds.), Enjeux et usages des TIC : Aspects sociaux et culturels, tome 1 (pp. 7–20). Presses universitaires de Bordeaux: Bordeaux.Google Scholar
  40. Rosental, C. (2008). Weaving self-evidence: A sociology of logic. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology and Human Values, 25(1), 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. (2004). Evaluating public participation exercises: A research agenda. Science, Technology and Human Values, 29(4), 512–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 30(2), 251–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Selin, C. (2007). Expectations and the emergence of nanotechnology. Science, Technology and Human Values, 32(2), 196–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the experimental life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Verchère, C., & Anjembe, E. (2010). De la difficulté de fabriquer des objets-frontières: le cas d’un projet de conceptions exploratoires. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 4(1), 36–64.Google Scholar
  47. von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  48. Wilsdon, J., & Willis, R. (2004). See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos: London.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre de Sociologie de l’InnovationMines ParisTechParis Cedex 06France

Personalised recommendations