Advertisement

Human Studies

, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp 281–308 | Cite as

Fun in Go: The Timely Delivery of a Monkey Jump and its Lingering Relevance to Science Studies

  • Philippe SormaniEmail author
Empirical Study/Analysis

Abstract

This paper offers an ethnomethodological exploration of fun in Go (the ancient board game), the timely delivery of a ‘Monkey Jump’ (a particular move in Go), and its lingering relevance to science studies (where Go has provided an early analogy for laboratory work). In Go terms, the paper makes a ‘pincer’ move: on the one hand, it explores the analytic potential of ‘fun’ for ethnographic purposes and, on the other hand, it questions its manifest abandonment in some quarters of science studies. In particular, the paper challenges their “curious seriousness” (Garfinkel in Réseaux Hors Sér 8(1):69–78, 1990) whenever grand ontological claims are mixed up with suspended empirical inquiry. That said, the latter criticism does not take the form of a scholarly exercise in conceptual clarification, but remains part and parcel of the author’s ethnography of playing amateur Go, including his dealing with and delivery of a Monkey Jump and reading of Go literature and replaying of professional games (as most amateurs do). The key point of the paper, then, is to demonstrate the heuristic interest of adopting a practitioner’s stance, not only for understanding a technical domain such as Go in its own terms (Livingston in Ethnographies of reason, Ashgate, Aldershot, 2008), but also for launching a phenomenological critique of analytic discretion in science studies. Therefore, the second part of the paper re-examines, from an amateur Go player’s stance, Latour and Woolgar’s Go analogy in and for Laboratory Life (1979, 1986a)—an early exemplar of science studies’ ontological bent.

Keywords

Go Science studies Ontological claims Curious seriousness Phenomenological critique Ethnomethodology Fun 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Special acknowledgments are due to the Go club members whose game moves are studied in this paper, as well as to Jon Diamond from the BGA and to Princeton University Press for granting me permission to use visual illustrations under their copyright. A prior version of the paper was presented at the 2005 conference of the International Institute of Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis at Bentley College, Waltham, MA. I would like to thank its participants for their comments, especially Larissa Schindler who also encouraged me to write up the paper. Two anonymous reviewers helped me to improve the manuscript. So did the comments and criticisms by Andrew P. Carlin, Anna Pichelstorfer, Leonidas Tsilipakos, and Rod Watson. I thank all of them. As ever, none of them can be held responsible for polemic points or remaining mistakes. Neither can André Sormani who first introduced me to Go and still beats me almost every time.

References

  1. Baccus, M. D. (1986). Multipiece truck wheel accidents and their regulations. In H. Garfinkel (Ed.), Ethnomethodological studies of work (pp. 20–59). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. BGA. (2001). Play go. The most challenging game in the world. Market Drayton: The British Go Association.Google Scholar
  3. Button, G. (Ed.). (1991). Ethnomethodology and the human sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power action and Belief. A new sociology of knowledge (pp. 196–233). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  5. Cicourel, A. (1964). Method and measurement in sociology. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  6. Collin, F. (2011). Science studies as naturalized philosophy. Synthese library. Studies in epistemology logic, methodology, and philosophy of science. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Coulter, J. (1996). Chance, cause and conduct: probability theory and the explanation of human action. In S. Shanker (Ed.), Philosophy of science, logic and mathematics. History of philosophy (Vol. IX, pp. 266–291). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Davies, J. (1975). Life and death: Elementary go series (Vol. 4). Tokyo: The Ishi Press Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Descombes, V. (1989). Philosophie par gros temps. Paris: Ed. de Minuit.Google Scholar
  10. Doing, P. (2008). Give me a laboratory and I will raise a discipline: The past, present, and future politics of laboratory studies in STS. In E. J. Hackett, et al. (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (3rd ed., pp. 279–318). Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
  11. Garfinkel, H. (1952). The perception of the other. A study in social order. PhD thesis. Cambridge: Harvard.Google Scholar
  12. Garfinkel, H. (1963). A conception of, and experiments with, ‘trust’ as a condition of stable concerted actions. In O. J. Harvey (Ed.), Motivation and social interaction (pp. 187–238). New York: Ronald Press.Google Scholar
  13. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice–Hall.Google Scholar
  14. Garfinkel, H. (1990). The curious seriousness of professional sociology. Réseaux Hors Sér, 8(1), 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garfinkel, H. (1991). Respecification: Evidence for locally produced, naturally accountable phenomena of order*, logic, reason, meaning, method, etc. in and as of the essential haecceity of immortal ordinary society (I) an announcement of studies. In G. Button (Ed.), Ethnomethodology and the human sciences (pp. 10–19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Edited and introduced by Anne Rawls. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  17. Garfinkel, H., Sacks, H. (1986(1970)). On formal structures of practical actions. In H. Garfinkel (Ed.) Ethnomethodological studies of work (pp. 160–193). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Gingras, Y. (2007). Everything you did not necessarily want to know about gravitational waves. And why. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 38, 268–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goffman, E. (1961). Fun in Games, encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction (pp. 17–81). Indianapolis, New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company Inc.Google Scholar
  20. Goffman, E. (1964). The Neglected Situation. American Anthropologist, New Series, The Ethnography of Communication, Part 2, 66(2), 133–136.Google Scholar
  21. Guggenheim, M. (2011). The proof is in the pudding—On ‘truth to materials’ in the sociology of translations, followed by an attempt to improve it. Science, Technology and Innovation Studies, 7(1), 65–86.Google Scholar
  22. Hacking, I. (1988). The participant irrealist at large in the laboratory. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 39(3), 277–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what?. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hunter, R. (2002). Monkey jump workshop. Richmond: Slate and Shell.Google Scholar
  25. Hutchinson, P., Read, R., & Sharrock, W. (2008). Seeing things for themselves: winch, ethnography, ethnomethodology and social studies, there is no such thing as a social science (pp. 91–112). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  26. Jasanoff, S. (2004). The idiom of co-production. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge. The co-production of science and social order (pp. 1–12). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kajiwara, T. (1979). The direction of play. Tokyo, Santa Monica and Amsterdam: Kiseido.Google Scholar
  28. Kawabata, Y. (1996 (1972)). The master of Go. New York: Vintage International.Google Scholar
  29. Krämer, S. (2010). Is there a language ‘behind’ speaking? How to look at 20th century language philosophy in an alternative way. In V. Munz, et al. (Eds.), Language and world part II: Signs minds and actions (pp. 39–50). Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag.Google Scholar
  30. Lasker, E. (1960(1934)). Go and Go-moku. The oriental board games. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  31. Latour, B. (1992). One more turn after the social turn: Easing science studies into the non-modern world. In E. McMullin (Ed.), The social dimensions of science (pp. 272–292). Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Latour, B. (2006). Changer de société, refaire la sociologie. Paris: Ed. de la Découverte.Google Scholar
  33. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986a). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986b). Postscript. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts (pp. 273–290). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Law, J. (2009). Actor network theory and material semiotics. In B. S. Turner (Ed.), The New Blackwell Companion to social theory (pp. 142–158). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  37. Law, J., & Lien, M. E. (2013). Slippery: Field notes in empirical ontology. Social Studies of Science, 43(3), 363–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lezaun, J., & Woolgar, S. (2013). The wrong bin bag: A turn to ontology in science and technology studies? Social Studies of Science, 43(3), 321–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Liberman, K. (2013). More studies in ethnomethodology. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  40. Livingston, E. (2008). Ethnographies of reason. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  41. Louch, A.R. (1969). Games and Metaphors. In Explanation and Human Action (pp. 209–232). Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  42. Lynch, M. (1982). Technical work and critical inquiry: Investigations in a scientific laboratory. Social Studies of Science, 12, 499–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lynch, M. (1985). Art and artifact in laboratory science: A study of shop work and shop talk. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  44. Lynch, M. (1993). Scientific practice and ordinary action: ethnomethodology and social studies of science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Lynch, M. (2011). Ad hoc special section on ethnomethodological studies of science, mathematics, and technical activity: Introduction. Social Studies of Science, 41(6), 835–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lynch, M. (2013). Postscript ontography: Investigating the production of things, deflating ontology. Social Studies of Science, 43(3), 444–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lynch, D., & Bogen, D. (1997). Sociology’s asociological core: An examination of textbook sociology in light of the sociology of scientific knowledge. American Sociological Review, 62(3), 481–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Matthews, C. (1999). Teach Yourself Go. London: Hodder & Stoughton/McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  49. Mol, A. (1999). Ontological politics. A word and some questions. In J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor network theory and after (pp. 74–89). OxfordKeele: Blackwell and The Sociological Review.Google Scholar
  50. Otake, H. (2002). Opening theory made easy. Twenty strategic principles to improve your opening game. Tokyo: Kiseido.Google Scholar
  51. Parcero Oubiña, O. (2006). ‘Controlled Irony’…Are you serious? Reading Kierkegaard’s irony ironically. In N. J. Cappelorn & H. Dreuser (Eds.), Kierkegaard Studies (pp. 241–260). Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  52. Quéré, L. (2004). Il faut sauver les phénomènes! Mais comment? Espaces Temps, 84–86, 24–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Quéré, L. (2012). Is there any good reason to say goodbye to ‘Ethnomethodology’? Human Studies, 35(2), 305–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (Vol. 1). London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  55. Schindler, L. (2009). The production of ‘vis-ability’: an ethnographic video analysis of a martial arts class. In U. TikvahKismann (Ed.), Video interaction analysis: Methods and methodology (pp. 135–153). Wien: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  56. Sharrock, W., & Anderson, R. J. (2011). Discovering a practical impossibility. The internal configuration of a problem in mathematical reasoning. Ethnographic Studies, 12, 47–58.Google Scholar
  57. Sismondo, S. (1993). Some social constructions. Social Studies of Science, 23, 515–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sogoe, K. (1960). Go proverbs illustrated. The Nihon Ki-in (The Japan Go Association): Tokyo.Google Scholar
  59. Sormani, P. (2014). Respecifying lab ethnography. An ethnomethodological study of experimental physics. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  60. Tsilipakos, L. (2012). The poverty of ontological reasoning. Journal of the Theory of Social Behavior, 42(2), 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Watson, R. (1994). Catégories, séquentialité et ordre social. In B. Fradin, L. Quéré & J. Widmer (Eds.), L'enquête sur les categories (Raisons pratiques 5, pp. 151–184). Paris: Ed. de l’EHESS.Google Scholar
  62. Watson, R. (2009). Analysing practical and professional texts. A naturalistic approach. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  63. Woolgar, S., & Cooper, G. (1999). Do artifacts have ambivalences? Moses’ bridges, winner’s bridges and other urban legends in S&TS. Social Studies of Science, 29(3), 433–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Woolgar, S., Lezaun, J. (eds.) (2013) Special Issue: A turn to ontology in science and technology studies?, Social Studies of Science, 43(3).Google Scholar
  65. Zammito, J. H. (2004). A nice derangement of epistemes post—Positivism in the study of science from Quine to Latour. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Science and Technology StudiesUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations