Performances and arguments

Please, dear reader, do not commit the usual STS fallacy of thinking that because there is a fuzzy boundary between performance and argument the categories/forms-of-life cannot be separated. For example, this review is full of performative flourishes but it is, nevertheless, an argument—for the crucial idea of formative intentions see (Collins and Kusch 1998, pp. 10–12, 18–19, etc.).
For the daftness see (Collins and Yearley 1992).
I believe it was Steve Shapin who invented the phrase. I have no space here to discuss the way ANT appealed to boundary-crossers of every type. For instance, it provided a perfect metaphysics for the animal-rights movement, which need no longer be concerned with meaning and language.
For further explanation see (Collins and Yearley 1992).
There is, I understand, some belated recognition of the problem even among the writings of ANTs—but then they are no longer doing ANT.
To use Goodman’s (1976) terminology, theatre is ‘allographic’.

References

Collins, H.M., and R. Evans. 2007. Rethinking expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
Collins, H.M., and M. Kusch. 1998. The shape of actions: What humans and machines can do. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Google Scholar
Collins, H.M., and S. Yearley. 1992. Epistemological chicken. In Science as practice and culture, ed. A. Pickering, 301–326. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
Goodman, N. 1976. Languages of art. Indiana: Hackett.
Google Scholar

Authors

Harry Collins
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Correspondence to Harry Collins.

Collins, H. Performances and arguments. Metascience 21, 409–418 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11016-011-9562-0

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.