Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Narrative, Nanotechnology and the Accomplishment of Public Responses: a Response to Thorstensen

Abstract

In this paper, we respond to a critique by Erik Thorstensen of the ‘Deepening Ethical Engagement and Participation in Emerging Nanotechnologies’ (DEEPEN) project concerning its ‘realist’ treatment of narrative, its restricted analytical framework and resources, its apparent confusion in focus and its unjustified contextualisation and overextension of its findings. We show that these criticisms are based on fairly serious misunderstandings of the DEEPEN project, its interdisciplinary approachand its conceptual context. Having responded to Thorstensen’s criticisms, we take the opportunity to clarify and develop our approach to narrative. We articulate the need for novel, theoretically robust approaches to the formation of public attitudes which transcend the limitations of both survey-based approaches—which remain wedded to methodological individualism and which presume that individuals hold distinct and relatively stable attitudes and preferences—and interactionist approaches to public talk, which focus too strongly on individuals-in-interaction as reasoning agents and which ignore the constitutive role of culture and discourse in the formation of public opinion. We suggest that our use of narrative can help to better understand the process through which public attitudes to emerging technology develop out of interactive an engagement with wider cultural arguments and accounts of  science and technology. We finish by pointing to parallel developments in social thought—from Charles Taylor’s treatment of social imaginaries to recent developments in post-Bourdieuian cultural sociology—as related projects in understanding the cultural resources and grammars that provide the conceptual infrastructure for modern social life.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    It is also important to note that Thorstensen does not review DEEPEN outputs which deal directly with the critiques he mounts (see [6]).

  2. 2.

    See [7] for a discussion of the inevitability and value of acknowledging ‘mess’ in social research. See also [811] for recent work on the practice of interdisciplinary collaboration and specifically the role of ambivalence in interdisciplinary scholarship.

  3. 3.

    At this point, it is useful to correct a few misrepresentations in Thorstensen’s argument concerning the relationship between the philosophical and the social science elements in the DEEPEN project. Thorstensen claims that DEEPEN partner and philosopher Jean-Pierre Dupuy, in his discussion of the DEEPEN work on publics, “never approaches the five narratives as intellectual research heuristics, but as self-existing entities”. Yet, this is a spurious distinction. Dupuy’s project was to situate the five DEEPEN narratives (as five ways of understanding why emerging nanotechnology might lead to unforeseen harm) as related to older stories, some of which have been prominent in society and culture for a very long time. These are not ‘self-existing entities’; rather, they are stories that have been codified in literature, poetry, folk tales, philosophy and other cultural forms to inform human conduct and ethical practice (some building on ‘ancient wisdom’ literature). Thorstensen then criticises Dupuy as “belonging to a philosophy version of the deficit model of the public understanding of science [sic] that is outlined by Brian Wynne”: the deficit being that lay people are “out of touch with the technological contemporary” and that this is a product of their “faulty understanding”. However, again, this misrepresents Dupuy’s project. He is not claiming that lay people possess a ‘faulty understanding’ nor that this ‘disqualifies them from having an opinion’; rather, he is stressing the severe disconnect between lay concerns with nanotechnology, which rely to some extent on ancient modes of thought, and modern imaginaries of nanoscience that rely on a set of metaphysical presuppositions that represent the technology a new paradigm of scientific endeavour based on its ability to control and manipulate matter at atomic and molecular scales. There is nothing deficit-like in Dupuy’s account. Like the DEEPEN lay participants, he is similarly concerned with “a science that drains all meaning from one of the most essential distinctions known to humanity: the distinction between that which lives and that which does not or, to speak more bluntly, between life and death” ([12]: 160]).

  4. 4.

    A further critique of Thorstensen’s is that we have ignored existing literature on public perceptions of nanotechnology. One text he has not engaged with is [13], in which we review existing literature in this area and assess its limitations with regard to individualist notions of ‘attitude’, ‘belief’ and ‘perceptions’.

  5. 5.

    Indeed, a more interesting and provocative discussion around the themes that Thorstensen raises concerns the inventiveness—or social life—of method (see [1416]). It seems to us more pertinent to explore the ways in which methods are engaged in ‘enacting the social’, whilst avoiding a form of methodological essentialism that claims that the refinement of method will enable a more objective representation of an a priori and external social realm. It seems to us that a notion of narrative—and the concepts of plot, storyline, cadence and tragedy that it implies—is indicative of the performativity of method and the necessity of interpretation in rendering social life (at least partially) meaningful.

  6. 6.

    For publications where we develop a concept of narrative in the interpretation of public responses to novel technologies, see [13, 25, 29, 30]. This work builds on and extends a range of themes evident in our collective and individual work [3137].

  7. 7.

    For example, Horlick-Jones [52, 57] explores the forms of practical reasoning deployed by publics to interpret novel technologies.

  8. 8.

    We note here that our DEEPEN research demonstrated the importance of both Enlightenment and Pre-Enlightenment narratives in shaping public discussion of science and technology [29].

  9. 9.

    These are of course the opening lines of Marx’s The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon. Marx goes on to argue that “At the very time when men appear engaged, in revolutionizing things and themselves, … at such very epochs of revolutionary crises do they [men] anxiously conjure up into their service the spirits of the past, assume their names, their battle cries, their costumes to enact a new historic scene in such time-honored disguise and with such borrowed language”. One implication of this Marxian understanding of history is the rather crude, and increasingly commonplace, characterisation of public responses to ‘epochs of revolution’ as innately conservative—as a ‘borrowed language’ and a conjuring of the spirits of the past. By highlighting the importance of narrative resources—and indeed the cultural heritage of narratives—it is important to note here that we are not arguing that public responses to novel technologies are not simply backward looking. Rather, we have argued that these narratives are deployed in public talk precisely because they articulate dilemmas and problematics that remain culturally salient and resonant. We have also argued that the deployment of these resources is an inventive—and at times playful—one, where public struggle towards a collective understanding of the meaning and sense of new technologies. Of course, whether governing institutions have the capacity to recognise and engage with these narratives in a substantive manner is another issue entirely [81, 82].

References

  1. 1.

    Ferrari A (2010) Developments in the debate on nanoethics: traditional approaches and the need for new kinds of analysis. NanoEthics 4(2):27–52

  2. 2.

    Ferrari A, Alfred A (2010) Beyond conversation: some lessons for nanoethics. NanoEthics 4(2):171–181

  3. 3.

    Kearnes MB, Rip A (2009) The emerging governance landscape of nanotechnology. In: Gammel S, Lösch A, Nordmann A (eds) Jenseits von regulierung: Zum politischen umgang mit der nanotechnologie. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Berlin

  4. 4.

    Shelley-Egan C (2010) The ambivalence of promising technology. NanoEthics 4(2):183–189

  5. 5.

    Shelley-Egan C, Davies SR (2013) Nano-industry operationalizations of ‘responsibility’: charting diversity in the enactment of responsibility. Rev Policy Res 30(5):588–604

  6. 6.

    Carvalho A, Nunes JA (2013) Technology, methodology and intervention: performing nanoethics in Portugal. NanoEthics 7(2):149–160

  7. 7.

    Law J (2004) After method: mess in social science research. Routledge, London

  8. 8.

    Fitzgerald D, Littlefield ML, Knudsen KJ, Tonks J, Dietz MJ (2014) Ambivalence, equivocation and the politics of experimental knowledge: a transdisciplinary neuroscience encounter. Soc Stud Sci 44(5):701–721

  9. 9.

    Balmer AS, Bulpin KJ (2013) Left to their own devices: post-ELSI, ethical equipment and the international genetically engineered machine (iGEM) competition. Biogeosciences 8:311–335

  10. 10.

    Balmer AS, Marris C, Calvert J, Molyneux-Hodgson S, Kearnes M, Bulpin K, Mackenzie A, Schyfter P, Frow E, Martin P (2014 forthcoming) Reflections on working in post-elsi spaces: taking roles in interdisciplinary collaborations. Science and Technology Studies (the EASST journal)

  11. 11.

    Calvert J (2013) Collaboration as a research method? Navigating social scientific involvement in synthetic biology. In. In: Doorn N, Schuurbiers D, van de Poel I, Gorman ME (eds) Early engagement and new technologies: opening up the laboratory. Springer, Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, Volume 16, Dordrech, pp 175–194

  12. 12.

    Dupuy J-P (2010) The narratology of lay ethics. NanoEthics 4(2):153–170

  13. 13.

    Macnaghten P, Davies S, Kearnes MB (2010) Narrative and public engagement: some findings from the DEEPEN project. In: von Schomberg R, Davies S (eds) Understanding public debate on nanotechnologies: options for framing public policies. European Commission, Brussels, pp 13–29

  14. 14.

    Law J, Urry J (2004) Enacting the social. Econ Soc 33(3):390–410

  15. 15.

    Lury C, Wakeford N (eds) (2012) Inventive methods: the happening of the social. Routledge, Abingdon

  16. 16.

    Law J, Ruppert E (eds) (2013) The device: the social life of methods. Special issue of The Journal of Cultural Economy, 6(3)

  17. 17.

    Billig M (1987) Arguing and thinking: a rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  18. 18.

    Cameron D (2001) Working with spoken discourse. Sage, London

  19. 19.

    Heller A (2005) European master narratives about freedom. In: Delanty G (ed) Handbook of contemporary european social theory. Routledge, London, pp 257–265

  20. 20.

    Blumenberg H (2010) Paradigms for a metaphorology translated Robert Savage. Cornell University Press, Ithaca

  21. 21.

    Blumenberg H (1988) Work on myth. MIT Press, Translated R. Wallace, Princeton

  22. 22.

    Nora P (1989) Between memory and history: les lieux de mémoire. Representations 26:7–24

  23. 23.

    Arendt H (1991) On revolution. Penguin, Harmondsworth

  24. 24.

    Lévi-Strauss C (1966) The savage mind. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

  25. 25.

    Davies SR, Macnaghten P, Kearnes M (eds) (2009) Reconfiguring responsibility: lessons for public policy. (Part 1 of the report on Deepening Debate on Nanotechnology). Durham University, Durham

  26. 26.

    Miller D (2013) Tales from Facebook. Wiley, Chichester

  27. 27.

    Turkle S (2011) Alone together: why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books, New York

  28. 28.

    Kearnes M, Wynne B (2007) On nanotechnology and ambivalence: the politics of enthusiasm. NanoEthics 1(2):131–142

  29. 29.

    Davies SR, Macnaghten P (2010) Narratives of mastery and resistance: lay ethics of nanotechnology. NanoEthics 4(2):141–151

  30. 30.

    Davies S, Kearnes M, Macnaghten M (2009) All things weird and scary’: nanotechnology, theology, and religious affiliations. Cult Relig 10(2):201–220

  31. 31.

    Kearnes MB (2006) Chaos and control: nanotechnology and the politics of emergence. Paragraph 29(2):57–80

  32. 32.

    Kearnes M, Macnaghten P, Wilsdon J (2006) Governing at the nanoscale. People Policies and Emerging Technologies, London

  33. 33.

    Davies S (2011) How we talk when we talk about nano: the future in laypeople’s talk. Futures 43(3):317–326

  34. 34.

    Macnaghten P (2004) Animals in their nature: a case study on public attitudes to animals, genetic modification and ‘nature’. Sociology 38(3):533–551

  35. 35.

    Macnaghten P, Grove-White R, Jacobs M (1995) Public perceptions and sustainability in Lancashire: indicators, institutions, and participation. A report by the Centre for the Study of Environmental Change commissioned by Lancashire County Council, Lancaster

  36. 36.

    Myers G, Macnaghten P (1998) Rhetorics of environmental sustainability: commonplaces and places. Environ Plan A 30:333–353

  37. 37.

    Macnaghten P, Urry J (1998) Contested natures. Sage, London

  38. 38.

    Lee CJ, Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies—examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Sci Commun 27(2):240–267

  39. 39.

    Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanoparticle Res 7(6):659–667

  40. 40.

    Proctor JD (1998) The meaning of global environmental change: retheorising culture in human dimensions research. Glob Environ Chang 8(3):227–248

  41. 41.

    Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Kim E, Lewenstein BV (2009) Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 18(5):546–558

  42. 42.

    Gaskell G, Ten Eyck T, Jackson J, Veltri G (2004) Public attitudes to nanotech in Europe and the United States. Nat Mater 3(8):496

  43. 43.

    Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Shih T-J, Dalrymple KE, Ho SS (2009) Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nat Nanotechnol 4:91–94

  44. 44.

    Strauss AL (1984) Social worlds and their segmentation processes. Stud Symb Interact 5:123–139

  45. 45.

    Strauss AL (1987) Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  46. 46.

    Garfinkel H (1967) Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice Hall, New Jersey

  47. 47.

    Goffman E (1981) Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadephia

  48. 48.

    Goffman E (1974) Frame analysis: an essay on the organisation of the experience. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

  49. 49.

    Lynch M (1993) Scientific practice and ordinary action: ethnomethodology and social studies of science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  50. 50.

    Austin JL (1962) How to do things with words. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  51. 51.

    Hoffman M, Linell P, Lindh-Åstrand L, Kjellgren KI (2003) Risk talk: rhetorical strategies in consultations on hormone replacement therapy. Health Risk Soc 5(2):139–154

  52. 52.

    Horlick-Jones T (2005) Informal logics of risk: contingency and modes of practical reasoning. J Risk Res 8(3):253–272

  53. 53.

    Horlick-Jones T, Prades A (2009) On interpretative risk perception research: some reflections on its origins; its nature; and its possible applications in risk communication practice. Health Risk Soc 11(5):409–430

  54. 54.

    Horlick-Jones T, Walls J, Kitzinger J (2007) Bricolage in action: learning about, making sense of, and discussing, issues about genetically modified crops and food. Health Risk Soc 9(1):83–103

  55. 55.

    Sarangi S, Bennett K, Howell L, Clarke A (2003) ‘Relatively speaking’: relativisation of genetic risk in counselling for predictive testing. Health Risk Soc 5(2):155–170

  56. 56.

    Wall E (2011) Structure of meaning and sense-making of risk: an operationalisation of sense-making tested by grouping individuals according to their structure of meaning. J Risk Res 14(6):735–755

  57. 57.

    Horlick-Jones T (2007) On the signature of new technologies: sociality, materiality and practical reasoning. In: Flynn R, Bellaby P (eds) Risk and the public acceptability of new technologies. Palgrave, Basingstoke

  58. 58.

    Callon M, Lascoumes P, Barthe Y (2009) Acting in an uncertain world: an essay on technical democracy. The MIT Press, Cambridge

  59. 59.

    Bijker WE (1995) Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: toward a theory of sociotechnical change. MIT Press, Cambridge

  60. 60.

    Bijker WE, Law J (eds) (1992) Shaping technology/building society. MIT Press, Cambridge

  61. 61.

    Law J, Hassard J (eds) (1999) Actor network theory and after. Blackwell, Oxford

  62. 62.

    Fischer MMJ (2003) Emergent forms of life and the anthropological voice. Duke University Press, Durham

  63. 63.

    Jasanoff S (2005) Designs on nature: science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press, Princeton

  64. 64.

    Marcus GE (ed) (1995) Technoscientific imaginaries: conversations, profiles and memoirs. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

  65. 65.

    Jasanoff S, Kim S-H, Sperling S (2007) Sociotechnical imaginaries and science and technology policy: a cross-national comparison. Harvard University, Research report, Cambridge, M.A.

  66. 66.

    Taylor C (2004) Modern social imaginaries. Duke University Press, Durham

  67. 67.

    Macnaghten P (2010) Researching technoscientific concerns in-the-making: narrative structures, public responses and emerging nanotechnologies. Environ Plan A 42:23–37

  68. 68.

    Alexander A, Giesen B, Mast J (2006) Social performance: symbolic action, cultural pragmatics, and ritual. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  69. 69.

    Lamont M, Camic C, Gross N (eds) (2011) Social knowledge in the making, vol University of Chicago Press. Chicago

  70. 70.

    Lamont M, Thévenot L (eds) (2000) Rethinking comparative cultural sociology: repertoires of evaluation in France and the United States. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  71. 71.

    Schatzki T, Knorr-Cetina K, von Savigny E (eds) (2001) The practice turn in contemporary theory. Routledge, London

  72. 72.

    Thévenot L (2007) The plurality of cognitive formats and engagements: moving between the familiar and the public. Eur J Soc Theory 10(3):409–423

  73. 73.

    Weber M (1978) Economy and society: an outline of interpretive sociology. University of California Press, Edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, Berkeley

  74. 74.

    Boltanski L, Thévenot L (2006) On justification. Princeton University Press, Cambridge

  75. 75.

    Lamont M, Thévenot L (2000) Introduction: toward a renewed comparative cultural sociology. In: Lamont M, Thévenot L (eds) Rethinking comparative cultural sociology: repertoires of evaluation in France and the United States. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–22

  76. 76.

    Silber IF (2003) Pragmatic sociology as cultural sociology: beyond repertoire theory? Eur J Soc Theory 6(4):427–449

  77. 77.

    Marx K (1907) The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon. Charles H. Kerr & Company, Trans: Daniel De Leon, Chicago

  78. 78.

    Hajer MA, Versteeg W (2005) A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics: achievements, challenges, perspectives. J Environ Policy Plan 7(3):175–184

  79. 79.

    Spillman L (ed) (2002) Cultural sociology. Blackwell, Oxford

  80. 80.

    Swidler A (1986) Culture in action: symbols and strategies. Am Sociol Rev 51(2):273–286

  81. 81.

    Jasanoff S (2003) Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41(3):223–244

  82. 82.

    Wynne B (2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science—hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genet 9(3):211–220

  83. 83.

    Macnaghten P, Kearnes M, Davies S (2015 forthcoming) Anticipating public responses to emerging technologies: a narrative approach. J Environ Policy Plan

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the European-funded ‘Deepening Ethical Engagement and Participation in Emerging Nanotechnologies’ (DEEPEN) project (SAS6-CT-2006-036719-DEEPEN). We would like to thank the editor for giving us the opportunity to write this response, our DEEPEN colleagues for their support and inspiration and, of course, Erik Thorstensen for reacquainting us with the DEEPEN project and making us think more deeply about our use of narrative. The usual disclaimer applies.

Author information

Correspondence to Matthew Kearnes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kearnes, M., Macnaghten, P. & Davies, S.R. Narrative, Nanotechnology and the Accomplishment of Public Responses: a Response to Thorstensen. Nanoethics 8, 241–250 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-014-0209-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Nanotechnology
  • Narrative
  • Public opinion formation
  • The DEEPEN project
  • Social imaginaries
  • Enlightenment
  • Cultural sociology