Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Making worlds: epistemological, ontological and political dimensions of technoscience

  • Focus
  • Published:
Poiesis & Praxis

Abstract

This paper outlines some of the new epistemological and ontological assumptions of contemporary technoscience thereby reframing the question of an epochal break. Important aspects are the question of a new techno-rationality, but also the constitution of a ‘New World Order Inc.’, with its new ‘politics of life itself’, the reconfiguration of categories such as race, class and gender in technoscience, as well as the amalgamation of everyday life, technoscience and culture. Given the difficulties of ‘proving’ a new episteme (or even epoch), I change perspective by reflecting on the epistemological vantage point from which the interpretation of technoscience as a new episteme or epoch becomes (im)plausible—confronting traditional approaches of philosophy and history of science and technology assessment (TA) with interventional approaches, such as postcolonial and feminist cultural studies of technoscience.

Zusammenfassung

Mein Beitrag diskutiert die Frage nach einem epochalen Bruch zwischen der wissenschaftlich-technischen Kultur der Moderne und der Technoscience bzw. einer neuen Technowissenschaftskultur. Um klassische Probleme der Epochendiskussion zu vermeiden, wird die Frage nach der Technoscience mit Hilfe des Foucaultschen Episteme- und Dispositiv-Begriffs neu gerahmt. Wichtige Aspekte der Episteme bzw. des Dispositivs Technoscience werden vorgestellt—wie die Ausbildung einer neuen Techno-Rationalität, die Konstitution einer‚New World Order Inc.’ (Haraway in Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium. FemaleManc_Meets_OncoMouse™. Feminism and technoscience. Routledge, New York, 1997: 2) und einer ‚politics of life itself’ (Franklin in Encyclopedia of bioethics, vol 3. Macmillan, New York, 1995), die Neukonfiguration zentraler Kategorien wie Geschlecht, Ethnizität oder Klasse sowie die Amalgamisierung von Alltagsleben, Technoscience und Kultur. Abschließend werden die Unterschiede der Rezeption des Technoscience-Begriffs in eher traditionellen Ansätzen der Wissenschafts- und Technikphilosophie, -soziologie und -geschichte und der Technikfolgenabschätzung mit der in eher interventionistischen Ansätzen wie postkoloniale und feministische Cultural Studies of Technoscience herausgearbeitet, um epistemologische, ontologische und politische Differenzen der Ansätze deutlich zu machen.

Résumé

En reformulant la question d’une rupture d’époque en terme d’épistémè et d’appareil, je vais souligner certaines des hypothèses épistémologiques et ontologiques de la technoscience contemporaine. Les aspects importants sont la techno-rationalité mais aussi la constitution d’une culture entrepreneuriale internationale («New World Order Inc.», Haraway in Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium. FemaleManc_Meets_OncoMouse™. Feminism and technoscience. Routledge, New York, 1997: 2), avec sa nouvelle «politique de vie elle-même» (Franklin in Encyclopedia of bioethics, vol 3. Macmillan, New York, 1995), la reconfiguration dans la technoscience de catégories telles que la race, la classe et le genre ainsi que la combinaison de la vie de tous les jours, la technoscience et la culture. Etant donné les difficultés de «prouver» une nouvelle épistémè (ou même une époque), je change de perspective en réfléchissant au point de vue épistémologique à partir duquel l’interprétation des technosciences en tant que nouvel épistémè ou époque devient plausible ou non—en confrontant les approches traditionnelles de la philosophie, de l’histoire des sciences et de l’évaluation technologique avec des approches d’intervention telles que les études culturelles postcoloniales et féministes de la technoscience.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The subtitle of Latour (1987).

  2. I am thinking of new technologies of the self, e.g. for optimizing one’s life, such as neuro-linguistic programming or yoga, as well as genetic counselling or sex change; see also Haraway’s concept of ‘technobiopower’, Rabinow’s ‘concept of biosociality or Rose’s concept of ‘somatic individuality’.

  3. They bring together experts from mathematics, physics, as well as biology, cognitive science, engineering, computer science, psychology, philosophy, pedagogy and other fields.

  4. Pfeifer and Scheier (1999) and Christaller et al. (2001: 66).

  5. Becker and Weber (2005).

  6. One could also talk of an ‘ethnography’ of machines.

  7. Weber (2010).

  8. Naturally, there are always exceptions, as found in the work of Don Ihde and Alfred Nordmann.

  9. With the exception of some scholars working in actor-network theory and other post-constructionist approaches in STS, such as John Law or John Urry.

  10. For example, the roboticist Thomas Christaller states that it is not possible and productive to model “the world in an objective, complete and non-contradictory way” (Christaller et al. 2001: 72).

  11. With regard to its practices—not to its rhetorics; see above.

References

  • Andersen W (2002) Postcolonial technoscience. Soc Stud Sci 32:643–658

    Google Scholar 

  • Balsamo A (1998) An Introduction, Cultural Studies, Special Issue: Cultural Studies of Science and Technology 12(3):285–299

  • Barnes B (1974) Scientific knowledge and sociological theory. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker B, Weber J (2005) Verkörperte Kognition und die Unbestimmtheit der Welt. Mensch-Maschine-Beziehungen in der Neueren KI. In: Gamm G, Hetzel A (eds) Unbestimmtheitssignaturen der Technik. Eine neue Deutung der technisierten Welt. Transcript 2005, Bielefeld, pp 219–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloor D (1976) Knowledge and social imagery. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Braidotti R (2002) Metamorphoses. Towards a materialist theory of becoming. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks R (1986) Achieving intelligence through building robots. A.I. Memo 899, http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/brooks/papers/AIM-899.pdf, Feb 2003

  • Bryld M, Lykke N (2000) Cosmodolphins: feminist cultural studies of technology, animals and the sacred. Zed Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrier M (2010) ‘Knowledge is power’, or how to capture the relations between science and technoscience. In: Nordmann A, Radder H, Schiemann G (eds) Science and its recent history: epochal break or business as usual? University Press of Chicago, Chicago (forthcoming)

    Google Scholar 

  • Christaller T, Decker M, Gilsbach J-M, Hirzinger G, Schweighofer E, Schweitzer G, Sturma D, Lauterbach K (2001) Robotik. Perspektiven für menschliches Handeln in der zukünftigen Gesellschaft. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Collingridge D (1981) The social control of technology. The Open University Press, Milton Keynes

    Google Scholar 

  • Deleuze G (1992/1990) Postscript on the societies of control, _OCTOBER_ 59, Winter 1992. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 3–7. ftp://www.etext.archive.umich.edu/pub/Politics/Spunk/anarchy_texts/misc/Spunk962.txt (first published in L’Autre Journal 1, May 1990)

  • Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L (eds) (1997) Universities in the global knowledge economy: a co-evolution of university–industry–government relations. Cassell Academic, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Feeley M, Simon J (1992) The new penology: notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology 30:449–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman P (2007) The primacy of science in modernity, of technology in postmodernity, and of ideology in the history of technology. Hist Technol 23(1):1–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foucault M (1972) The archeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. Harper Row, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault M (1980) Power/knowledge. Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977. In: Gordon C. (ed). Harvester, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin S (1995) Life. In: Reich WT (ed) Encyclopedia of bioethics, vol 3. Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Funtowiecz S, Ravetz J (1993) The emergence of post-normal science. In: von Schomberg R (ed) Science, politics, morality. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Goven J (2002) Citizens and deficits: problematic paths toward participatory technology assessment. In: Karner S, Wieser B (eds) Conference proceedings of the international summer academy on technology studies: technology and the public, pp 75–84. Graz, Austria at IFF/IFZ, http://www.ifz.tugraz.at/index_en.php/filemanager/download/125/goven.pdf, 26 Dec 2009

  • Hacking I (1983) Representing and intervening. Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Haraway D (1985/1991) A cyborg manifesto: science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century. In: Haraway D (ed) Simians, cyborgs and women: the reinvention of nature. Routledge, New York, pp 149–181 (first published in: Socialist Review 80, 1985, 65–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway D (1994) A game of cat’s cradle: science studies, feminist theory, cultural studies. Configurations 2.1:59–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway D (1997) Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium. FemaleManc_Meets_OncoMouse™. Feminism and technoscience. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway D (2004/1992) Otherworldly conversations; terran topics; local terms. In: Haraway D (ed) The Haraway reader. Routledge, London, pp 125–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayles NK (2003) Computing the human. In: Weber J, Bath C (eds) Turbulente Körper, soziale Maschinen, Feministische Studien zur Wissenschaftskultur. Leske & Budrich, Opladen

    Google Scholar 

  • Heylighen F, Joslyn C (2001). Cybernetics and second-order cybernetics. http://www.lampsacus.com/documents/CyberneticsSecondOrder.pdf. Last accessed 6 Jan 2010 (first published in: Meyers RA (ed) Encyclopedia of physical science & technology, 3rd edn. Academic Press, New York)

  • Husbands P, Meyer J-A (eds) (1998) Evolutionary robotics. First European workshop, EvoRobot98, Paris, France, 16–17 April 1998, Proceedings. Springer, Berlin pp 1–21

  • Kogge W (2008) Technologie des 21. Jahrhunderts. Perspektiven der Technikphilosophie. DZPh Berlin 56(6):935–956

  • Kuhn T (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour B (1987) Science in action. Open University Press, Milton Keynes

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour B (1993) We have never been modern (tr. by Catherine Porter). Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Lykke N (2008) Feminist cultural studies of technoscience: portrait of an implosion. In: Smelik A, Lykke N (eds) Bits of life. Feminism at the intersections of media, bioscience, and technology. University of Washington Press, Washington, DC, pp 3–15

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie D (1981) Statistics in Britain. 1865–1930. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeil M, Franklin S (1991) Science and technology: questions for cultural studies and feminism. In: Franklin S, Lury C, Stacey J (eds) Off-centre. Feminism and cultural studies. HarperCollins, London, pp 129–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell A, Simon H (1976) Computer science as empirical inquiry: symbols and search. Commun ACM 19:113–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nolfi S, Floreano D (2000) Evolutionary robotics. The biology, intelligence, and technology of self-organizing machines. Intelligent robots and autonomous agents. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordmann A (2004) Was ist TechnoWissenschaft?—Zum Wandel der Wissenschaftskultur am Beispiel von Nanoforschung u. Bionik. In: Rossmann T, Tropea C (eds) Bionik–Neue Forschungsergebnisse aus Natur-, Ingenieur-u. Geisteswissenschaften. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordmann A (2009) Technikfolgenabschätzung als Technowissenschaft an der Schnittstelle von Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft. Vortrag auf der 9. Österr. TA-Konferenz “Wann TA? Technikfolgenabschätzung im Zeitalter der Technowissenschaften”. Österreichisches Institut für Technikfolgenabschätzung, Wien, 8. Juni 2009

  • Nordmann A (2010) The age of technoscience. In: Nordmann A, Radder H, Schiemann G (eds) Science and its recent history: epochal break or business as usual? University Press of Chicago, Chicago (forthcoming)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeifer R, Ch Scheier (1999) Understanding intelligence. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering A (2002) Cybernetics and the mangle: Ashby, Beer and Pask. Soc Stud Sci 32(3):413–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper K (1934/1959) The logic of scientific discovery. Hutchinson, London (in German: Julius Springer, Vienna 1934)

  • Reinel B (1999) Reflections on cultural studies of technoscience. Eur J Cult Stud 2(2):163–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rheinberger H-J (2007) Historische Epistemologie. Junius, Hamburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose N (2001) The politics of life itself. Theory Cult Soc 18(6):1–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose N (2007) The politics of life itself. Biomedicine, power and subjectivity in the twenty-first century. Princeton University Press, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaper-Rinkel P (2010) Trans-Disziplinierung? Kritische Anmerkungen zu Transdisziplinarität am Beispiel von Nanotechnologie und Neuroforschung. In: Weber J (ed) Interdiziplinierung? Über den Wissenstransfer zwischen den Geistes-, Sozial- und Technowissenschaften. Transcript, Bielefeld (forthcoming)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiemann G (2010) We are not witnessing a new scientific revolution. In: Nordmann A, Radder H, Schiemann G (eds) Science and its recent history: epochal break or business as usual? University Press of Chicago, Chicago (forthcoming)

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapin S (1982) History of science and its sociological reconstructions. Hist Sci 20:157–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Star SL (1991) Power, technology and the phenomenology of conventions on being allergic to onions. In: Law J (ed) A sociology of monsters. Essays on power, technology and domination. Routledge, London, pp 26–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman L (2003) Agencies in technology design: feminist reconfigurations. Centre of Science Studies, Lancaster University, Lancaster, http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/papers/agenciestechnodesign.pdf, Oct 2005

  • Verran H (2002) A postcolonial moment in science studies: alternative firing regimes of environmental scientists and aboriginal landowners. Soc Stud Sci 32:729–762

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber J (2003) Umkämpfte Bedeutungen: Naturkonzepte im Zeitalter der Technoscience. Campus, Frankfurt

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber J (2005) Helpless machines and true loving caregivers. A feminist critique of recent trends in human–robot interaction. J Inf Commun Ethics Soc 3(4/6):209–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber J (2006) From science and technology to feminist technoscience. In: Davis K, Evans E, Lorber J (eds) Handbook of gender and women’s studies. Sage, London, pp 397–414

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Weber J (2010) Blackboxing organisms, exploiting the unpredictable. On the (re-)configuration of technoscientific rationality in human–machine communication. In: Carrier M, Nordmann A (eds) Science in the context of application. Springer, Berlin (forthcoming)

    Google Scholar 

  • Winner L (1989/1986) The whale and the reactor. A search for limits in an age of high technology, 1st edn. Chicago University Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Braunschweig Centre for Gender Research, Technical University Braunschweig, Culture, Technology and Gender Studies, Braunschweig Centre for Gender Studies, Beethovenstraße 55, 38106, Braunschweig, Germany

    Jutta Weber

Authors
  1. Jutta Weber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jutta Weber.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weber, J. Making worlds: epistemological, ontological and political dimensions of technoscience. Poiesis Prax 7, 17–36 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-010-0076-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-010-0076-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation