Empiricist Interventions: Strategy and Tactics on the Ontopolitical Battlefield
Empiricist Interventions: Strategy and Tactics on the Ontopolitical Battlefield
复制标题
经验主义干预：本体政治战场上的战略与策略
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Sebastian Abrahamsson
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Munk;Sebastian Abrahamsson
科学和技术研究领域的著名学者（特别是约翰·劳和布鲁诺·拉图尔）最近发表的论文，明确了对行动者网络理论或我们在这里选择归类为经验哲学的干预的范围和目的的根本分歧。虽然不可知论描述的戒律被视为给定的，但这种描述的预期效果是高度争论的：目标是通过制定多个和可能相互冲突的本体论来干扰真实的的单一性吗？或者，它（也）是在正当程序和议会程序的概念支持下，创造新的和全面的共同世界？在本文中，我们认为这种分歧作为一个问题的研究策略（一个规范的不和谐的干预措施的理想结果），以评估其影响的研究策略（一个描述性的雅阁的实际制作一个适当的帐户）。这里的一个关键点是挑战这种划分的不可渗透性，并表明战略争端，如果要认真对待，总是溢出淹没战术层面。为了说明这一点，我们利用我们最近的博士研究项目的材料，并促进讨论，我们做了两个故意的漫画：首先，我们操作的行动者网络理论的简化历史，其中的认识论批判的策略已被替换为两个相互竞争的议程本体论干预。第二，我们把这两个相互冲突的议程作为不同的选择，它们反映了我们两个主要对话者的立场。这样做，就有可能比较它们各自的战术影响，因为我们通过两个例子来说明什么可能构成一个军事干预。
Recent papers by prominent scholars in science and technology studies (notably John Law and Bruno Latour) have crystallized a fundamental disagreement about the scope and purpose of intervention in actor-network theory or what we here choose to bracket as empirical philosophy. While the precept of agnostic description is taken as a given, the desired effects of such descriptions are highly debated: Is the goal to interfere with the singularity of the real through the enactment of multiple and possibly conflicting ontologies? Or is it (also) to craft new and comprehensive common worlds supported by notions of due process and parliamentary procedure? In this paper we think about this disagreement as a question of research strategy (a normative discord about the desirable outcome of an intervention) in order to assess its implications for research tactics (a descriptive accord about the practical crafting of an adequate account). A key point here is to challenge the impermeability of such a division and show how the strategic dispute, if to be taken seriously, invariably spills over to swamp the level of tactics. To illustrate this point, we draw upon materials from our recent doctoral research projects and to facilitate the discussion we make two deliberate caricatures: Firstly, we operate with a simplified history of actor-network theory in which a strategy of epistemological critique has been replaced by two contending agendas for ontological intervention. Secondly, we address these two contending agendas as distinct options which map on to the positions of our two main interlocutors. In doing so, it becomes possible to compare their respective tactical implications as we work through two examples of what might constitute an empiricist intervention.