Anthropology as multi-natural ontology?

OPEN ARCHIVE

Union Jack
Dannebrog

Anthropology as multi-natural ontology?

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Ratner, Helene
dc.date.accessioned 2013-05-05
dc.date.accessioned 2013-05-06T06:41:50Z
dc.date.available 2013-05-06T06:41:50Z
dc.date.issued 2013-05-06
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10398/8691
dc.identifier.uri http://wp.me/p1Bfg0-M4
dc.description.abstract As her title indicates, Marianne de Laet suggests that social epistemology could be thought of as anthropology, in terms of how this mode of knowing has helped flesh out the social dimensions of scientific knowledge. She does so firstly, by accounting for how anthropological methods and concepts have contributed to science and technology studies (STS) by providing an alternative to “believing the natives” i.e., scientists, hence challenging positivist and objectivist accounts of science. She then specifies selected analytical insights of anthropology. The concepts ‘culture’ and ‘practice’, she argues, enable us to learn how “knowledge is social in an epistemic sense” (2012, 421). She concludes her argument by questioning the distinction between epistemology and ontology, maintaining that anthropology is social epistemology. De Laet touches several key debates in the history of STS and much of her commentary on the sociality of knowledge is difficult to disagree with. There are however, also some elements in her argument with which I wish to engage critically. These include the relationship between anthropology and STS and the relationship between the concepts of culture and ontology. I will do so by drawing my inspiration from a contemporary a debate across STS and anthropology that — like de Laet — regards entanglements of epistemology and ontology, practice, and materiality. This project is also known as post- ANT and empirical philosophy in STS (Mol 2002; Gad and Bruun Jensen 2010, 55-80; Law and Hassard 1999) and lateral, multi-natural and ontological engagements in anthropology (Maurer 2005; Riles 2000; Strathern 2004 [1991]; Carrithers et al. 2010, 152-200; Viveiros de Castro 2004, 463-484). De Laet mentions some of the same sources. I will focus my commentary on these debates’ implications for the concept of culture and “our terminological tinkering” (2012, 420). My aim is to provide a different account of what anthropology has to offer STS and, as a consequence, to keep some interesting tensions open between the conceptual and the empirical, between “us” and “them”, which I believe de Laet resolves too quickly. en_US
dc.format.extent 7 en_US
dc.language eng en_US
dc.title Anthropology as multi-natural ontology? en_US
dc.type art en_US
dc.accessionstatus modt13maj06 lbjl en_US
dc.contributor.corporation Copenhagen Business School. CBS en_US
dc.contributor.department Institut for Ledelse, Politik og Filosofi en_US
dc.contributor.departmentshort LPF en_US
dc.contributor.departmentuk Department of Management, Politics and Philosophy en_US
dc.contributor.departmentukshort MPP en_US
dc.description.notes Article from: Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 2 (6): 5-11 en_US
dc.publisher.year 2013 en_US
dc.title.subtitle A response to Marianne de Laet’s “Anthropology as social epistemology” en_US


Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Files Size Format View
ratner.pdf 153.9Kb PDF View/Open Article

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record