Latour - On TechnicaI Mediation - Philosophy, Sociology, Genealogy.pdf

(4219 KB) Pobierz
FaIl1991+
V3 N2
COMMON
KNOWLEDGE
CoruuNs
The RecruitingofJarka,
Code Name Hammer,
As Voluntary PoliceInformer:
A Patho-Biography l)87
J usef
Tl.rePolitical Economy of Hunger:
On Reasoning
.rn.lParciciparion
Anartya Sen
I
i Lr,tre&l
Translated by Kâèa Polâëkovâ-Henley
l4)
Self-Subversion
Albert O. Hirschttun
l0
A Future f-or Philosophy
Lzc Ferrl'
Translatedby Franklin Philip
r6)
Potentially Every Culture
Is All Cultures
Paul Feyerabend
16
FrcloN/Poprny
The Blancmange
Kathryn Dartis
lj0
Anrrclts
Snowball
Jeanne Heut,ing
r12
Paul Feyerabend,Humanist
lan Hatking
)1
IUediarion-
Philosophy,Sociology,Genealogy
Brxn0LJt1ilr
On Technical
Rsvrews
Chomsky and Derrida
ChristopherNorris
r19
)L)
Cultural Change-
The Thought-Styles of
Mannheimand Kuhn
Barry Barnes
6'
Little Reviews
Ric/:ard Rotl
Kathl Eden
Jake A1.lYtien
Char/esBernsTein
trIarjarie PerloJJ'
Hanna Sega/
Pat/ Felerabenr,l
TheEditors
lt0
Modernismand the
Rejectionof Ornament:
The RevolutionThat Never Happened
Janes Tri//ing
79
Doubtrng Thomasand the
Senscs
of Knowing
E/lenSpo/tk1
1 i 1
NorEs oN CoNTRTBUToRS
182
1148772365.002.png
*
ON TpcHNICAL MsotartoN
GENEALoGY
PHIrosoPHY, SoctorocY,
BrunoLatour
fter Daedalus'escape fiom rhe labyrinth, accordingto Apollodorus, Minos used
one of Daedalus'own subterfuges to find his hiding place and take fevenge.
lv{inos,in disguise, heralded near and far his offer of a reward to anyonewho couid
thread the convolr-rted
shelloia snail.Daedalus, hiddenar the court of King Cocalus
and unaware that the offer was a rrap, managed the trick by replicating Ariadne's
cunning: he attacheda thread to an ancand, afterallowing it to penetrate the shell
through a hole at its apex,he induced the ant to weave its way through this tiny
labyrinth. Triumphant, Daedalusclaimed his reward,but King Minos,equally trium-
phant, askedfor Daedalus' exrradition ro crete. cocalus abandonedDaedalr-rs;
strli, rhe
artful doclger managed, with the help of Minos' daughters, to divert the hot water
from pipes l.rehad insralled in rhepalace, sochatit fell, as if by accident.on Minos in
his bath. (The king died, boiledlike an egg')Only for a brief while did Minos outwit
his masterengineer-Daedalus was ,rlwaysone fuse, one machination,beyond his
rivals.
In the myth of Daedalus, all things deviare from the straight line.The direct path oi
reason and scientilic knowledge-episteme-is not the Path of every Greek. The
clevercechnicalknorv-how of Daedalus is an instance of nntis,of strategy, of the sort
of intelligence for which O<Jysseus
it ' a bag of
tricks) is ntostlarmecl.' No unmediated action is possibleoncewe enter tlre realmof
engineersand crafismen. A ,/aeda/ion,
(of whom tl'teI/iad si;ysthat he is pal1'trcr
in Greek, is son-rethingcttrved, veering tion-r
rhe straisht line, artful but [ake,beautiful and contrived. Daedalusis an inventoro[
to rhank Cprnell Uriversiry. and rspeciallv Sltei{aJasanofiand Trevor Pinch' ior che
opportunin.ro presenrrrnearll,rersion ofthis mirterial as thc April l!!l
The aurhor rvislrcs
Lectures.The ideas
.leuelnp.d h... ".. pu., oian ongoing project with Sliirley Strum on rhe link betu'een Primatology, technol-
ogv. and soc irl theorl.
lv{essenger
I am hcrc firllorving tlte rtmarkable book by FrançoiseFronrisi-Dtrcrotrx.
Dy'dale..\I1tholotgttdt/'trtittnttGti.eiilLienilr
'For the mvth of Dâeclalus,
(Paris:Maspéro-LaDécoLrverte'1975)'
1148772365.003.png
]O COMMONKNO\(/LEDGE
robots that watch over Crete, an
contraptions: statues that seem to be alive, military
ancient version ofgenetic engineering that enables Poseidon's bull to impregnate Pasi-
phae with ths À{jne13u1-for
whom he builds the labyrinth, from which, via another
set of machines, he manages to escape,losing his son Icarus on the way. . . despised,
indispensable, criminal, ever ar war with the three kings who draw their power from
his machinations. Daedalus is our best eponym for techniqae-and
the concept of dae-
dalion our best tool to penetrare the evolution of civilization.
His path leads through
three disciplines: philosophy, sociology, genealogy.
Pnrlosopny
To understandtechniques-technical msxn5-and their placein society,we haveto
be asdevrousasthe ant to which Daedalusattachedhis thread.The straightlinesof
philosophyareof no usewhen it is the crookedlabyrinth of machineryand machina-
tions, of artifactsand daulalia. we haveto explore.That Heidegger'sinterpretation of
technologypassesâsthe deepestofinterpretationsI lind surprising.rTo cut a holeat
the apex of the shell and weavemy tl-rread,
I need to dehne, in opposition to Heidegger,
what nrcdiationmeansin the realm of techniques.
For Heidegger,a technology is neveran instrument, a mere tool. Does that mean
that technologiesmediateactioni'No, because
rvehaveourselvesbecomeinstruments
for no otherendthan instrumentalityitself.Man-no \Woman in Heidegger-is pos-
sessedby technology,and it isa completeillusionto believethat we canmasterit. \We
are, on tlre contrary, Framed by this Gutell. which is in itself one way in which Being
is unveiled.. . . Is technologyinferiorto scienceandpureknowledge?No, because,
for
Heidegger, far from serving as applied science,technology dominates all, even rhe
purely theoreticalsciences.By rationalizingand stockpilingnature,science playsinto
the hands of tecl-rnology,
whose soleend is to rationaiizeand stockpile naturewithout
end. Our modern destiny-technology-appears to Heidegger radically different
frompoesis.
the kind of"making" that ancient craftsmen knew how to obtain.Technol-
ogy is entirely unique, insuperable,omnipresent,superior,a monster born rn our
midsr.
But Heidegger is mistaken.I will try to show how and in what way he is wrong
abouttechnicalmediationby usinga simple,well-known example.
"Guns kill people"is a sloganof thosewl-ro try to control the unrestricted saleoF
guns. To which the National Rille Associationreplieswith anotherslogan, "People
rN{artin Heitleggt.'l'/:t Qrettitt Cnttrnirg'ftthrol,trt
t*lOther E.'.w1t.rrans.\Villiam Lovitt (Nerv York
Harper ftrch Books,197r).
1148772365.004.png
L)N TFCHNI( AL NlEDIATION tI
kill people; norguns."The firsrsloganis materialist:the gun actsby virtue of material
components irreducible to the socialqualities of the gunman' On accountof the gun'
agoodguy, the law-abiding citizen,becomes dangerous The NRA' on the orherhand'
offers (amusinglyenough, giventheir politicalviews) a sociologicalversion moreoltten
associated wirl-rthe Left: for rhe NRA, the gun does nothing in itselfor by virtue of
its material componenrs. The gun is a tool, a medium, a neutralcarrier of will lf the
gunmanisagoodguy,thegunwillbeusedwiselyandwillkillonlyapropos.Ifthe
gunman is a crookor a lunatic,ther.r, with no change in the gun itself, a killing that
would in any caseoccur will be (simply) carriedout moreefÊciently. what does the
gun add to thesh()oringl In rhe marerialist account' everything:an innocrnt citizen
becomes a criminal by virtue ofthe gun in her hand. The gun enables oFcourse, but
alsoinstructs, directs, evenpulls tl-re trigger-and who, witl-ra knife in her l-rand, has
noc wantedar some time to stab someoneor somethingl'Each artifact hasits script'
its,,affordance,"
its potentialto take hold o[passersby and fbrcethem to play rolesin
its srory. By contrast, the sociological version of the NRA renders the gun a neutral
carrier of will rl-rar addsnotl-ring t()the action, playing the roleof anelectrical conduc-
tor, good and evil tlowing through it effortlessly'
The rwo poslrrons areabsurdly contradictory. No materialist claimsthat guns kill
by themselves. 1ù7har
the marerialist claims is that the good citizen is rransformed by
carrying the gun. A good citizen wl.ro,without a gun' might simply be angry may
becomea crininal if he is holtling a gun-as if the gun had the powerto change Dr.
Jekyll into Mr. Hyde. Materialists thus make the intriguing suggestion tl-rarour qual-
ity assubjects,our competences, our personalities' dependon what we hold in our
hands.Reversing the dogma of moralism, tlre materialistsinsist that we are what we
[2v6-e,'[x1 we havein our l'rands,
irt least'
AstotheNRA,thel.cannotmaintainthatthegunissoneutralanobjecttlratit
l.rasno parr in the act of killing. They have to acknowledge that the gun adds some-
thing, though not to the moral stateof the personholding the gun For the NRA'
one'smoralstate isa Platonic essence:
one is born a goodcirizen or a criminal' Period'
As such,the NRA accounr is moralist-wltzrt mattersis what you areJnot what you
have.The solecontribution of rhe gun is to speedthe act. Killing bv {ists or knrves
is slower,dirtier, messrer. vith a Éaun, one kills better,but at no point does it mo-
difyone'sgoal.Thus,NRAsociologistsaremakingthetroublingSugsestionthat
\\,ecanmascer
rhat techniciues arenochingmore than pliableand diligent
technrques,
slaves.
for rhe act of killingi' Is the gun no more than a pieceoi
mediating technologyi, The answer to thesequestions dependsupon what nediation
metrns. A first senseof tttet/iation
\ùrho or whar rs responsrble
(I will offer four) is rl'reprogran rtf action' the seriesof
goals and srepsand intentions,rhar an agentcandescribe in a story like my vignettc
1148772365.005.png
12 COMMON KNOWLEDGE
c
INTERRUPTION
AGENT I
z
-
DETOTJR
)
,/
^
/
r r a-?GoAL3
AGENT2
Fig. 1. First Meaning of Mediation: Translation
of the gun (fig. 1). If the agent is human, is angry wanrs ro take revenge,and if the
accomplishment of the agent'sgoal is interrupted, for whatever reason (perhaps the
agent is not strong enough), rhen the agent makesa detour, a deviation: as we have
alreadyseen, one cannot speakof rechniqueswirhout speaking of daedalia.Agent I
fallsbackon Agent 2,here agun. Agent 1 enliststhe gun or is enlistedby it-it
does
not mâtter which-and a rhird agent emergesfrom a fi:sion of the other two.
The question now becomeswhich goal the new composite agent will pursue.If it
returns, after its detour, to Goal 1, chen rhe NRA story obtains. The gun is a tool,
merely an intermediary.If Agent 3 drifts from Goal I to Goal 2, then the materialists'
storyobtains.The gun'sintent, the gun's will, the gun's script havesuperseded
rhose
of Agent 1;it is human actionthat is no morerhan an inrermediary. Note thar in rhe
diagram it makesno diflferenceif Agent I and Agent 2 are reversed. The myth of the
Neutral Tool under completehuman control and rhe myth of the Autonomous Destiny
that no human canmasreraresymmetrical.But a third possibiliryis morecommonly
realized: the creacionof a new goal that correspondsto neither agent'sprogram of
action. (You hadwantedonly ro hurc but, with a gun now in hand,you want to kill.)
I call this uncertainty about goalsrranslarion.I haveusedthis term a number of times
and encountereachtime the samemisunderstandings.rTranslationdoesnor meana
shift from one vocabularyto another,from one French word ro one English word, for
instance, asif the two languagesexistedindependently.Like Michel Serres,I ùsetrans-
/atianto mean displacement,drift, invention, mediation,the creationof a iink that
did not ex.istbeforeand that to somedegreemodifiestwo elemenrsor agenrs.
\ù/ho, then, is the actor in my vignette? Soraeone
else (a citizen-gun, a gun-citizen).
If we try to understandtechniqueswhile assumingrhar the psychologicalcapacityof
humans is forever6xed, we will not succeedin understandinghow techniquesare
creatednor even how they are used.You are a diftèrent person rvith the gun in your
'ln
atd Engircn Tbrotgh Sorietl,
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, t!)8r). My use oi rhe word trant/atiot comes from N{ichel Serres
through Ir{ichel Callon's sociokrgical usage: Some Elemenrs of a Sociology of Translation: Domesrrcarron
ofthe Scallopsand the Fishermen ofSt. Brieuc Bay," inPouer. Atton. dndBelitf: A Nru Socio/ogy
particular, in Bruno Latour, Sdra,z in Action: Hou to Follou Scienti.rt:
ofKnou'ledge?
ed. John Law (London: Rourledge & Kegan Paul, 1986). 196,)29.
1148772365.001.png
Zgłoś jeśli naruszono regulamin