Traduction / Trahison: Notes on ANT

Main Article Content

John Law

Resumen

¿Qué sería “hablar por” una teoría o una tradición en ciencia, tecnología y sociedad? ¿Qué sería “representar” una teoría? ¿Ofrecer una interpretación? ¿Una interpretación autoritaria de su carácter, su desarrollo, sus fortalezas y sus debilidades? A veces me enfrento con esta cuestión. Se me pide hablar por la teoría del actor red. Hablar sobre ella. Ofrecer un veredicto. Cuando esto pasa me siento incómodo. Porque dicha solicitud presenta un problema. El problema de qué es ser un “representante fiel”. Y en particular, qué significa representar una teoría que habla de representación en términos de traducción. Lo que busca debilitar la mera idea de que existe tal cosa llamada fidelidad. Traducción fiel. Lo cual enfatiza que toda representación traiciona a su objeto. Quizá no hay una buena respuesta. O quizá hay muchas. Pero esta es una posibilidad. Que uno puede representar la teoría del actor red haciéndola, en lugar de resumiéndola. Explorando un pequeño número de estudios de caso, en lugar de buscar descubrir sus “reglas fundamentales”. Hablando de ejemplos que son fieles e infieles. Enfatizando que traducción es también traición.

Article Details

Como citar
LAW, John. Traduction / Trahison: Notes on ANT. Convergencia Revista de Ciencias Sociales, [S.l.], n. 42, sep. 2006. ISSN 2448-5799. Disponible en: <https://convergencia.uaemex.mx/article/view/1394>. Fecha de acceso: 05 jun. 2020
Palabras clave
teoría del actor red; traducción; traición; representante fiel; desempeño
Sección
Artículos

Citas

Akrich, Madeleine (1992), “The de-scription of technical objects”, in
Bijker, Wiebe and John Law [eds.], Shaping technology, building society:
studies in sociotechnical change, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

_______ (1993), Inscription et coordination socio-techniques: anthropologie de quelques dispositifs énergétiques, Paris: École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Paris, Thèse pour le doctorat Socio-Economie.

Akrich, Madeleine and Bruno Latour (1992), “A summary of a
convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and non human
assem blies”, in Bijker, Wiebe and John Law [eds.], Shaping technology,
building society: studies in sociotechnical change, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Alpers, Svetlana (1989), The art of describing: dutch art in the seventeenth century, London: Penguin.

Benschop, Ruth and John Law (1997), “Representation, distribution and
ontological politics”, in Hetherington, Kevin and Rolland Munro
[eds.], Idea of difference: social spaces and the division of labour, Sociological Review Monograph, forth coming.

Brown, Steve and Nick Lee (1994), “Other ness and the actor network: the
undiscovered continent”, en American behavioural scientist, vol. 36.

Callon, Michel (1980), “Struggles and negotiations to define what is
problematic and what is not: the sociology of translation”, in Knorr,
Karin et al. [eds.], The social process of scientific investigation: sociology of the sciences yearbook, vol. 4, Dordrecht and Boston, Mass.: Reidel.

_______ (1986), “Some elements of a sociology of translation:
domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of Saint Brieuc Bay”,
in Law, John [ed.], Power, action and belief: a new sociology of
knowl edge? Sociological review monograph, núm. 32, London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Callon, Michel and John Law (1995), “Agency and the hybrid collectif”, in
South Atlantic Quarterly, vol. 94.

Cussins, Charis (1998), “Ontological choreography. Agency for women
patients in an infertility clinic”, in Mol, Annemarie and Marc Berg
[eds.], Differences in medicine: unravelling practices, techniques and bodies, Durham, NCa: Duke University Press. Page references refer to
preprint is sued by Maastricht: Department of Health Ethics and
Philosophy, Limburg University.

Haraway, Donna (1989), Primate visions: gender, race and nature in the world of modern science, London: Routledge and Chapman Hall.

_______ (1990), “A manifesto for cyborgs: science, technology and
socialist feminism in the 1980s”, in Nicholson, Linda, Feminism/Postmodernism, New York: Routledge.

_______ (1991), “The biopolitics of postmodern bodies: constitutions of
self in immune system discourse”, in Haraway, Donna [ed.], Simians,
cyborgs and women: the reinvention of nature, London: Free Association Books.

Hirschauer, Stefan (1998), “Shifting contradictions: doing sex and doing
gender in medical disciplines”, in Mol, Annemarie and Marc Berg
[eds.], Differences in medicine: unravelling practices, techniques and bodies, Durham, NCa: Duke University Press.

Hirschauer, Stefan and Annemarie Mol (1995), “Shifting sexes, moving
stories: feminist/constructivist dialogues”, in Science, technology and
human values, núm. 20.

Knorr-Cetina, Karin (1991a), “Epistemic cultures: forms of reason in
science”, in History of political economy, núm. 23.

_______ (1991b), “The couch, the cathedral and the laboratory: on the
relationship between experiment and laboratory in science”, in
Pickering, Andrew, Science as practice and culture, Chicago and London:
University of Chicago Press.

_______ (1995), “How superorganisms change: consensus formation
and the social ontology of high-energy physics experiments”, in Social
studies of science, núm. 25.

_______ (1996), “The care of the self and blind variation: an ethnography
of the empirical in two sciences”, in Galison, Peter and D. Stamp
[eds.], The disunity of science. Bound aries, contexts and power, Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Latour, Bruno (1987), Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Latour, Bruno (1988a), The pasteurization of France, Cambridge Mass.,
Har vard.

_______ (1988b), Irreductions, published with The Pasteurization of France,
Cambridge Mass., Harvard.

_______ (1990), “Drawing things to gether”, in Lynch, Michael and Steve
Woolgar, Representation in scientific practice, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

_______ (1992), Aramis, ou l’amour des techniques, Paris: Éditions de la
découverte.

_______ (1993), We have never been modern, Brighton: Harvester
Wheatsheaf.

Law, John (1986), “On the methods of long distance control: vessels,
navigation and the portuguese route to India”, in Law, John [ed.],
Power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge? Sociological Review Monograph, núm. 32, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

_______ (1996), “Ontology and the mode of accounting”, in Mouritsen,
Jan and Rolland Munro [eds.], Accountability, power and ethos, London:
Chapman Hall.

Law, John and Annemarie Mol (1995), “Notes on materiality and
sociality”, in The Sociological Review, núm. 24.

_______ (1997), “Metrics and fluids: notes on other ness”, in Chia,
Robert [ed.], Into the realm of organisation: essays for Robert Cooper, London: Routledge, forth coming.

_______ (1997), “On hidden heterogeneities: the design of an aircraft”,
submitted.

Mol, Annemarie (1991), “Wombs, pigmentation and pyramids: should
anti-racists and feminists try to confine biology to its proper place?”, in
Hermsen, Joke and Alkeline van Lenning, Sharing the differences: feminist
de bates in Holland, London and New York: Routledge.

_______ (1998), “Missing links, making links: the performance of some
artheroscleroses”, in Mol, Annemarie and Marc Berg [eds.], Differences
in medicine: unravelling practices, techniques and bodies, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Mol, Annemarie and Marc Berg (1994), “Principles and practices of
medicine: the coexistence of various anaemias”, in Culture, medicine and psychiatry, núm. 18.

Mol, Annemarie and John Law (1994), “Regions, networks and fluids:
anaemia and social topology”, in Social studies of science, núm. 24.

Mol, Annemarie and Jessica Mesman (1996), “Neonatal food and the
politics of theory: some questions of method”, in Social studies of science, núm. 26.

Pickering, Andrew (1993), “The mangle of practice: agency and
emergence in the sociology of science”, in American journal of sociology, núm. 99.

Pickering, Andrew (1995), The mangle of practice: time, agency and science, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

Singleton, Vicky (1993), Science, women and ambivalence: an actor-network analysis of the cervical screening campaign, Lancaster: Thesis submitted for the degree of Ph.D., University of Lancaster.

_______ (1996), “Feminism, sociology of scientific knowledge and
postmodernism: politics, theory and me”, in Social studies of science, núm. 26.

_______ (1998), “Stabilizing in stabilities: the role of the laboratory in the United Kingdom cervical screening programme”, in Mol, Annemarie
and Marc Berg [eds.], Differences in medicine: unravelling practices, techniques and bodies, Durham, NCa: Duke University Press.

Singleton, Vicky and Mike Michael (1993), “Actor-networks and
ambivalence: general practitioners in the UK cervical screening
programme”, in Social studies of science, núm. 23.

Smart, Kath (1993), Resourcing ambivalence: dog breeders, animals and social studies of science, Lancaster: thesis submitted for the degree of Ph.D., University of Lancaster.

Star, Susan (1991), “Power, technologies and the phenomenology of
conventions: on being allergic to onions”, in Law, John [ed.], A sociology of monsters? Essays on power, technology and domination, Sociological Review Monograph, núm. 38, London: Routledge.

Strathern Marilyn (1991), Partial connections, Maryland: Savage, Rowman
and Littlefield.

Traweek, Sharon (1988), Beamtimes and life times: the world of high energy physics, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Watson, Helen (1994), “Re-imagin ingland title and ownership: working
disparate knowledge traditions to gether”, paper presented at the
Working disparate knowledge systems together seminar, 26-27th November, Deakin University.