Daniel Breslau's essay opens up a valuable space in seeking to align the sociologically impure objects explored in science studies with the practice of a pure sociology. I challenge Breslau's conclusion that the latter can swallow the former and proceed with business as usual. Contrary to Breslau, I argue that confronting head-on the impure objects of science studies can indeed represent a new beginning in sociology as a discipline. I also correct Breslau's misreading of my work as “symmetrical humanism.”
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BloorD.1999. “Anti-Latour.”Studies in History and Philosophy of Science30A:81–112.
2.
BreslauD. (this volume) “Sociology after Humanism: A Lesson from Contemporary Science Studies.” To appear in Sociological Theory.
3.
CollinsH. M.YearleyS.1992. “Epistemological Chicken.” Pp. 301–26 in Science as Practice and Culture, edited by PickeringAndrew. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4.
GingrasY.1995. “Following Scientists through Society? Yes, but at Arm's Length)” Pp. 123–48 in Scientific Practice: Theories and Stories of Doing Physics, edited by BuchwaldJ.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5.
GingrasY.1997. “The New Dialectics of Nature.”, Social Studies of Science27:317–34.
6.
HarawayD.1991. “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century.” Pp. 149–81 in Simians, Cyborgs, and Women. London: Free Association Books.
7.
JonesM. P.1996. “Posthuman Agency: Between Theoretical Traditions.”, Sociological Theory14:290–309.
8.
LatourB.1995. “Do Scientific Objects Have a History? Pasteur and Whitehead in a Bath of Lactic Acid Yeast.”, Common Knowledge5:76–91.
9.
LatourB.1999. “For David Bloor. and Beyond: A Reply to David Bloor's ‘Anti-Latour'.”Studies in History and Philosophy of Science30A:113–29.
10.
PickeringA.1981. “The Role of Interests in High-Energy Physics: The Choice Between Charm and Colour.” Pp. 107–38 in The Social Process of Scientific Investigation. Sociology of the Sciences, Vol. 4, 1980. Dordrecht: Reidel.
11.
PickeringA.1984. Constructing Quarks: A Sociological History of Particle Physics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12.
PickeringA.1993. “The Mangle of Practice: Agency and Emergence in the Sociology of Science.”, American Journal of Sociology99:559–89.
13.
PickeringA.1995a. The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14.
PickeringA.1995b. “Cyborg History and the World War II Regime.”, Perspectives on Science3:1–48.
15.
PickeringA.1997. “Time and a Theory of the Visible.”, Human Studies20:325–33.
16.
PickeringA.1998. “A Gallery of Monsters: Cybernetics and Self-Organisation, 1940–1970.” Talk presented at the weekly seminar of the Dibner Institute for the History of Science and Technology, MIT, December 1, 1998.
17.
PickeringA.1999. “In the Land of the Blind. Thoughts on Gingras.”, Social Studies of Science29:307–11.
18.
PickeringA. (forthcoming a) “On Becoming: Imagination, Metaphysics and the Mangle.” To appear in Time, Heat and Order, edited by ViggoHansen Niels.
19.
PickeringA. (forthcoming b) “The Alchemical Wedding of Science and Industry: Synthetic Dyes and Social Theory.”.
20.
WoolgarS.1988. Science: The Very Idea. New York: Tavistock.
