Context holds a significant place mediating the conceptual and the empirical in ethnography. This modality of knowledge has also become a significant part of science and technology studies since the rise of laboratory studies. However, conventional modes of contextualization that locate the object of study within a whole—such as within a society or culture—have become a target of suspicion and criticism since the 1980s. This led to the radical alteration of the contextualizing strategies of actor–network theory (ANT) and multisited ethnography. Anthropologist Marilyn Strathern is also responding to this crisis by renovating the practice of ethnography in a way significantly different from both strategies. Since contextualization occupies a significant place in the formation of ethnography as a representation of a larger “out there” reality, her alternative contextualization requires a new characterization of ethnography other than representation. This article tries to expound the complicated, and often perplexing, ethnography of Strathern by making an analogy with objects familiar to most science, technology, and society scholars, namely, machines. By doing so, this article argues that Strathern is opening up a new way of dealing with context that is radically different both from ANT and from multisited ethnography.
AkrichM.1992. “The De-scription of Technical Objects.” In Shaping Technology/Building Society, edited by BijkerW.LawJ., 205–24. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
AndersonW.2009. “Re-orienting STS: Emergent Studies of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Southeast Asia.”East Asian Science, Technology and Society3 (2-3): 163–71.
3.
BubandtN.OttoT.. 2010. “Anthropology and Predicaments of Holism.” In Experiments in Holism: Theory and Practice in Contemporary Anthropology, edited by OttoT.BubandtN., 1–15. Oxford, UK: Wiley.
4.
CallonM.1987. “1987 Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for Sociological Analysis.” In The Social Construction of Technological Systems, edited by BijkerW.HughesT. P.PinchT. J., 83–103. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
CliffordJ.1992. “Travelling Cultures.” In Cultural Studies, edited by GrossbergL.NelsonC.TreichlerP. A., 96–116. New York: Routledge.
6.
CliffordJ.MarcusG. E.. 1986. Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.
7.
CreaseR.IhdeD.JensenC.B.SelingerE.2003. “Interview with Bruno Latour.” In Chasing Technoscience: Matrix for Materiality, edited by IhdeD.SelingerE, 15–16. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
8.
DeleuzeG.GuattariF.. 1983. Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
9.
DilleyR.1999. “Introduction.” In The Problem of Context, edited by DilleyR., 1–46. Oxford, UK: Berghahn Books.
10.
DowneyG.DumitJ.. 1997. “Locating and Intervening: An Introduction.” In Cyborgs and Citadels: Anthropological Interventions in Emerging Sciences and Technologies, edited by DowneyG.DumitJ., 1–30. Santa Fe, Mexico: School of American Research Press.
11.
FortunK.2003. “Ethnography in/of/as Open Systems.”Reviews in Anthropology32 (2): 171–90.
12.
GadC.JensenC. B.. 2010. “On the Consequences of Post-ANT.”Science, Technology, & Human Values35 (1): 55–80.
13.
GlaserB.StraussA.. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
14.
HarawayD.1988. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.”Feminist Studies14 (3): 575–99.
15.
HessD.2001. “Ethnography and the Development of Science and Technology Studies.” In Handbook of Ethnography, edited by AtkinsonP., 234–45. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
HineC.2007. “Multi-sited Ethnography as a Middle Range Methodology for Contemporary STS.”Science, Technology, & Human Values32 (6): 652–71.
17.
HolbraadM.PedersenM. A.. 2009. “Planet M: The Intense Abstraction of Marilyn Strathern.”Anthropological Theory9 (4): 371–94.
18.
HuenC. W.2009. “What is Context? An Ethnophilosophical Account.”Anthropological Theory9 (2): 149–69.
19.
JensenC. B.2004. “A Non-humanist Disposition: On Performativity, Practical Ontology, and Intervention.”Configurations12 (2): 229–61.
20.
LatourB.2004. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-network Theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
21.
MarcusG. E.1998. “The Uses of Complicity in the Changing Mise-en-Scene of Anthropological Fieldwork.” In Ethnography through Thick and Thin, 105–32. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22.
MaurerB.2005. Mutual Life, Limited: Islamic Banking, Alternative Currencies and Lateral Reason. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23.
MiyazakiH.2004. The Method of Hope: Anthropology, Philosophy, and Fijian Knowledge. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
24.
MohacsiG.MoritaA.. 2013. “Traveling Comparisons: Ethnographic Reflection on Science and Technology.”East Asian Science, Technology and Society7 (2): 175–83.
25.
MoritaA.2012. Engineering in the Wild: An Ethnography of Human-thing Relations in a Thai Small-scale Manufacturing Industry (in Japanese). Kyoto, Japan: Sekaishisosha.
26.
MoritaA.2013. “Traveling Engineers, Machines and Comparisons: Intersecting Imaginations and Journeys in the Thai Local Engineering Industry.”East Asian Science, Technology and Society7 (2): 221–41.
27.
MumfordL.1967. The Myth of Machine, Vol.1: Technics and Human Development. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
28.
NielsenA.JensenC. B.. 2013. “Travelling Frictions: Global Disease Self-management, Local Comparisons and Emergent Patients.”Science & Technology Studies26 (2): 61–79.
29.
PickeringA.1995. The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency and Science. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
30.
RabinowP.MarcusG. E. (with J. D. Faubion, and T. Rees). 2008. Designs for an Anthropology of the Contemporary. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
31.
ReuleauxF.1876. The Kinematics of Machinery: Outlines of a Theory of Machines. London, UK: Macmillan.
32.
RheinbergerH.-J.1998. “Experimental Systems, Graphematic Spaces.” In Inscribing Science: Scientific Texts and the Materiality of Communication, edited by LenoirT., 285–303. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
33.
RilesA.2006. “Introduction.” In Documents: Artifacts of Modern Knowledge, edited by RilesA., 1–38. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
34.
SchleckerM.HirschE.. 2001. “Incomplete Knowledge: Ethnography and the Crisis of Context in Studies of Media.”Science and Technology. History of the Human Sciences14 (1): 69–87.
35.
StrathernM.1987. “Out of Context: Persuasive Fictions in Anthropology.”Current Anthropology28 (3): 251–70.
36.
StrathernM.1999. Property, Substance and Effect: Anthropological Essays on Persons and Things. London, UK: Athlone.
TsingA.2010. “Worlding the Matsutake Diaspora: Or Can Actor–network Theory Experiment with Holism?” In Experiments in Holism: Theory and Practice in Contemporary Anthropology, edited by OttoT.BubandtN., 47–66. Oxford, UK: Wiley.
39.
TylorS.1986. “Postmodern Ethnography: From Document of the Occult to Occult Document.” In Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, edited by CliffordJ.MarcusG. E., 122–40. Berkeley: University of California Press.
