Technology is always limited to the realm of means, while morality is supposed to deal
with ends. In this theoretical article about comparing those two regimes of enunciation,
it is argued that technology is on the contrary characterized by the `ends of means' that
is the impossibility of being limited to tools; technical artefacts are never tools if
what is meant by this is a transmission of function in a mastered way. Once this
modification of the meaning of technology is accepted, then it is possible to relate
technology, in a totally different way, to morality which is not about values, but about
the exploration of ends.
Akrich, Madeleine and Marc Berg (eds)
(forthcoming) Bodies in Trial: Performances and Politics in Medicine and
Biology. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
2.
Barthe, Yannick (2000) PhD thesis on nuclear waste,
…cole Nationale SupÈrieure des Mines.
3.
Collins, Harry and Martin Kusch
(1998) The Shape of Actions. What
Humans and Machines can Do. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
4.
Dagognet, FranÁois (1993)
La peau dÈcouverte. Paris:
Les empÍcheurs Institut SynthÈlabo.
5.
Deleuze, Gilles (1993)
The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque. Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota
Press.
6.
Frontisi-Ducroux, FranÁoise
(1975) DÈdale. Mythologie de
l’artisan en GrËce Ancienne. Paris:
Maspero-La DÈcouverte.
7.
Gibson, James G. (1986)
The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception.
London: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
8.
Haudricourt, AndrÈ-George
(1987) La Technologie science humaine.
Recherches d’histoire et d’ethnologie des techniques.
Paris: …ditions de la Maison des Sciences
de l’Homme.
9.
FrÈdÈric, Joulian (2000)
La culture est-elle naturelle?Paris:
…ditions Errance.
10.
Latour, Bruno (1992a)
Aramis, ou l’amour de techniques. Paris:
La DÈcouverte.
11.
Latour, Bruno (1992b)
‘Where are the Missing Masses? Sociology of a Few Mundane
Artefacts’, pp. 225–259 in Wiebe Bijker and
John
Law (eds) Shaping Technology – Building Society.
Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
12.
Latour, Bruno (1996)
Petites leÁons de sociologie des sciences.
Paris:
Seuil.
13.
Latour, Bruno (1998)
‘How to be Iconophilic in Art, Science and Religion?’,
pp. 418–440 in C. Jones and P. Galison (eds)
Picturing Science, Producing Art.
London:
Routledge.
14.
Latour, Bruno (1999a)
Pandora’s Hope. Essays on the Reality of Science
Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
15.
Latour, Bruno (1999b)
Politiques de la nature. Comment faire entrer les
sciences en dÈmocratie. Paris:
LaDÈcouverte.
16.
Latour, Bruno and Pierre Lemonnier
(eds) (1994) De la prÈhistoire aux missiles balistiques –
l’intelligence sociale des techniques. Paris:
La DÈcouverte.
17.
Ricoeur, Paul (1990)
Soi-mÍme comme un autre. Paris:
Seuil.
18.
Serres, Michel (1995)
Conversations on Science, Culture and Time. Ann Arbor,
MI: The University of Michigan
Press.
19.
Souriau, Etienne (1943)
Les diffÈrents modes d’existence. Paris:
PUF.
20.
Strum, Shirley and Linda Fedigan (eds)
(2000) Primate Encounters. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago
Press.
21.
Strum, Shirley and Bruno Latour
(1987) ‘The Meanings of Social: From Baboons to
Humans’, Social Science Information26:
783–802.
22.
ThÈvenot, Laurent (1994)
‘Le regime de familiaritÈ. Des choses en personne’,
GenËses17:
72–101.
23.
ThÈvenot, Laurent and Pierre Livet
(1997) ‘Modes d’action collective et construction Èthique.
Les Èmotions dans l’Èvaluation’, pp.
100–120 in J.P. Dupuy and P. Livet (eds)
Les limites de la rationalitÈ. Tome 1: RationalitÈ, Èthique et
cognition. Paris: La
DÈcouverte.
24.
Zimmerman, Michael E. (1990)
Heidegger’s Confrontation with Modernity: Technology, Politics and Art.
Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
