This paper examines the limits and possibilities of topological approaches in the social analysis of technology. It proposes that topology should be considered not just as a theory to be adopted, but equally as a device that is deployed in social life in a variety of ways. Digital technologies help to make clear why: these technologies have facilitated the spread of a topological imagination, but they have also enabled a weak form of topological imagination, one that leaves in place deterministic ideas about technology as the principal driver of social change. This paper examines this situation and alternatives to it through an empirical case, that of smart electricity meters. On the one hand, these technologies enable only a limited ‘expansion of the frame’ on technology, one in which the primacy of technology is maintained. But they are also used to render relations between technology and society more complexly. I explore topological devices deployed in this second way, such as the digital visualization tool of tag clouding and propose that this device enables an empirical mode of critique: here, topology does not just help to foreground the entanglement of the social and the technical, it also helps to dramatize the contingent, non-coherent unfolding of issues.
Barry, A. (2001) ‘Sights and Sites’, in Political Machines: Governing the Technological Society. London: Athlone Press.
2.
Berker, T. (2005) ‘Smart Machines and Dubious Delegates: The Representation of User Agency in the Design of Energy Efficient Buildings.’ STS working paper, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim.
3.
BloorD. (1982) Durkheim and Mauss Revisited: Classification and the Sociology of Knowledge, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science13(4): 267–297.
4.
BoltanksiL.ChiapelloE. (2005) The New Spirit of Capitalism. London/New York: Verso.
5.
Brown, S. (2004) ‘As if Bergson Had an MBA.’ Paper presented at the international workshop ‘Does STS Mean Business?’ Oxford Said Business School, 30 June.
6.
Callon, M. (1980) ‘Struggles and Negotiations to Define What Is Problematic and What Is Not: The Sociology of Translation’, 4: 197–219, in K.D. Knorr, R. Krohn and R.D. Whitley (eds) The Social Process of Scientific Investigation: Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook. Dordrecht: Reidel.
7.
Callon, M. (1986) ‘Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay’, in J. Law (ed.) Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
8.
CallonM.CourtialJ-P.TurnerW.A.BauinS. (1983) From Translations to Problematic Networks: An Introduction to Co-word Analysis, Social Science Information22(2): 191–235.
9.
CallonM.LawJ.RipA. (eds) (1986) Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology. London: Macmillan.
10.
CallonM.LascoumesP.BartheY. (2001) Agir dans un monde incertain. Essai sur la démocratie technique. Paris: Seuil.
11.
CollinsH.PinchT. (1998) The Golem: What Everyone Should Know about Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
Darby, S. (2008) ‘Why, What, When, How, Where and Who? Developing UK Policy on Metering, Billing and Energy Display Device’, in Proceedings of ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Asilomar, CA.
13.
DarbyS. (2010) Smart Metering: What Potential for Householder Engagement?', Building Research and Information38(5): 442–457.
14.
Dean, J. (2000) ‘Theorizing Conspiracy Theory’, Theory and Event 4(3).
15.
DeLandaM. (1991) War in the Age of Intelligent Machines. New York: Zone Books.
16.
Dewey, J. (1955 [1939/1908]) ‘Theory of Valuation’, in O. Neurath, R. Carnap and C. Morris (eds) International Encyclopedia of Unified Science 2(4). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17.
Edwards, P. (2000) ‘The World in a Machine: Origins and Impacts of Early Computerized Global Systems Models’, pp. 221–254 in T.P. Hughes and A.C. Hughes (eds) Systems, Experts, and Computers: The Systems Approach in Management and Engineering World War II and After. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18.
Fraser, M. (2007) ‘What Matters?’ Paper presented at the workshop ‘Devices: The Happening of the Social’, Goldsmiths, University of London, December.
19.
Fuller, M. (2007) ‘Introduction’, in M. Fuller (ed.) Software Studies: A Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20.
HarawayD. (1994) A Game of Cat’s Cradle: Science Studies, Feminist Studies, Cultural Studies, Configurations2(1): 59–71.
21.
KallinikosJ. (2011) Governing through Technology: Information Artefacts and Social Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
22.
LatourB. (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
23.
LatourB. (1988) A Relativistic Account of Einstein’s Relativity, Social Studies of Science18(1): 3–44.
24.
LatourB. (1993) We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25.
Latour, B. (2001) ‘From “Matters of Facts” to “States of Affairs”: Which Protocol for the New Collective Experiments?’, Lecture to the Darmstadt Colloquium, 30 March.
26.
Latour, B. (2008) ‘Introduction’, in W. Lippmann, Le Public fantôme. Paris: Demopolis.
27.
Latour, B. (2009) ‘Tarde’s Idea of Quantification’, pp. 145–162 in M. Candea (ed.) The Social After Gabriel Tarde: Debates and Assessments. London: Routledge.
28.
LawJ. (2004) After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. London: Routledge.
29.
LawJ.MolA. (2002) Complexities: Social Studies of Knowledge Practices. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
30.
LazerD. (2009) Computational Social Science, Science 6 February, 5915(323): 721–723.
31.
LeydesdorffL.EtzkowitzH. (1996) Emergence of a Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations, Science and Public Policy23: 279–286.
32.
Lury, C. (2010) ‘Devising the Social.’ Keynote lecture at the CRESC conference ‘The Social Life of Methods’, St Hugh’s College, Oxford, 31 August to 3 September.
33.
MarresN. (2007) The Issues Deserve More Credit: Pragmatist Contributions to the Study of Public Involvement in Controversy, Social Studies of Science37(5): 759–780.
34.
MarresN. (2009) Testing Powers of Engagement: Green Living Experiments, the Ontological Turn and the Undoability of Involvement, European Journal of Social Theory12(1): 117–133.
35.
Marres, N. (2012) ‘The Experiment in Living’, in C. Lury and N. Wakeford (eds) Inventive Methods: The Happening of The Social. London: Routledge.
36.
MarvinS.ChappellsH.GuyS. (1999) Pathways of Smart Metering Development: Shaping Environmental Innovation, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems23: 109–126.
37.
MichaelM. (2000) Reconnecting Culture, Technology and Nature: From Society to Heterogeneity. London: Routledge.
38.
MichaelM.GaverB. (2009) Home Beyond Home: Dwelling with Threshold Devices, Space and Culture3(12): 359–370.
39.
MolA. (2002) The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham: Duke University Press.
40.
MolA.LawJ. (1994) Regions, Networks and Fluids: Anaemia and Social Topology, Social Studies of Science24(4): 641–671.
41.
Muniesa, F. (forthcoming) ‘A Flank Movement in the Understanding of Valuation’, in L. Adkins, R. Burrows and C. Lury (eds) ‘Measure and Value’: Special Issue for The Sociological Review.
42.
NovemberV.LatourB. (2010) Entering a Risky Territory: Space in the Age of Digital Navigation, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space(28): 581–599.
43.
Nowotny, H. (2002) ‘Vergangene Zukunft: Ein Blick zurück auf die ‘Grenzen des Wachstums’, pp. 655–694 in Impulse geben – Wissen stiften. 40 Jahre VolkswagenStiftung. Göttingen: VolkswagenStiftung.
44.
NowotnyH. (1990) Actor-networks vs. Science as Self-organizing System: A Comparative View of Two Constructivist Approaches, Sociology of the Sciences14: 223–239.
45.
NyeD. (1999) Consuming Power: A Social History of American Energies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46.
Preston, I. and V. White (2010) The Distributional Impacts of UK Climate Change Policies, Final report to the Eaga Charitable Trust, Centre for Sustainable Energy and Association for the Conservation of Energy.
47.
Rabinow, P. (2005) ‘Midst Anthropology’s Problems’, pp. 40–58 in A. Ong and S.J. Collier (eds) Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics, and Ethics as Anthropological Problems. London and New York: Blackwell Publishing.
RogersR. (2009) The End of the Virtual. Amsterdam: Vossiuspers UvA.
50.
RogersR.MarresN. (2002) French Scandals on the Web, and on the Streets: A Small Experiment in Stretching the Limits of Reported Realit, Asian Journal of Social Science30(2): 339–353.
51.
Rouse, J. (1994) ‘Power/Knowledge’, in G. Gutting (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Foucault. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52.
ScharnhorstA.WoutersP. (2006) Web Indicators – A New Generation of S&T indicators, Cybermetrics10(1).
53.
Schutz, A. (1964) ‘The Well-informed Citizen’, pp. 120–134 in Collected Papers. Vol. II. Studies in Social Theory. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
54.
Schutz, A. (1970) Reflections on the Problem of Relevance, ed. R. Zaner. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
55.
Star, S.L. (1991) ‘Power, Technologies and the Phenomenology of Conventions: On Being Allergic to Onions’, pp. 26–56 in J. Law (ed.) A Sociology of Monsters? Essays on Power, Technology and Domination (Sociological Review Monograph). London: Routledge.
Van Couvering, E. (2007) ‘Is Relevance Relevant? Market, Science, and War: Discourses of Search Engine Quality’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12(3): article 6. Available at: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue3/vancouvering.html.
58.
WoolgarS. (1999) Do Artefacts Have Ambivalence? Moses’ Bridges, Winner’s Bridges and Other Urban Legends, Social Studies of Science29: 433–449.
