This article contributes to debates about the ontological turn and its implications for democracy by proposing an experimental understanding of political ontology. It discusses why the shift from epistemology to ontology in science and technology studies has proved inconclusive for the study of politics and democracy: the politics of non-humans has been assumed to operate on a different level from that of politics and democracy understood as institutional and public forms. I distinguish between three different understandings of political ontology: theoretical, empirical and experimental. Each of these implies a different approach to the problem that non-humans pose for democracy. Theoretical ontology proposes to solve it by conceptual means, while empirical ontology renders it manageable by assuming a problematic analytic separation between constituting and constituted ontologies. This article makes the case for the third approach, experimental ontology, by analysing an empirical site, that of the eco-show home. In this setting, material entities are deliberately invested with moral and political capacities. As such, eco-show homes help to clarify two main features of experimental political ontology: (1) ontological work is here not so much relocated from theory to empirical practice but distributed among relevant actors and registers and (2) normative variability does not just pertain to the enactment of things but can be conceived of as internal to political objects. From these two features of experimental ontology, something follows for democracy as an ontological problem. This problem does not dissolve in empirical settings, but these settings make possible its articulation by experimental means.
AsdalK (2008) On politics and the little tools of democracy: A down to earth approach. Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory19(1): 11–26.
2.
BarryA (1998) On interactivity: Consumers, citizens and culture. In: MacdonaldS (ed.) The Politics of Display: Museums, Science, Culture. London: Routledge, pp. 85–102.
3.
BarryA (2001) Political Machines: Governing a Technological Society. London: Athlone Press.
4.
BennettJ (2010) Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
5.
BijkerWEBijsterveldK (2000) Women walking through plans: Technology, democracy, and gender identity. Technology and Culture41(3): 485–515.
6.
BlokABertilssonM (2009) Science studies meets climate change: A workshop report. Faculty of Social Sciences, July 2009, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
7.
BlumenbergH. (1996) Shipwreck with Spectator: Paradigm of a Metaphor for Existence. Trans. RendallSteven. Cambridge: MIT Press.
8.
BlumenbergH (1997) Shipwreck with Spectator: Paradigm of a Metaphor for Existence (trans. RendallS). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9.
BraunBWhatmoreSJ (eds) (2010) Political Matter: Technoscience, Democracy, and Public Life. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
10.
BrownM (2009) Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions, and Representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
CallonMRabeharisoaV (2004) Gino’s lesson on humanity: Genetics, mutual entanglements and the sociologist’s role. Economy and Society33(1): 1–27.
12.
CallonMLascoumesPBartheY (2001) Agir dans un Monde Incertain. Essai sur la Démocratie Technique. Paris: Seuil.
13.
CockburnCFürst-DilićR (eds) (1994) Bringing Technology Home: Gender and Technology in a Changing Europe. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
14.
CussinsC (1996) Ontological choreography: Agency through objectification in infertility clinics. Social Studies of Science26(3): 575–610.
15.
DanyiE (2010) Materiality & politics: Or the parliament as an STS object. Paper presented at the Institute for European Ethnology, Humboldt University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany, 28 June.
16.
De VriesG (2007) What is political in sub-politics? How Aristotle might help STS. Social Studies of Science37(5): 781–809.
17.
DobsonA (2003) Citizenship and the Environment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18.
FrostS (2008) Lessons from a Materialist Thinker: Hobbesian Reflections on Ethics and Politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
19.
GanzevlesJ (2007) Technologie voor mens en milieu: Een actor-netwerk analyse van de ontwikkeling van energietechnologie voor woningen. PhD Thesis, University of Twente, The Netherlands.
20.
GarfinkelH (1984) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Oxford: Polity Press.
21.
GirardMStarkD (2007) Socio-technologies of assembly: Sense making and demonstration in rebuilding Lower Manhattan. In: Mayer-SchönbergerVLazerD (eds) Governance and Information Technology: From Electronic Government to Information Government. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 145–176.
22.
GomartE (2002) Methadone: Six effects in search of a substance. Social Studies of Science32(1): 93–135.
23.
GuySMooreS (2005) Sustainable Architectures: Cultures and Natures in Europe and North America. London: Spon Press.
24.
HackingI (1983) Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
25.
HackingI (2004) Historical Ontology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26.
HarbersH (ed.) (2005) Inside the Politics of Technology: Agency and Normativity in the Co-production of Technology and Society. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
27.
HarmanG (2009) Prince of Networks: Bruno Latour and Metaphysics. Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Re.press.
28.
HawkinsG (2006) The Ethics of Waste: How We Relate to Rubbish. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
29.
HawkinsG (2011) Packaging water: Plastic bottles as market and public devices. Economy and Society40(4): 534–552.
30.
HobsonK (2006) Bins, bulbs, and shower timers: On the ‘techno-ethics’ of sustainable living. Ethics, Place & Environment9(3): 317–336.
31.
IrwinA (2006) The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the ‘new’ scientific governance. Social Studies of Science36(2): 299–320.
32.
IrwinAMichaelM (2003) Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
33.
JasanoffS (2005) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
34.
JasanoffS (2010) A new climate for society. Theory, Culture & Society27(2-3): 233–253.
35.
JimenezA (in press) The prototype: More than many and less than one. In: JimenezA (ed.) Introduction to Prototyping.
36.
KeltyC (2005) Geeks, internets and recursive publics. Cultural Anthropology20(2): 185–214.
37.
LatourB (1988) The Pasteurization of France (trans. SheridanALawJ). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38.
LatourB (1999) Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
39.
LatourB (2005a) From realpolitik to dingpolitik, or how to make things public. In: LatourBWeibelP (eds) Making Things Public; Atmospheres of Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 14–43.
40.
LatourB (2005b) Re assembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
41.
LawJ (2004) After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. London: Routledge.
LeachMScoonesIWynneB (eds) (2005) Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement. London: Zed Books.
44.
LezaunJ (2007) A market of opinions: The political epistemology of focus groups. In: CallonMMilloYMuniesaF (eds) Market Devices. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 130–151.
45.
LezaunJ (2011) Offshore democracy: Launch and landfall of a socio-technical experiment. Economy and Society40(4): 553–581.
46.
LovellH (2007) Exploring the role of materials in policy change: Innovation in low energy housing in the UK. Environment and Planning A39(10): 2500–2517.
47.
LuryCWakefordN (2012) (ed) Inventive Methods: The Happening of the Social. London: Routledge.
48.
MarresN. (2005) Issues spark a public into being: A key but often forgotten point of the Lippmann-Dewey debate. In LatourBWeibelP (eds) Making things public; Atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 208–217.
49.
MarresN (2007) The issues deserve more credit: Pragmatist contributions to the study of public involvement in controversy. Social Studies of Science37(5): 759–780.
50.
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.
51.
MarresN (2011) The costs of public involvement: Everyday devices of carbon accounting and the materialization of participation. Economy and Society40(4): 510–533.
52.
MarresN (2012a) Material Participation: Technology, the Environment and Everyday Publics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
53.
MarresN (2012b) The experiment in living. In:LuryCWakefordN (eds) Inventive Methods: The Happening of the Social. London: Routledge. 76–95.
54.
MarresNLezaunJ (2011) Materials and devices of the public: An introduction. Economy and Society40(4): 489–509.
55.
MichaelMikeGaverWilliam. 2009. Home Beyond Home: Dwelling With Threshold Devices. Space and Culture, 12(3), pp. 359–370
56.
MillerCA (2005) New civic epistemologies of quantification: Making sense of indicators of local and global sustainability. Science Technology & Human Values30(3): 403–432.
57.
MolA (1999) Ontological politics: A word and some questions. In: LawJHassardJ (eds) Actor-Network Theory and After. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 74–89.
58.
MolA (2002) The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
59.
MuniesaF.LinhardtD. (2011), “Trials of explicitness in the implementation of public management reform”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting22(6), 550–566.
60.
MurphyM (2006) Building Sickness Syndrome and the Problem of Uncertainty: Environmental Politics, Technoscience and Women’s Workers. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
61.
OswellD (2008) Concrete phantoms: Democracy in the built environment, sensate publics, and noise in the home. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Sociology, Goldsmiths College, University of London, UK.
62.
PapadopoulousD (2010) Alter-ontologies: Towards a constituent politics in technoscience. Social Studies of Science41(2): 177–201.
63.
ShapinSSchafferS (1989) Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
VerbeekP (2005) What Things Do: Philosophical Reflections on Technology, Agency, and Design. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.
66.
VerbeekP (2011) Moralizing Technology: Understanding and Designing the Morality of Things. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
67.
WoolgarS (2005) Ontological disobedience – definitely! (maybe). In: TurnerSSicaA (eds) A Disobedient Generation. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 309–324.
68.
WoolgarSLezaunJ (2013) The wrong bin bag: A turn to ontology in science and technology studies?Social Studies of Science43(3): 321–340.
