What is it to be big? What is it to be small? And what is it to be global? Common sense, including a good deal of the common sense underlying network metaphors for complex globality, involves the assumption that the global is large, that it includes the (smaller) local, and that to understand it we need to adopt a holistic approach in which we look up to explore emergent complexities, and so obtain a provisional overview of the whole. In this paper I argue, following Chunglin Kwa, that this is a particular and romantic method for imagining complexity. I then follow Kwa by considering a baroque alternative. Instead of looking up, this looks down and discovers limitless internal complexity within, which is materially heterogeneous, specific, and sensuous. In this monadology there are no limits to complexity within, but neither is there any possibility of modeling and knowing that complexity in full. There is no overview and neither is there any assumption of coherence. In this way of thinking the global lies within each site and is small, sensuous, specific, heterogeneous, noncoherent, and cannot be more than patchily modeled.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AIR 8/2167, 1957, Letter from George Ward, Minister for Air, to Duncan Sandys, Secretary of State for Defence, 26 February
BaumanZ, 1989Modernity and the Holocaust (Polity Press, Cambridge)
4.
BenjaminW, 1999The Arcades Project translated by ZohnH (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)
5.
CallonMLatourB, 1981, “Unscrewing the big leviathan: how actors macrostructure reality and how sociologists help them to do so”, in Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Toward an Integration of Micro- and Macro-sociologies Eds Knorr-CetinaK DCicourelA V (Routledge and Kegan Paul, Boston, MA) pp 277–303
6.
CastellsM, 1996The Rise of the Network Society (Blackwell, Oxford)
7.
ClarkT J, 2002, “Reservations of the marvellous”London Review of Books22(11) 3–9
8.
DeleuzeG, 1993The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque (Athlone Press, London)
9.
EhrenzweigA, 1993The Hidden Order of Art: A Study in the Psychology of Artistic Imagination (Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London)
10.
English Electric, 1957, “Note on crew fatigue due to low altitude flying for G.O.R. 339”, memo, English Electric, Warton, Lancs
11.
English Electric, 1958Aircraft Project P.17; Tactical Strike/Reconnaissance Aircraft to G.O.R.3393 volumes, mimeo, English Electric, Warton, Lancs
12.
FranklinSLuryCStaceyJ, 2000Global Nature, Global Culture (Sage, London)
13.
GouldnerA, 1973, “Romanticism and classicism: deep structures in social science”, in For Sociology Ed. GouldnerA (Allen Lane, London) pp 323–366
14.
HackingI, 1990The Taming of Chance (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
15.
HarawayD, 1991, “Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective”, in Simians, Cyborgs and Women: the Reinvention of Nature Ed. HarawayD (Free Association, London) pp 183–201
16.
HarveyD, 1989The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change (Blackwell, Oxford)
17.
HarveyD, 2000Spaces of Hope (Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh)
18.
HetheringtonK, 1997, “In place of geometry: the materiality of place”, in Ideas of Difference: Social Spaces and the Labour of Division Eds HetheringtonKMunroR (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 183–199
19.
HMSO, 1955The Supply of Military Aircraft Cmd9388 (HMSO, London)
20.
HughesT P, 1983Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880 –1930 (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD)
21.
KwaC, 2002, “Romantic and baroque conceptions of complex wholes in the sciences”, in Complexities: Social Studies of Knowledge Practices Eds LawJMolA (Duke University Press, Durham, NC) pp 23–52
22.
LatourB, 1988, “Irréductions”, in The Pasteurisation of France, Part 2 translated by SheridanALawJ (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)
23.
LatourB, 1990, “Drawing things together”, in Representation in Scientific Practice Eds LynchMWoolgarS (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) pp 19–68
24.
LawJ, 1987, “Technology and heterogeneous engineering: the case of the Portuguese expansion”, in The Social Construction of Technical Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology Eds BijkerW EHughesT PPinchT (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) pp 111–134
25.
LawJ, 2000, “Transitivities”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space18133–148
26.
LawJ, 2002Aircraft Stories: Decentering the Object in Technoscience (Duke University Press, Durham, NC)
27.
LawJ, 2004After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. (Routledge, London) (forthcoming)
28.
LawJSingletonV, 2003, “Allegory and its others”, in Knowing in Organizations: A Practice-based Approach Eds NicoliniDGherardiSYanowD (M E Sharpe, New York) pp 225–254
29.
LeibnizG W, 1973, “Monadology”, in Philosophical Writings (J M Dent, London) pp 179–194
30.
MacKenzieD, 1990Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
31.
MannheimK, 1953, “Conservative thought”, in Essays on Sociology and Social Psychology Ed. MannheimK (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London) pp 74–164
32.
MolA, 2002The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice (Duke University Press, Durham, NC)
33.
PerrowC, 1999Normal Accidents: Living with High Risk Technologies 2nd edition (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ)
34.
PorterT M, 1995Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ)
35.
RoseN, 1999Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
36.
SapolskyH, 1972The Polaris System Development: Bureaucratic and Programmatic Success in Government (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
WallersteinI, 1974The Modern World System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century (Academic Press, New York)
40.
WallersteinI, 1980The Modern World System II: Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-economy, 1600–1750 (Academic Press, New York)
