Neonatal intensive care work may be understood as a network in which doctors, babies, parents, technology, and medical care are associated together in a complex social topology. The boundaries of what counts as the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) are always shifting. The regular appearance of new members, new patients, and new technologies means that much effort must be expended to hold the unit together as a functional entity. We examine how the baby (the neonate receiving care) acts the ‘object’ around which the unit is continuously ordered. The identity of the baby—what it is, what attributes are considered important, what effects it generates—is changeable. We present an argument, drawing variously on debates in the sociology of translation (that is, John Law, Bruno Latour, Kevin Hetherington and Nick Lee, Annamarie Mol, and Marilyn Strathern), the monism of Henri Bergson, and the ‘objectivity’ of Michel Serres, which identifies two ‘functionally blank’ actors in the NICU—a bilirubin machine and the baby itself. Both act to slow down and to stabilise networked relations. However, the ‘hybrid agency’ of the baby also acts as a resource that enables the network to turn back on itself or to be ‘cut’. We outline how this process appears to operate and the way in which it serves to resolve issues of accountability.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ansell-PearsonK, 2002Philosophy and the Adventure of the Virtual: Bergson and the Time of Life (Routledge, London)
2.
Ansell-PearsonKMullarkeyJ (Eds), 2002Bergson: Key Writings (Continuum, New York)
3.
BergsonH, 1991Matter and Memory (Zone Books, New York); first published in 1908
4.
BergsonH, 1998Creative evolution (Dover, New York); first published in 1911
5.
BergsonH, 2001Time and Free Will: An Essay on the Immediate Data of Consciousness (Dover, New York); first published in 1913
6.
BloorD, 1991Knowledge and Social Imagery2nd edition (Routledge, London)
7.
BloorD, 1999a, “Anti-Latour”Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A30(1) 81–112
8.
BloorD, 1999b, “Reply to Bruno Latour”Studies in History and Philosophy of Science30(1) 131–136
9.
BowkerGStarS L, 1999Sorting Things Out: Classification and its Consequences (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
10.
BrownS D, 2002, “Michel Serres: science, translation and the logic of the parasite”Theory, Culture and Society19(3) 1–27
11.
BrownS D, 2003, “Natural writing: the case of Serres”Interdisciplinary Science Review28(3) 184–192
12.
BrownS DCapdevilaR, 1999, “Perpetuum mobile: substance, force and the sociology of translation”, in Actor-Network and After Eds LawJHassardJ (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 26–50
13.
CallonM, 1980, “Struggles and negotiations to define what is problematic and what is not: the socio-logic of translation”, in The Social Process of Scientific Investigation Eds KnorrK DKrohnRWhitleyR (D Reidel, Dordrecht) pp 197–214
14.
CallonM, 1986, Some elements of a sociology of translation”, in Power, Action and Belief Ed. LawJ (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London) pp 196–233
15.
CallonM, 1999, “Whose imposture? Physicists at war with the third person”Social Studies of Science29261–286
16.
CasperM, 1998aThe Making of the Unborn Patient: A Social Anatomy of Fetal Surgery (Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ)
17.
CasperM J, 1998b, “Negotiations, work objects, and the unborn patient: the interactional scaffolding of fetal surgery”Symbolic Interaction21379–399
DeleuzeG, 1991Bergsonism translated by TomlinsonHHabberjamB (Zone Books, New York); first published in 1966
20.
HarawayD, 1991Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature (Free Association Books, London)
21.
HetheringtonK, 1997, “Museum topology and the will to connect”Journal of Material Culture2199–220
22.
HetheringtonKLeeN, 2000, “Social order and the blank figure”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space18169–184
23.
LatourB, 1987aScience in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)
24.
LatourB, 1987b, The enlightenment without the critique: a word on Michel Serres' philosophy”, in Contemporary French Philosophy Ed. Phillips GriffithsA (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 83–97
25.
LatourB, 1988, “Irreductions”, in The Pasteurization of France (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA) part 2
26.
LatourB, 1992, “Where are the missing masses?”, in Shaping Technology/Building Society Eds BijkerW ELawJ (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
27.
LatourB, 1994, “Pragmatogonies: a mythical account of how humans and nonhumans swap properties”American Behavioural Scientist37791–808
28.
LatourB, 1996, “On interobjectivity”Mind, Culture and Activity3228–245
29.
LatourB, 1999, “For David Bloor … and beyond: a reply to David Bloor's Anti-Latour”Studies in History and Philosophy of Science30(1) 113–129
30.
LawJ, 2002Aircraft Stories: Decentering the Object in Technoscience (Duke University Press, Durham, NC)
31.
LawJMolA, 1995, “Notes on materiality and sociality”Sociological Review43274–294
32.
LeeNBrownS D, 1994, “Otherness and the actor network”American Behavioural Scientist3772–790
33.
MiddletonD, 1997, “Conversational remembering and uncertainty: interdependencies of experience as individual and collective concerns in team work”Journal of Language and Social Psychology16389–410
MiddletonDCurnockD, in press, “Talking matters at work: Arne Raeithal's scholarship and the semiotic regulation of co-operative work”Mind Culture and Activity
36.
MolA, 1999, “Ontological politics: a word and some questions”, in Actor Network Theory and After Eds LawJHassardJ (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 74–89
37.
MolA, 2002The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice (Duke University Press, Durham)
38.
MolALawJ, 1994, “Regions, networks and fluids: anaemia and social topology”Social Studies of Science24641–671
39.
MolAMesmanJ, 1996, “Neonatal food and the politics of theory”Social Studies of Science26419–444
40.
MoreiraT, 2000, “Translation, difference and ontological fluidity: cerebral angiography and neurosurgical practice (1926–45)”Social Studies of Science30421–446
41.
MullarkeyJ, 1999Bergson and Philosophy (Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh)
42.
SerresM, 1982The Parasite (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD)
43.
SerresM, 1991Rome: The Book of Foundations (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA)
44.
SerresM, 1995Genesis (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI)
45.
StarS LGriesemerJ R, 1989, “Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39”Social Studies of Science19387–420
46.
StrathernM, 1996, “Cutting the network”Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute2517–535
