Critical Thought,Institutional Contexts,Normative Projects

Abstract

While we welcome Gergen's (1997) comments, we dispute a number of his criticisms. First, actor-network theory (ANT) does not reduce persons to autonoma. Rather, its prime aim is to account for the emergence of persons within a network. Similarly, ANT does not draw back from attributing responsibility; rather, it examines how the responsibility of actors (whether they be `bad' decision-makers or `entrepreneurial' scientists) is established. Next, contrary to Gergen's view of institutional pressures as `occupational hazards', we reassert the importance of seeing these as partially constitutive of academic (postmodern psychological) activity. Finally, while we agree with Gergen that all academic `tellings' privilege some form of ontology, we argue that this does not warrant an exclusively cultural ontology.

Keywords

actor-network theory heterogeneity postmodern social psychology responsibility

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ashmore, M. (1989). The reflexive thesis: Wrighting sociology of scientific knowledge. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

Callon, M. (1986a). Some elements in a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief (pp. 196-233). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Callon, M. (1986b). The sociology of an actor-network: The case of the electric vehicle. In M. Callon , J. Law , & A. Rip (Eds.), Mapping the dynamics of science and technology (pp. 19-34). London: Macmillan.

Gergen, K.J. (1997). On the poly/tics of postmodern psychology. Theory & Psychology, 7(1), 31-36.

Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs and nature. London: Free Association Books.

Haraway, D. (1995). Cyborgs and symbionts: Living together in the new world order. In C. H. Gray (Ed.), The cyborg handbook (pp. xi-xx). New York: Routledge.

Henriques, J. , Hollway, W. , Urwin, C. , Venn, C. , & Walkerdine, V. (1984). Changing the subject: Psychology, social regulation and subjectivity. London: Methuen.

Kendall, G. , & Michael, M. (1997). Politicizing the politics of postmodern social psychology. Theory & Psychology, 7(1), 7-29.

Latour, B. (1988). The Pasteurization of France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

10.

Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

11.

Law, J. (Ed.). (1991a). A sociology of monsters. London: Routledge.

12.

Law, J. (1991b). Introduction: Monsters, machines and sociotechnical relations. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters (pp. 1-23). London: Routledge.

13.

Law, J. (1994). Organizing modernity. Oxford: Blackwell.

14.

Mort, M. (1994). What about the workers? [Review of Spinardi, From Polaris to Trident]. Social Studies of Science, 24, 596-606.

15.

Singleton, V. , & Michael, M. (1993). Actor-networks and ambivalence: General practitioners in the cervical screening programme. Social Studies of Science, 23, 227-264.

16.

Soper, K. (1995). What is nature? Oxford: Blackwell.

17.

Star, S.L. (1991). Power, technologies and the phenomenology of conventions: On being allergic to onions. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters (pp. 26-56). London: Routledge.