Social acceleration and the network effect: a defence of social ‘science fiction’ and network determinism

This essay is a response to Judy Wajcman's essay ‘Life in the fast lane? Towards a sociology of technology and time’ (2008: 59–77). In that article Wajcman argued that recent developments in the sociology of temporal change had been marked by a tendency in social theory towards a form of ‘science fiction’– a sociological theorizing, she maintains, that bears no real relation to actual, empirically provable developments in the field and should therefore be viewed as not contributing to ‘a richer analysis of the relationship between technology and time’ (2008: 61). This reply argues that as Wajcman suggests in her essay, there is indeed an ‘urgent need for increased dialogue to connect social theory with detailed empirical studies’ (2008: 59) but that the most fruitful way to proceed would not be through a constraining of ‘science fiction’ social theorizing but, rather, through its expansion – and more, that ‘science fiction’ should take the lead in the process. This essay suggests that the connection between social theory and empirical studies would be strengthened by a wider understanding of the function of knowledge and research in the context of what is termed ‘true originality’ and ‘routine originality’. The former is the domain of social theory and the latter resides within traditional sociological disciplines. It is argued that both need each other to advance our understanding of society, especially in the context of the fast‐changing processes of technological development. The example of ‘technological determinism’ is discussed as illustrative of how ‘routine originality’ can harden into dogma without the application of ‘true originality’ to continually question (sometimes through ideas that may appear to border on ‘science fiction’) comfortable assumptions that may have become ‘routine’ and shorn of their initial ‘originality’.     

The Delicate Scientist Practitioner

This article offers an alternative understanding of the ‘scientist‐practitioner’ in clinical practice. The ‘dodo bird’ hypothesis or ‘common factors’ findings suggest that the specific technique of a particular treatment protocol, whether supported or not by empirical validation, are not as important as feedback to the clinician as to whether this particular treatment is working or not. A new philosophy of science and cognition suggests that ‘know‐how’ and ‘withness‐knowledge’ is of more importance than any ‘know‐that’ or ‘aboutness’ knowledge. Two hundred years ago Goethe suggested a method of science that was more focused on performativity than representationalism, which is being discovered again by postmodern science and philosophy. This model of science, combined with Levinas' call for an ethics first approach, can provide an alternative to the move towards treatment manuals.     

Starting somewhere different: methodological cosmopolitanism and the study of world politics

In this article, I contribute to the debate on Ulrich Beck's idea of ‘methodological cosmopolitanism’ from a political science perspective. How fruitful is Beck's idea for the study of world politics? How can a political science perspective turn ‘methodological cosmopolitanism’ into a more transdisciplinary subject of debate? Guided by these questions, I speak to two audiences. First, I offer political scientists a distinct strategy for empirical ‘cosmopolitan political science’ research. At the heart of this strategy is a novel object of research, the ‘cosmopolitan outlook’, understood as a discourse that breaks with the ‘national outlook’ to open possibilities for a world beyond ‘reflexive modernization’. With that, I shift the perspective from structure to discourse and broaden the normative grounds on which to assess cosmopolitan reality. Rather than just considering the emergence of normative cosmopolitan ideals, I build into cosmopolitan research the normative, empirical question of whether we see an emergence of a world beyond reflexive modernization. Second, I address scholars outside the field of political science who are interested in methodological cosmopolitanism by offering the ‘cosmopolitan outlook’ as a novel object of study that could also be explored from other disciplinary perspectives and by proposing they put the question of the purpose of methodological cosmopolitanism centre stage. This question can, I argue, constitute grounds for substantial debates on methodological cosmopolitanism not already precluded through disciplinary premises and concerns. Contributing to such a transdisciplinary debate, I distinguish between the long‐term and immediate purpose of methodological cosmopolitanism, the former being about the development of a cosmopolitan language and grammar and the latter about empirical explorations of the reality of the ‘cosmopolitan outlook’, eventually and in a collective and transdisciplinary endeavour building up to contribute to the former.     

Sociology and Science: The Making of a Social Scientific Method

Criticism against quantitative methods has grown in the context of “big-data”, charging an empirical, quantitative agenda with expanding to displace qualitative and theoretical approaches indispensable to the future of sociological research. Underscoring the strong convergences between the historical development of empiricism in the scientific method and the apparent turn to quantitative empiricism in sociology, this article uses content and hierarchical clustering analyses on the textual representations of journal articles from 1950 to 2010 to open dialogue on the epistemological issues of contemporary sociological research. In doing so, I push towards the conceptualization of a social scientific method, inspired by the scientific method from the philosophy of science and borne out of growing constructions of a systematically empirical representation among sociology articles. I articulate how this social scientific method is defined by three dimensions – empiricism, and theoretical and discursive compartmentalization –, and how, contrary to popular expectations, knowledge production consequently becomes independent of choice of research method, bound up instead in social constructions that divide its epistemological occurrence into two levels: (i) the way in which social reality is broken down into data, collected and analyzed, and (ii) the way in which this data is framed and made to recursively influence future sociological knowledge production. In this way, empiricism both mediates and is mediated by knowledge production not through the direct manipulation of method or theory use, but by redefining the ways in which methods are being labeled and knowledge framed, remembered, and interpreted.     

A Sociologist Meets History Critical Reflections upon Practice

Abstract ‘Why be quantitative?’Harold D. Lasswell asked that question several decades ago. His answer was: to take advantage of the rigor and precision that comes with quantification. Since then, quantification has spread across social science disciplines, putting qualitative approaches on the defensive. This paper examines the practices of quantitative sociologists in their study of historical processes. Much ritualism is found in those practices; much rhetoric in quantification. Alas, Lasswell's good intentions seem to have gone lost in a ritual called ‘hypothesis testing.’The author reflects critically upon his own practices and on the forms of quantification and the strategies of explanations that he has adopted.     

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND THE NATURE OF SCIENCE

The debate about the patenting of research is perhaps the most passionate now taking place about science and scientific culture. It is widely maintained that the expansion of patenting since about 1980 betrays a scientific tradition to which norms of universalism and common ownership of knowledge were central. This paper goes back to mid-twentieth century debates about science and intellectual property (IP) to argue that many of the norms we take as so central to science were themselves first articulated to critique patenting practices. In particular, it looks at how an economist (Arnold Plant), a scientist/philosopher (Michael Polanyi), and an information theorist (Norbert Wiener) responded to such practices. It especially focuses on the role of intellectual-property concerns in the making of Polanyi's philosophy of science, which it excavates through a reading of his unpublished papers. This reveals that the modern field of ‘science studies’ is indebted for some of its key concepts to an earlier generation of patent wars – an inheritance that exemplifies some of the strange ways in which the sociopolitical meanings of ideas can change from generation to generation. The point is not that present-day critics of scientific patenting are wrong, but that the very terms of the debate are more deeply-seated in the development of scientific culture than any of us has realized.     

Gandhi and the heritage of enlightenment: non-violence,secularism and conflict resolution

This essay re-examines the democratic Enlightenment as a multi-dimensional, heterogeneous, non-Eurocentric and living heritage. Gandhi's political contribution to the Enlightenment heritage is assessed in terms of values, epistemology and practice. Practically, this concerns the French Revolutionary heritage as a paradigm of political action, and Gandhian innovations in terms of mass movements based on the philosophy and practice of non-violence. The essay contends that Gandhi, far from merely an heir to the Enlightenment tradition, also radically challenged, expanded and transformed it. This transformation belongs to a broader re-evaluation of Enlightenment in terms of growth over final ends, held in common with thinkers such as John Dewey. The article critiques predominant arguments that Gandhi was an ‘anti-modern’, whether in a heroic ‘post-modern’ posture or as an enemy of ‘scientific modernity’. It argues for a more sociologically nuanced and historically grounded view of Gandhi in the historical comparative perspective of modern independence struggles, civil society formation and nation-making.     

Getting Unstuck: Interdisciplinarity as a New Discipline

Most disciplines and subdisciplines consider their particular specialization to be valuable in itself and superior to other disciplines. But compared with the huge leaps in the physical sciences, the social/behavioral sciences and humanities have made little progress. Since many of the physical science advances were the result of the merging of disciplines, perhaps interdisciplinarity should be tried. One path to connecting disciplines, subdisciplines, and micro‐macro levels is suggested by Spinoza's idea of part/whole methodology, exactly balancing concrete instances with abstract theses. Ideas by B. Pascal, A. Koestler, A. N. Whitehead, and E. O. Wilson may also be helpful. Any discipline, subdiscipline, or level can serve as a valuable stepping‐off place, but to advance further, integration with at least one other viewpoint may be necessary. Two brilliant examples are The Civilizing Process, by the sociologist Norbert Elias, and Freudian Repression, by the psychologist Michael Billig. Koestler's idea of “bi‐sociation” may prove to be particularly rewarding. The way that Virginia Woolf's depiction of role‐taking in interior monologue preceded the idea in social science is an extraordinary example. The need for integration may be the single most important issue facing social science, the humanities, and their subdisciplines. Given the scope of the social/behavioral problems faced by humanity, the sooner the better.     

Practice Learning and the Development of Students as Critical Practitioners—Some Findings from Research

This article reports some findings from an ESRC‐funded research project which has been examining the development of criticality in undergraduate students, taking social work and modern languages as contrasting disciplines. This twin‐track study aims to develop the conceptualisation of ‘criticality’ in the context of empirical research. This article examines the development of criticality in final year social work students, where the practice learning experience is predominant. The analysis is framed by the project's developing theoretical conceptualisation of criticality.     

Tolstoy and The Heroes of Family Therapy

This paper presents Tolstoy's view of history in ‘War and Peace’ against the background of recent post-modern developments in philosophy and family therapy. Family therapy, like philosophy, is now caught between a modernist and a post-modernist outlook, between ‘systematising’ or traditional scientific tendencies, and ‘edifying’ or literary practices. The former is represented by the idea of the family as a system and the latter in a metaphor of therapy as conversation. It is proposed that the edifying philosopher is sounding very much like the family therapist of the 1990s. Both share a newer metaphor of keeping the conversation going, and the idea that therapy is philosophy and philosophy a therapy. The discussion is grounded in Tolstoy's understanding of heroes in history and some implications for family therapy.     

Sociological Perspectives on Japanese Manga in America

Japanese popular culture has, according to journalist Roland Kelts, “invaded” the United States in the 21st century, and in particular Japanese comics, known as manga, have successfully “conquered America,” according to Wired magazine. Within the publishing trade itself, the medium's cultural and commercial success became known as the “manga revolution” or the “manga boom.” Yet despite all of this excitable rhetoric, there has thus far been scant sociological research into the particularities of this emerging phenomenon, and what exists is widely dispersed across multiple humanities and social science disciplines. This essay therefore aims to unite this scattered literature and provide a comprehensive survey of sociological perspectives on Japanese manga in America. I identify and explore three main substantive trends in the scholarly discourse: (i) studies of gender and sexuality and the homoerotic manga genres known as boys' love or yaoi; (ii) intellectual property, copyright, and the global digital piracy of manga colloquially known as “scanlation”; and (iii) studies of cultural production and the political economy of the American manga industry. This essay concludes with a discussion of the limitations these perspectives have in common and suggests a more critical research program drawing upon an expanded theoretical toolkit.     

If we practice posthumanist research,do we need ‘gender’ any longer?

This article offers a reflection around the question of ‘do we need ‘gender’ any longer?’ In taking up this problem and inspired by the way in which postqualitative inquiry has opened a conversation with Deleuzian philosophy and formulated a ‘concept as/instead of method’ line of thought, I wonder whether new images of thought might give the concept of gender ‘the forces it needs to return to life’ or the forces to abandon it. I propose four different images that might provoke the desire to experiment with a new image of thought in relation to the problem: a vegetal mode of thought, a musical mode, a fleshy mode as labiaplasty, a nonliving mode. This choice is connected to the dualities they target: the human/vegetal living world, the rational/artistic production of knowledge, the dis‐embodied/corporeal being in the world, the life/nonlife hierarchization. Each way of thinking of ‘gender’ stages, enacts, performs a different material reality of the concept that shifts the focus from linguistic representations to discursive practices. Hence, if gender has become a dominant discourse, it may be that positive repetition of this discourse might become a way of opening a new site inside it, by de‐territorializing it and re‐territorializing it otherwise.     

Ethical injunctions: the University of the Western Cape in the face of the ‘here and now’

This essay poses the question of the ethical in relation to the work of memorialising the University of the Western Cape (UWC) after apartheid. Drawing on Gilles Deleuze’s statement on the ethical in The Logic of Sense and reading its implications through Walter Benjamin’s ‘Theses on the Philosophy of History’ and Jeremy Cronin’s ‘Even the Dead’, I argue that the ethical entails becoming adequate to the fracturing of event, leading to an understanding of the subject effect prior to its stamping by race, gender and identity. The ethical, in this formulation, reckons with the materiality of the past as its weight orders the present. It is this possibility of becoming adequate, of ‘not being unworthy of what happens to us’, which is offered in Ingrid Masondo’s photo-essay on UWC. I read Masondo as offering an encounter with images of the Leibnizian world as they appear at UWC, an encounter that registers alternate trajectories as they are expressed in ‘point of view’. Becoming adequate, here, involves registering the role of UWC (both conscious and unconscious) in the subjectification of persons during and after apartheid. This essay punctuates the rhythm of the memorialisation of UWC, by asking that this weight of the past be reckoned with while articulating alternate trajectories for both the university (and particularly the disciplines of the humanities) and for the understandings of subjectivity that attend to it, a demand that cannot be settled cheaply.     

ENGINEERING THE ENTREPRENEURIAL INFANT: BRAIN SCIENCE,INFANT DEVELOPMENT TOYS,AND GOVERNMENTALITY

This essay re-situates current neurological research on infant brain development in terms of a matrix of cultural practices and pre-occupations. It contends that infant ‘brain science’ functions – in conjunction with the marketing promises of developmental toy manufacturers – as a form of ‘ritual magic’ (Nelson-Rowe, 1994) that ensures the transformation of ‘normal’ infants into idealized entrepreneurial subjects. Simultaneously, the discourse and practices of brain science extend and legitimize the extension of (Foucauldian) governmentality over lower income populations, which are perceived as threatening social and state security.     

On ‘flip‐flopping’: Branded stance‐taking in U.S. electoral politics1

This article examines stance in U.S. political discourse, taking as its empirical point of departure Democratic candidate John Kerry's epistemic stance‐taking in the televised 2004 presidential debates. Kerry's stance‐taking is shown to help display the characterological attribute of ‘conviction’ and serve as a rejoinder to critics who had branded him as a ‘flip‐flopper.’ His stance‐taking is thus not primarily ‘to’ or ‘for’ copresent interactants, but is largely interdiscursive in character. ‘Conviction’ and its opposite, ‘flip‐flopping,’ suggest further how stance‐taking itself has been an object of typification in the agonistic dynamics of candidate branding and counter‐branding. In moving from epistemic stance‐taking in discourse to models of the stance‐taker as a social type, this article addresses questions about the units and levels of analysis needed to study stance in contemporary political discourse.     

Translating deconstruction

Abstract

This paper argues that insofar as the ‘translation’ of deconstruction in America has become a discourse on the sacred, it mis‐recognizes what Derrida calls the trace, and identifies it as the radical outside to thought, or as ‘God’. The ‘trace’ on Derrida's account is indeed unknowable, but it is not the radical outside of thought. Rather, it is a disruptive force that is internal to thought. Reconstructive analyses investigate (among other things) the way that thought is breached, and necessarily so, by what thought cannot think. This breach, this unsignifiable opening, is intolerable to philosophical undertakings because philosophy must totalize; this is what philosophy does. Following Walter Benjamin, I argue that translation is possible, precisely because of this breach. Thus, just because this breach or opening is intolerable to thought or to philosophy does not prevent it from happening. On Jacques Derrida's analysis, this opening has a name: it is deconstruction. To this extent, those variants of ‘deconstruction in America’ which misrecognize the trace as God, miss the very political force of deconstruction in the first place, which is to say, a philosophical undertaking which thematizes the intolerability of refusing what philosophy does and must do.

The breach in thought (or language) is precisely what Walter Benjamin suggests is untranslatable. It cannot be communicated by any sign. Notwithstanding the great difference between Benjamin and Hegel's political commitments, comparing Benjamin's work on the untranslatability of language's ‘languageness’ to Hegel's semiological theory (which requires that we forget’ this very uncommunicableness at the heart of language) is instructive. It establishes that both thinkers argue that the practice of language should be the practice of learning each word as though it were a proper name. Each argues in their own way that the practice of language should erase the trace. It is precisely this erasure — the identification of the trace as radically exterior to thought ‐ that covers over what is at stake, not simply philosophically, in an investigation into the breach of language, but what is at stake politically. What is at stake politically is what Derrida calls the ‘risk of absolute surprise’ which is nothing less than the risk of a political philosophy with no guarantee.     

Mindscapes,ontology and global culture transition – 2: Morphogenesis as ‘personal ontology’

Abstract

<![CDATA[Clay Shirky's focus in his book, Here Comes Every-body, is on ‘the power of organizing without organizations’. The challenges from the book's focus and the title of his essay, ‘Ontology is overrated’, come at a time of crisis when practically all the institutions are now under critical public review and Lakoff's ‘new reality’ is reevaluating the roles of language, philosophy, logic and mathematics. Consequently, if Mindscape is considered, institutional ontology and personal ontology are divided into six categories, all antagonistic due to irreconcilable differences regarding priorities. Worst, people experience and define ‘reality’ differently under different circumstances and mindscape modes, depending on the state of their mindscape modes. The result is a multiverse, a global constellation of virtual realities. From some perspectives it would be reasonable to conclude, that the genome strategy presented here together with its implied paradigm merely compete with a host of other myths and metaphors for the imagination.]]>

<![CDATA[True, small world networks are organizing personal ontology in a multiverse of virtual individual realities. Even so, virtual realities do not imply arbitrary realities. All life as we know it is included in the genome's cluster gestalt strategy. Mapping of the human genome marks a turning point because a wrong choice is not an option. Morphogenesis as ontology suggests that the genome and ecology remain in sync by genome corrections that are often experienced as natural catastrophes. Ostensibly, the genome's cluster gestalt strategy consists of producing individual variants of the genome. Only those individuals that survive the dynamics of Earth's ecology and reproduce to continue to contribute code to the gene pool. There are species that reproduce by cloning, others by sexual reproduction. Humans and dogs are just two of countless species that cling desperately to an eventually to be incinerated rock in space.]]>     

ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IN J. M. COETZEE

This essay reads J. M. Coetzee's Diary of a Bad Year in its historical context (the moment of the US war in Iraq, Abu Graib, Guantanamo and the apparent triumph of neoliberalism), while also probing the problems at stake in the practice of contextual reading and of taking the work as staging the opinions of the biographical Coetzee. The essay teases out not only the question of whether Coetzee should be seen as a public intellectual (the short but not entirely satisfactory answer is ‘no’), but also how the terms ‘public’ and ‘private’ play out in his oeuvre and are helpful in pondering Coetzee's approach to questions of genre, censorship and authorship.     

Public Sociology and the Public Turn in the Social Sciences

Public sociology broadly conceptualized is a form of intellectuality involving dialogue between sociologists and the publics with whom they are concerned. Beyond this broad framing, what type of dialogue, with what purpose, which public(s), and the functions of intellectuals and the knowledge they produce are widely contested. In this essay, I explore the politics of academic disciplines, knowledge, and discourse as it has emerged within the debate over public sociology, while also highlighting what public sociology and the rise of other ‘public’ disciplines tells us about these themes in relationship to the possibility of public culture.