All I've read is LeFevre's and Latour's introduction, so I am not yet able to respond to Kevin and Maggie, but I'll put some preliminary thoughts here. Here's an imaginary conversation, or social inventive network thingy, between LeFevre and Latour.
LeFevre: Well, so far, all I've read of your book is the Introduction, Bruno, but it looks pretty interesting.
Latour: Sacre bleu! I've only read the introduction of your book as well! What did you think?
LeFevre: I agree with you that the “social” and its implications need definition. I also felt that many of your criticisms of social science were spot on. You left me hanging, however, because I felt as through you didn't give a compelling enough reason why all this redefining needed to happen. That's what I'm trying to do in my book.
Latour: Oui. You seem to be taking the idea of the social and narrowing its application to writing instruction, and the invention process specifically. It's an application, whereas I see my book as more vast redefinition of a traditional concept. In fact, I especially liked the part where you talked about how people were so eager to do research and get results that “we should not neglect what can be gained from contemplation of what it is that we are studying” (9). That's, I think, what I'm trying to do.
LeFevre: Thanks. What did you think about my ideas of the 'other self' and the 'imagined audience' (9)? Would you still define those as social?
Latour: I don't know if I would necessarily define these as 'social,” although I know that I think that two things that aren't social can be social by their association. I do however, find problematic your use of the “social” as a domain for invention because I'm against providing social explanations for things.
LeFevre: I wouldn't say I'm explaining away invention as “social.” At least not in the sense that “this thing happens because it's social.” It's more like we need to see the social side of this phenomenon, and understand it's social nature.
Latour: I'm skeptical, but I'm excited to read the rest, particularly to see the way that you define “social” in parallel or in contrast to my own definition.
LeFevre: I'm excited to read yours too. But first I have to Wikipedia Actor Network Theory. See you in class!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I'm still not sure about how to think about LaTour's tearing apart of the social either. I have absolutely no reverence for the social sciences, so I like it when his criticisms apply mostly to them. But I generally subscribe to social constructivism and appreciate the "social" turn, so when I think he's talking to me, I'm not so sure anymore.
I'm generally a fan of the social sciences, and, in particular, sociology. Although my allegiances don't run so deep that it pains me to have them torn up a bit, these introductions do seem to cross points at times. I'm also not pretending that I've totally "gotten" all the points, particularly in Latour's case. I'm only hoping that I'm not included in the folks in the last sentence of the introduction.
Post a Comment