v. 5 n. 2 (2020): El régimen de Lo temporal en el devenir de las ciencias antropológicas
Estudios y Ensayos

O surgimento disciplinar dos Science and Technology Studies, a gênese híbrida da virada ontológica e alguns debates contemporâneos

PDF (Español (España))
  • David Antolinez Uribe
David Antolinez Uribe
Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias de la Educación
Bio
DOI: https://doi.org/10.29112/ruae.v5i2.855

Publicado 2020-12-26

Como Citar

Antolinez Uribe, D. (2020). O surgimento disciplinar dos Science and Technology Studies, a gênese híbrida da virada ontológica e alguns debates contemporâneos. Revista Uruguaya De Antropología Y Etnografía, 5(2), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.29112/ruae.v5i2.855

Copyright (c) 2020 David Antolinez Uribe

Creative Commons License

Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Resumo

A ‘virada ontológica’ tem sido uma tendência intelectual recente que tem recebido atenção e críticas da filosofia e da antropologia. Na verdade, esse movimento não faz parte de nenhuma dessas disciplinas, mas se constitui como a matriz teórica de uma nova disciplina: os Science and Technology Studies. À medida que estas adquiriam legitimidade acadêmica e definiam sua identidade profissional, havia uma incomensurabilidade entre essa comunidade científica e as
demais disciplinas ameaçadas por essa nova tendência. Este artigo faz um relato histórico da construção paralela dos Science and Technology Studies e da ‘virada ontológica’, enfatizando a proposta de Bruno Latour, o primeiro a articular teorias ontológico com metodologias etnográficas, gesto fundador dos Estudos de Ciência e Tecnologia. Também são apresentadas algumas críticas recentes à ‘virada ontológica’, que buscam desfazer essa hibridização entre filosofia e antropologia. Conclui-se que, apesar do acerto de algumas dessas críticas, os Science and Technology Studies conseguem manter certo domínio disciplinar, enquanto a ‘virada ontológica’, como matriz teórica desta nova disciplina, deve enfrentar desafios contemporâneos.

PDF (Español (España))

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

Referências

  1. Biagioli, M. (1993). Galileo, courtier. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  2. Bloor, D. (1976). Knowledge and social imagery. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  3. Bloor, D. (1999). Anti-Latour. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 30(1), 81-112.
  4. Braudel, F. (1958). Histoire et science sociales: La longe durée. Annales. Histoire, Science Sociales, 13(4), 725-753.
  5. Cartwright, N. (1983). How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  6. Collins, H.M. y Yearley, S. (1992). Epistemological chicken. En Pickering, Andrew (ed.), Science as practice and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 301–327,
  7. Descola, P. (1996). Construyendo naturalezas, ecología sibólica y práctica social. En P. Descola. y G. Pálsson. (2001). Naturaleza y Sociedad. Perspectivas antropológicas. México: Siglo
  8. XXI, pp. 101-123.
  9. Everett, D. (2005). Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã: Another look at the design features of human language. Current Anthropology, 46(4), 621-646.
  10. Feyerabend, P. (1975) Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. New York: New Left Books.
  11. Foucault, M. (1966). Les Mots et les Choses. Paris: Éditions Gallimard.
  12. Graeber, D. (2005). Fetishism as social creativity. Or, fetishes are gods in the process of construction. Anthropological Theory, 5(4), 407-438.
  13. Graeber, D. (2015). Radical alterity is just another way of saying “reality”. Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 5(2), 1-41.
  14. Haraway, D. (2016). Staying with the Trouble. Making Kin in the Chthulucene. London: Duke University Press.
  15. Harman, G. (2002). Tool-Being: Heidegger and the Metaphysics of Objects. Chicago: Open Court.
  16. Harman, G. (2009). Prince of Networks: Bruno Latour and Metaphysics. Melbourne: Re.press.
  17. Hine, C. (2000). Etnografía virtual. Barcelona: Editorial UOC.
  18. Holbraad, M. (2009). Ontology, ethnography, archaeology: an afterword on the ontography of things. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 19(3), 431-441.
  19. Holbraad, M., Wastell, S. y Henare, A. (eds.) (2006). Thinking Through Things: Theorizing Artefacts Ethnographically. London: Routledge.
  20. Iglesias, M. (2004) La filosofía de I. Hacking: El giro hacia la práctica en la Filosofía de la Ciencia. Revista Internacional de Filosofía Iberoamericana y Teoría Social 9(26), 9-28.
  21. Knorr-Cetina, L. (1999). Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  22. Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  23. Kuhn, T.S. (1983). Commensurability, Comparability, Communicability. In: Kuhn, T.S. (2000). The Road since Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago press, pp. 33-57.
  24. Kusch, M. (1989). Language as calculus vs. language as universal medium: a study in Husserl, Heidegger, and Gadamer. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  25. Kusch, M. (2002). Metaphysical déjà vu. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 33(3), 639-647.
  26. Kusch, M. (2012). Sociology of science: Bloor, Collins, Latour. In: Brown, J.R. (ed.) Philosophy of Science: The Key Thinkers. London: Continuum (pp.168-187).
  27. Kusch, M. (2016). Epistemic relativism, scepticism, pluralism. Synthese, 194, 4687-4703.
  28. Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action. Cambrigde: The Harvard University Press.
  29. Latour, B. (1991). We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  30. Latour, B. (1992). One More Turn after the Social Turn: Easing Science Studies into the Non.
  31. Modern World. En: McMullin, E. (ed.) The Social Dimensions of Science. Notre Dame:
  32. Notre Dame University Press, pp. 272-292.
  33. Latour, B. (1995). The ‘Pedofil’ of Boa Vista: A Photo-Philosophical Montage. Common
  34. Knowledge, 4(1), 145-187.
  35. Latour, B. (1996). Aramis, or the love of technology. Cambrigde: The Harvard University Press.
  36. Latour, B. (1999). For Bloor and Beyond - a Reply to David Bloor’s Anti-Latour. Studies in
  37. History and Philosophy of Science, 30(1), 113-129.
  38. Latour, B. (2003). Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of
  39. Concern. Critical Inquire, 30(2), 225-248.
  40. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. An introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford:
  41. Oxford University Press.
  42. Latour, B. (2007). Could we have our materialism back, please? Isis, 98, 138-142.
  43. Latour, B. (2009). Perspectivism: ‘Type’ or ‘bomb’? Anthropology Today, 25(2), 1-2.
  44. Latour, B. (2015) Facing Gaia. Eight Lectures on the New Climate Regime. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  45. Latour, B. and Weibel, P. (2005). Making Things Public. Atmospheres of Democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  46. Latour, B. y Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory Life. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  47. Lévi-Strauss, C. (1973) Antropología estructural, 5ta edición. Buenos Aires: Eudeba (Original publicado en 1958).
  48. Lévi-Strauss, C. (1997). Tristes trópicos. Barcelona: Editorial Paidós Ibérica (Original publicado em 1955).
  49. Martínez, S. (2016). Nota editorial. Etnografía y estudios de la ciencia y la tecnología: encuentros, inspiraciones y posibilidades conectadas. Antípoda. Revista de Antropología y Arqueología, 26, 8-14.
  50. Meillassoux, Q. (2006). Après la finitude. Paris: Editions du Seuil.
  51. Mialet, H. (2012). Where would STS be without Latour? What would be missing? Social Studies of Science, 42, 456-461.
  52. Mol, A. (2002). The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. London: Duke University Press.
  53. Pickering, A. (1992). Science as practice and culture. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  54. Reynoso, C. (1991). El surgimiento de la antropología posmoderna. México: Gedisa.
  55. Sokal, A. y Bricmont, J. (1998). Fashionable Nonsense. London: Profile Books.
  56. Tsing, A. (2015). The Mushroom at the End of the World: On the Possibility of Life in Capitalist Ruins. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  57. Van Fraassen, B. (1980). The Scientific Image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  58. Viveiros de Castro, E. (2010). Metafísicas Caníbales. Líneas de antropología post-estructural. Buenos Aires: Katz Editorial.
  59. Viveiros de Castro, E. (2015). Who is Afraid of the Ontological Wolf? Some Comments on an Ongoing Anthropological Debate. The Cambridge Journal of Anthropology, 33(1), 2-17.
  60. Wagner, R. (2015). Facts force you to believe in them; perspectives encourage you to believe out of them. In: Viveiros de Castro, E. (2015). The Relative Native. Essays on Indigenous Conceptual Worlds. HAU Books: Chicago, pp. 295-324.
  61. Whitehead, A.N. (1978). Process and Reality. New York: Free Press.