329 Anais do XXI Seminário Internacional Nanotecnologias, Sociedade e Meio Ambiente desafios jurídicos éticos e sociais para a “grande transição sustentável” (XXI SEMINANOSOMA) ceeded in extending its methods to scientific activity and then on to the rest of society, but rather the branch composed of those who have been thoroughly shaken by attempting to give a social explanation for the facts of science. While some sociologists have decided that social theory works “even with science”, ANT concludes that, in general and particular terms, social theory has radically failed with science (Latour 2005). Hence, Latour propounds the need to redefine sociology and the concept of what is social and, to this end, his proposal is based on three fundamental criticisms: 1) the micro and macro social dichoto- my running through knowledge in science, 2) the distinction between a social and a cognitive dimension as a starting point for describing and understanding reality, and 3) the use of causality as an explanato- ry principle. Alternatively, for ANT, the new patterns of scientific practices can be explained by the introduction of coordination modalities in the socio-technical network that define new translation regimes and assemblages that are increasingly different from previous ones (Callon 1986, Callon and Law 1989, Latour 2005). For Callon, in his initial formulation, the dynamics and interactions associated with the scientific field make up a particular type of network which he calls a techno-economic network13. This network expresses the process of creation, dissemination and consolidation of technoscientific results inwhich a heterogeneity of human and non-hu- man factors mediated by devices14 intervene (via “translation”, media- tion and interdefinition mechanisms) (Callon 1986). Techno-economic networks (subsequently socio-technical networks) are composite, mixing humans and non-humans (technical devices, electrons, etc.), and all sorts of economic and institutional elements in all their forms. Their dynamics can only be understood in relation to translation oper- ations that inscribe the interdefinition of actors in intermediaries that 13 Callon refers to techno-economic networks. Subsequently, however, the concept became generalised and popularised as socio-technical networks (Latour 2005). 14 Beuscart and Peerbaye (2006) recall that the sociological use of the term “device” has its origins in Foucault’s work in the mid-1970s, who envisage le dispositif comme le « réseau » qu’il est possible de tracer entre les différents élé- ments d’« un ensemble résolument hétérogène, comportant des discours, des institutions, des aménagements architecturaux, des décisions réglementaires, des lois, des mesures ad- ministratives, des énoncés scientifiques, des propositions philosophiques, morales, philan- thropiques, du dit, aussi bien que du non-dit (Foucault 1994 : 299). They also note that “le dispositif tel que le conçoit Foucault est une formation historique spécifique, issue du jeu de ces différents éléments hétérogènes.” For the authors, Foucault’s theory of devices is extended and renewed in social studies of science, particularly within sociology of translation (ANT). Here devices are associated with action programmes or in- scriptions, thereby reclaiming the positive notion of power ascribed by Faucault once more.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjEzNzYz