1. Method, Performativity and Politics
Centre for Science Studies Lancaster University
Method, Performativity and Politics
John Law, Science Studies, Lancaster
All work is collaborative, so thanks to:
Adrian Evans, Mara Miele (Cardiff)
Endre Danyi, Vicky Singleton (Lancaster)
Nick Bingham, Steve Hinchliffe (Open University)
Kristin Asdal, Marianne Lien, Ingunn Moser (Oslo)
Emma Roe (Southampton)
Annemarie Mol (Twente)

2. Introduction: two views of knowledge
Discovery? or
Performativity!
Not idealist
Not (social constructivist)

3. How do Knowledge Practices Work?
Standard view: knowledge
Corresponds to reality
Tool for handling reality (pragmatism)
Non-standard view: performativity: Knowledge practices generate/enact
Workable knowledge and
Realities to match

4. Real and Unreal Napoleons
How?
Making solid realities is:
Difficult!
Has to be done in many locations/practices

5. Summary: knowledge practices:
Enact truth claims
Enact realities
Do this with difficulty
Within a hinterland of other practices

6. Notes on the hinterland: How much does it cost to undo realities?
Unsubstantiated hypotheses?
Published papers?
Embedded experimental techniques?

7. The Consequences of Performativity 1
‘We say that the laws of Newton may be found in Gabon and that this is quite remarkable since that is a long way from England. But I have seen Lepetit camemberts in the supermarkets of California. This is also quite remarkable, since Lisieux is a long way from Los Angeles. Either there are two miracles that have to be admired together in the same way, or there are none.’ (Bruno Latour, Irreductions, 227)

8. The Consequences of Performativity 2
Science and its truths only exist within networks of practice. Truth not universal.
We can try to enact better versions of the real ‘Ontological politics’

9. The Consequences of Performativity 3: Biology is not Destiny
Sex ≠ gender
There are multiple biologies (multiple sexes)
Which are to be preferred? A politics of the real (an ontological politics)

10. So What do Surveys Do? An archaeology of the Eurobarometer

11. Layer 1: the European Consumer
Attitudes
Opposed to Realities?
Or just very specific? (Real but only in the context of attitude surveys?) ?

12. Layer 2: Politics in Europe
Farm Animal welfare
Creating ‘European Political Project’

13. Layer 3: Subjectivity and the Location of Politics
Consumers =
Individual decision-makers
Rational
Ethical
Under-informed
Politics
to be done in supermarkets at point of purchase?
‘The labelling of products would certainly help the consumer to opt for a greater selectivity of purchases in favour of animal welfare products.’ .’ (EB 2007, 49)

14. Layer 4: Europe: a Container filled with Individuals
set of individuals,
measurable attributes,
aggregated
isomorphous
homogeneous European collective space
Representational assumptions on sample-population relations

15. Layer 5: Collectivity: a Statistical Collection (Romanticism)
Versions of Collectivity
Romantic collective = emergent homogeneous whole containing parts known: (a) abstractly (b) explicitly, and (c) centrally
Baroque collective = inside, non-coherent, heterogeneous assemblage known: (a) sensuously/specifically, (b) implicitly, and (c) resistant to overview

16. Layer 6: the Citizen-Consumer
‘To make … choices [about purchasing animal products] it is crucial that the public has information that enables them to determine the welfare conditions that lie behind the products they see on shelves.’ (EB 2007, 49)
Consumers may request information but ...
Citizens (and therefore polities) can demand it.
‘Ontological politics’: enacting better versions of the real

17. Layers in Eurobarometer?
European Consumer
European Politics
Subjectivities and the Location of Politics
Europe: a container of individuals
Collectivity as emergent statistical collection (romanticism)
Citizen-consumer

18. Performativity: the implications
Endless
Enacted realities are non-coherent (practices are ramshackle)
Reality is not destiny: it is multiple
When we describe we are also creating: what do we think of the ontological politics of our reality-making machines?
Enacting new realities is costly