Science, Empiricism, and Marxism: Latour and Woolgar vs. E. P.

Thompson
Author(s): Richard D. Wolff
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Social Text, No. 4 (Autumn, 1981), pp. 110-113
Published by: Duke University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/466279 .
Accessed: 22/09/2012 21:07
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Duke University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Text.

http://www.jstor.org

and Marxism:
Science, Empiricism,
Latourand Woolgar*vs. E. P. Thompson

The mystiqueand mysticism

theproceduresand productsof the natural
surrounding
sciences in our era are beginning,finallyand fortunately,
to disintegrate.The nearly
natural
scientific
discoursesand the descriptotallypervasiveempiricismcharacterizing
tionsnaturalscientistsgiveof theirown practicesis underincreasingattack.The fawning
and imitativeadulationof social scientistsforwhatthey,too, tookto be thevastlygreater
soon too. Perhapsit
rigorand realismof naturalsciencewill,itis to be hoped,disintegrate
much
to
that
who
not
be
too
social
scientists
their
expect
expressed
respectsto natural
may
science byarguingitsfundamental
difference
fromsocial sciencewillalso recognizeat last
fromtheirown.
thattheiremperorhas clothesno different
The Latour and Woolgar volume is a piece of heavyweaponryin thisdisintegrative
assault upon theself-imageand privilegedsocialstatusofthenaturalscienceestablishment
world-wide.It deservesthecarefulattentionofthewidestpossibleaudience.The authors
clearexpositionofthewayinwhichnatural
accomplishnothingless thanan astonishingly
and
scientists,shaped by
complexlyresponsiveto all mannerofsocial processes,proceed
to create statementswhich,via consensusdeclaration,theythentransform
into"reality."
The authors' thesis is that "reality" is to be understoodas so many "facts" literally
constructed socially throughthe medium of the social subset of the remarkably
ofnaturalscientists.Basingthemselvesbothon a criticalreading
disorganizedcommunity
of the literatureof the sociologyof naturalscienceand upon a two-yearanthropological
studyofone laboratory,theSalk InstituteinCalifornia,theauthorsshowhow,where,and
whensome ofthemyriadstatements
cometo be endowedby
producedbynaturalscientists
withthe statusof a
them with a status above and beyond thatof statement--namely,
of
that
indeed
a
status
which
transforms
statement,
simultaneously
"reality"independent
the statementcreatingthe "reality"into the "discovery"of that"reality."
Latour and Woolgarare bothsociologists,whileLatouris also trainedas a laboratory
scientistand hence directlyfamiliarwithall thetechnicaldetailsoftheresearchpracticed
in the laboratorythatthe authorsstudied.Treatingthelaboratorymuchas conventional
anthropologiststreattribalgroupingschosenforinsitustudy,Latourand Woolgarseek to
determine just exactly what "typical" natural scientistsdo in theirparticularsocial
too, is theirexemplary
practice. This book is a reporton whattheyfound.Noteworthy,
self-consciousness.They remind readers repeatedlythat their investigationof what
scientistsdo is itselfan exampleofwhatscientistsdo. Theyapplytheirconclusionsabout
sciences to theirown workas well.
Latour and Woolgar understandthe scientific
processas the creationof orderout of
disorder.The raw materialsof theprocessare a disorderofobservations,measurements,
readings, findings,claims, and counterclaims.At any time,thereare manyalternative
possible orderingsthatcan be "constructed"(theirword) withinthe fieldof disordered
*Bruno Latour and Steve

Facts.Introduction
ofScientific
Woolgar,LaboratoryLife: TheSocial Construction
by Jonas Salk. (Beverly Hills and London: Sage Publications,1979), 272 pp. $9.45.

110

LaboratoryLife

111

scientificraw materials.These orderingsconsistof sets of statementsconstructedand

linked togetherin particularways. Among the scientiststhereis a complex struggle,
shaped by diversepersonal,professional,and social relationsinvolvingtheorists,forand
possible orderedsets. These strugglesmayeventuatein something
against the different
approachingnearlyuniversalagreementfora time.When thisis the case, a marvelous
"splitting"process occurs. From beinginitiallybut one of severalpossibleorderedsets,
the one gaining agreementis split into two distinctentities.This splittingsignifiesa
privilegedstatusconferredupon thechosenorderedsetbyand fortheagreeingscientists.
into two thingsat once: an independent
The agreed ordered set has been transformed
realitybeyonddiscourseand a statement"discovering"thisreality.Latour and Woolgar
how the "reality"constructed
in thiswaycan
theirargumentbydemonstrating
strengthen
if
retransform
statementsalso be "deconstructed"(theirword) and whenlaterscientists
become-realitiesback into statementsnot agreed upon, subject to doubt, statements
orderedsetswhoseproponentsare
reconvertedback to a statusofstrugglewithalternative
seekingto conferupon themtheprivilegedstatusdesignatedbytheaugustterm"reality."
Pages 174 to 183 comprisean excellentsummaryoftheepistemologicalpunchmountedby
the authors'findingson theactual naturalscientific
process.
Now some of theirfindings,as theyreadilyacknowledge,can also be foundin the
on thesociologyofnaturalscienceand the
worksof major writersofthecurrentliterature
thattheirwork
sociologyofknowledgemoregenerally.However,theyargueconvincingly
to
their
contribution
is
certain
carry
insightsfromthat
goes further(Chapter6). That is,
is
that
What
claim
certain
"social
factors"do
onto
a
different
basis.
literaturefurther,
they
of
the
or
"condition"
the
scientific
or
"effect"
notonly"influence"
process;
development
more, or ratherdifferently,
they argue that the proceduresand productsof science,
designatedas "realities,"are nothingbut theproductsof the
includingthe constructions
of
thrust
theirworkis, as theyrepeat,notto questiontheimportance
factors."
The
"social
or significanceof the scientificprocess,but ratherto sever it fromspuriousclaimsto a
mysticalconvergencebetween the theoriestheyvariouslychampionand "reality." In
positiveterms,Latour and Woolgarseek to apply,illustrate,and develop J.F. Lyotard's
as
orderedsetsofstatements
conceptof the"agonisticfield"ofstruggleamongalternative
the actual terrainof the sciences. The authors' work is also an importantfurther
contributionto the line of inquiryopened up in theUnitedStatesbyThomas S. Kuhn: "I
of nature,as statements
about 'whatis
refuse. . . to comparetheoriesas representations
out
really
there.'"'1
In and forthe Marxiantheoreticaltradition,LaboratoryLife's critiqueof scientists'
claims that their theories "discover" a "reality" independentof their theoryhas a
againsttheempiricism
particularimportance.Theircritiqueadds yetanotherformulation
thatpervades the Marxiantradition.This empiricismis typicallyexpressedin claimsby
one or anotherMarxisttendencythatit "is truerto" or "validatedby" a "reality,"which
Latour and Woolgarwouldshowis nothingbutthe"split"othersideofthesametendency.
to Marxismbysettingtheirworkagainstthe
I can perhapsbestillustratetheircontribution
"The
P.
recent
of
E.
PovertyofTheoryorAn OrreryofErrors."2
essay,
Thompson's
logic
The essay is particularlyinstructivebecause it is a self-defenseagainst the charge of
'Thomas Kuhn, "Reflectionson My Critics,"in ImreLakatos and Alan Musgrave(eds.), Criticismand the
Growthof Knowledge(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press, 1970), p. 265.
2See E. P. Thompson, The Povertyof Theoryand OtherEssays (New York and London: MonthlyReview
Press, 1978), p. 1-210.

112

Unequal Developments

as "obviously"inadequate,and nonetheless
empiricism,a brusquerejectionofempiricism
also a thoroughlyempiricistdiscourse.The essayand itsreceptionbymanyof itsreaders
of theempiricist
epistemologicalstandpointwithinthe
exemplifythe continuingstrength
Marxisttradition.
Thompson repeatedlystatesthatitis "obvious" thatconceptsare neveridenticalwith
"the real" (pp. 211, 223, and passim). Nonetheless,he writesparagraphafterparagraph
negatingjust this"obvious" point.In theseparagraphshe discoursesat lengthabout the
relationbetween "historicalknowledge"and "its object." This relationis understoodas
thatbetween conceptand realityas ifthesewere independententities.Thus Thompson
writesa discourseabout "reality,"apparentlyunawarethathe mustof coursebe dealing
witha, or rather,hisconceptofthatreality.WhatThompsonis doingisdiscoursing
upona
relationbetweentwo concepts:thatof "historicalknowledge"and thatof "the object of
thatknowledge." To impute"reality"to thelatterconcept,whichThompsonrepeatedly
does, is preciselyto collapse conceptand realityintoone another,theself-same"obvious
impossibility"he elsewhere rejects. Thompson is guiltyof exactly the "marvelous
criticize.
splitting"processwhichLatour and Woolgarso effectively
To admit that different
theoriesor knowledgesare basicallydistinguished,among
otherways, by how theydifferently
conceiveof theirdifferent
objects is apparentlytoo
much for Thompson. For him, the Latour-and-Woolgar-type
notion of theoryas a
terrain
of
ceaseless
contest
and
of
alternative
struggle
possible orderings
particular
amountsto cuttingtheoryor knowledgefromitsconnectionto "thereal." His reaction,so
widely produced by others withinand withoutthe Marxist tradition,is to save the
withthe real.
connectionby collapsingat least one of his conceptsintoidentity
For Latour and Woolgarrealityis thefluxand struggleamongalternativeconceptual
frameworks;forThompsontheremustbe a "reality"independentof all theorieswhich
acts as finalarbiterdetermining
"truth"amongcontestingtheories.For Thompson,the
is
this
historian, reality "history,"theobjectofMarxisttheories.Fromthispositionitis but
a veryshortstep to the epistemologicalstandpointof "history"as measure,test,of the
validityof the differenttheories.Thompson's empiricismlies in his assertionthathis
concept of history,his notion of a "reality" independentof theorywhich validates
contestingtheories,is not onlyhisconceptbutis simultaneously
realityitself.Thompson
a
rather
needs
and
claims
absolute
sort
of
truth.
evidently
That Thompson makes his conceptual frameworkthe standpointfromwhich to
evaluate all othersis, forLatourand Woolgar,whatall thedifferent
frameworks
do; thatis
the struggleamong them.WhatLatour and Woolgarrejectis Thompson'sclaimto rank
other theoriesnot merelyin termsof theirlikenessto his but in termsof his posited
"reality."
WithintheMarxiantheoreticaltradition,therehas been and continuestobe an intense
debate over itsepistemologicalstandpoint.Those, suchas Thompson,whoviewtheoryas
therepresentation
ofthe"reality"havecontested
aimingat and moreor lessaccomplishing
a verydifferent
againstthose claimingthatMarx formulated
epistemologicalstandpoint.
The latter,mostnotablyLenin,Lukics, and Althusser,have developedMarx'snotionsof
dialectical materialismas the core of Marxisttheory'sepistemologicalstandpoint.3
One
Lenin, "ConspectusofHegel's Book, TheScienceof Logic," inhis CollectedWorks,Vol. 38
3See particularly
of Lukics can be foundin thefollowing
(Moscow: ProgressPublishers,1972), pp. 85-326. The contributions
three works particularly:"Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat,"in Historyand Class
Consciousness, trans. Rodney Livingstone(London: MerlinPress, 1971), especiallypp. 178-222; "Art and

113

LaboratoryLife

centraltheme forthemis thatMarxisttheoryrejectsthe epistemologicalnotionof two

and being,inwhichtheformeraimsat thetruthofthelatter.
independentrealms,thinking
thatthinking
is one constituent
aspectof,or processwithin,
They preferthe formulation
the social totality.As such, thinkingis both determinedby all the otherconstituent
each ofthem.Moreover,likeall other
processesof societyand participatesindetermining
is characterizedbycomplexcontradictions
constituentsocial processes,thinking
resulting
fromthe complex mannerof its determinationby all the othersocial processes. The
withinthethinking
contradictions
processappear,then,as opposed theoriesand indeedas
opposed statementswithinexistingtheories.The struggleand changewithinand among
of thethinking
theoriesemergesfromthecontradictions
process.
Latour and Woolgarhave produceda volumeinmanywaysconsonantwiththisgeneral
formulationof Marxisttheory'sepistemologicalstandpoint,its conceptof the relation
above all forthatreason;
between thinkingand being.Theirworkis, I believe,important
to the centralMarxistdebate over
Marxistsshould read it because of its contributions
epistemology.Especially in the Anglo-Saxonworld,wheremattersof episteinologyand
methodologyusuallyreceiveshortshrift,Marxistsneed to contendwiththe natureand
crucialtheoreticaland politicalconsequencesof all thepositionswithinthisdebate.
RichardD. Wolff
and Critic,trans.ArthurKahn (London: MerlinPress,1970),pp. 25-60; and Marx's
Objective Truth,"in Writer
Basic OntologicalPrinciples,trans.David Fernbach(London: MerlinPress, 1978), especiallyparts1 and 2 and
and Contradiction,"in
pp. 106-109. Althusser'sargumentson thesepointsare foundin "Overdetermination
For Marx, trans.Ben Brewster(New York: VintageBooks, 1970), pp. 87-128; ReadingCapital,trans.Ben
trans.Grahame
Brewster(London: New LeftBooks, 1970),especiallypp. 91-164; and EssaysinSelf-Criticism,
Lock (London: New LeftBooks, 1976), especiallypages 105-50 and 163-207.

(f)
K_

X
?

><

Contentsof #5:"Artand Ideology,"Pt. I (now available)

MaterialistLiteraryTheoryin France,1965-1975by Claude Bouche
"Marksof Weakness":Ideology,Science and Textual Criticismby JamesH.
Kazvanagh
Literature
as an IdeologicalForm:Some MarxistPropositionsby Pierre
Machereyand EtienneBalibar
ArtisticPracticeby EnriqueGonzalez Rojo
The School of Althusserand AestheticThought(commentary)by Stefan
Morawski
Ideology,Production,Text: PierreMacherey'sMaterialistCriticismby Francis
Barker

SHORTREVIEWS
as Non-Criticism
Althusser:Self-Criticism
by Mark Poster
a CriticalIdeologyby JamesH. Kavanagh
Constructing
Class Strugglein LiteraryFormand Deformationby Bill Langen
On LanguageRequirementsby Tom Conley
and Ideology by RobertDAmico
Linguistics
A Sociology of Texts by RobertSayre

Singlecopy: $4.50 Subscription(2 issues): U.S. $7.00

Distributedin theU.K., Europe and the Commonwealthby Pluto Press
Praxis,P.O. Box 1280, Santa Monica, California90406 USA