ANTROPOCEFA- Kit para la fabricación de colaboraciones etnográficas experimentales

En el marco de las reflexiones sobre la etnografía como “colaboración/experimento” la semana que viene presentaremos ANTROPOCEFA, un kit para aprender a “experimentar con la colaboración etnográfica o colaborar en experimentos etnográficos

ANTROPOCEFA

__

¿Reflexiona a menudo que las ciencias sociales ya no son lo que eran?¿Se empeñó en hacer investigación militante y nadie dentro de su facultad le escuchó?¿Tiene claros indicios de una falta de credibilidad permanente entre sus informantes etnográficos?¿Se ha encontrado con dificultades para el acceso a ciertos sitios repletos de expertos, activistas o artistas? ¿Se siente arrinconado por el Big Data y le han rechazado con displicencia por ser investigador cualitativo? ¿Está aburrido usted del multiculturalismo, del interculturalismo, del pragmatismo y del neoliberalismo? ¿Tiene pesadillas con la investigación participativa? ¿Ya no sabe si viene o si va y la vida le es indiferente? Si es de aquellos que cree que su única salida pasa por la reinvención de sus métodos etnográficos, ¡no se preocupe!, el nuevo kit ANTROPOCEFA pone de nuevo a su alcance la posibilidad de reequipar su instrumental metodológico…

Estaremos presentando este revolucionario producto los próximos días 7 y 8 de mayo de 2014 en Medialab-Prado (Madrid), dentro del encuentro de Sociología Ordinaria. Si está interesado en realizar pruebas o contactar con nosotros, no dude en pasar por nuestro stand. Anímese porque ¡la antropología colaborativa está en la pomada! Para más información, descargue nuestro tríptico informativo:  kit ANTROPOCEFA

 ANTROPOCEFA es un alambique contemporáneo para la renovación experimental de sus relaciones de campo. Ningún sitio ni momento quedarán fuera de su alcance…

 ANTROPOCEFA es un equipamiento epistémico para refuncionar los principios de la genuina investigación empírica antropológica…

 ANTROPOCEFA hará que la vida académica sea de nuevo sinónimo de gozo y diversión…

 ¡Y todo ello sólo con poner su imaginación a trabajar a través del uso de nuestros pequeños dispositivos!

Este fabuloso kit le permitirá re-equipar sus habilidades etnográficas para el controvertido mundo de las interacciones sociales ¡sin necesidad de encerrarse en un despacho! Olvídese de campus grises, manuscritos amarillentos y seminarios desorientados y recupere la venturosa vida de las relaciones colaborativas. Con el fabuloso kit ANTROPOCEFA podrá experimentar sin límites.

ANTROPOCEFA le ayudará a:

 –        Darle vida a sus métodos para aprender cómo investigan otras personas, incorporando y compartiendo recetas, métodos y estrategias…
 –        Refuncionar sus sitios para-etnográficos con nuevas relaciones de campo que suspenden los objetivos de la etnografía…
 –        Decorar eficazmente las ambientaciones epistémicas para pensar acompañado de otros…
–        Renovar sus preguntas, re-elaborar su mirada, transformar su sensibilidad epistémica y repensar sus formas de representación.
 –        Experimentar colaborativamente con sus trabajos de investigación, a través de la incorporación en el proceso de sus contrapartes (antes conocidos como informantes)…

 Para todo ello el Kit ANTROPOCEFA se compone de:

1) Polvos catalizadores de la colaboración
Si habitualmente le ha faltado la química y ha necesitado una ayudita para entablar nuevas relaciones o pensar de manera diferente a la academia más aburrida, pruebe a enriquecer sus momentos dándoles un toquecito experimental. Pruebe nuestros polvos catalizadores de la colaboración. Con ellos nunca faltará la ilusión ni la iniciativa para pensar experimentalmente y entender que ¡siempre hay una manera! Sólo hay que encontrarla y experimentarla…

2) Un fantástico desfibrilador colaborativo
Cuando las cosas se ponen complicadas esta es una herramienta esencial para mantener sus relaciones de campo con vida… ¡No deje nunca que su objeto de investigación se le muera por el camino!

3) Escafandra etnográfica
Para las experimentaciones más arriesgadas pruebe nuestra escafandra etnográfica, le protegerá de las atmósferas corrosivas y generará un ambiente epistémico saludable. ¡Espacialmente recomendado!

4) Varita antropomágica
Lo más importante, para aquellos momentos en que las cosas ya no funcionan y no sabe cómo regenerar sus relaciones, pruebe nuestra varita antropomágica de inspiración azande, ¡capaz de sacarle de sus mayores apuros!

*** 

ANTROPOCEFA ¡ya disponible en sus distribuidores de cultura libre autorizados!

ANTROPOCEFA es un producto licenciado BY-SA por la Factoría El Caco, su tienda amiga de experimentación académica. Más información en: http://etnografiatecnociencias.wordpress.com

***

 ¡Advertencia!
Al manipular experimentalmente sus relaciones con ANTROPOCEFA la revolución epistémica puede estallarle en las manos. La empresa no se hace responsable del mal uso de los dispositivos metodológicos incluidos en el equipamiento.

__

 

¡¡NUEVO!! VÍDEO DE LA DEMOSTRACIÓN DISPONIBLE AQUÍ

Anuncios

CfP EASA 2014 | Ethnography as collaboration/experiment

Ethnography as collaboration/experiment

CfP Invited Panel – EASA2014: Collaboration, Intimacy & Revolution

Ethnography as collaboration/experiment

Provocation

In the past decades, anthropology has shifted from its traditional naturalistic mode with the ‘been-there-done-that’ rhetoric of immersive fieldwork to new forms of ethnographic engagement that intensify the involvement of anthropologists with their counterparts (Fassin & Bensa, 2008; Faubion & Marcus, 2009). ‘Collaboration’ has been one of the figures invoked by anthropology to describe this situation. However it is far from new (Stull & Schensul, 1987; Ruby, 1992): since the 1980s collaboration has been proposed as a way to inform ethically our relations in the field (Hymes, 1972), or as a way to engage politically with anthropological fieldwork (Juris, 2007). In the last years collaboration has been mobilized again but in this case in a new sense. It has been proposed as a methodological response to the ethnographies that are developed in expert contexts of knowledge production like scientific laboratories, political institutions, economic organizations or artistic and activist collectives. Holmes & Marcus (2008) have argued that in such context people have ‘para-ethnographic’ practices very similar to those of anthropologists. As a consequence, they can no longer be treated as ‘informants’ but as collaborating counterparts. In this situation, the articulation of relations in the field in a collaborative mode forces anthropologists to reconsider the scope of their epistemic practices and to rethink the outcomes and representational modes in a gesture that ‘refunctions ethnography’ (Holmes & Marcus 2005).

Following this argument, collaboration seems to be an ethnographic mode specifically apposite for social contexts devoted to the production of knowledge. But we have witnessed an intense change in the production of knowledge in the last years. Many hybrid institutions have emerged as part of processes that have brought about profound shifts in the nature and distribution of expertise (Nowotny et al. 2001). The generalization of digital technologies seems to have intensified this trend, as well as added new challenges to the anthropological fieldwork (Kelty et al. 2009). People with no social science expertise are taking part in the fabric of social science research through the development of tools (visualization of Twitter interactions, techniques for the extraction of Facebook social data…) that allow them to elaborate very sophisticated analyses of large empirical data.

Therefore, collaboration seems to be an ethnographic mode that could be generalized to even more contexts. In fact, we consider it to be part of the wider debate on the need to reinvent social science research methods provoked by this widespread distribution of digital technologies. A situation that, for some authors, represents a coming crisis for the social sciences (Savage & Burrows, 2007) while it is interpreted by others as a chance to renew the social sciences (Lury & Wakeford, 2012).

This claim for a collaborative mode in ethnography is part of the emergence of collaboration as a figure praised in many social contexts. It is pointed out by governments when promoting collaborative efforts in innovation; it is mobilized in artistic contexts as a way to articulate publics and to figure the social engagement of art; it is also claimed by technology designers and developers as a key feature of digital culture; it is praised and carefully reworked by marketing experts exploring the transformations of all of these features so as to articulate the brand new modes of a post-austerity ‘collaborative economy’. In such contexts, collaboration is praised as a value in itself and as a productive social practice. In its ethnographic mode collaboration seems to point to a two-way egalitarian relation that produces at the same time egalitarian benefits (Konrad, 2008), although it is not always necessarily this way (Strathern, 2008). However, despite such a collaborative impetus in our contemporary societies we lack a precise vocabulary to pay attention to the particularities, nuances and differences of diverse modes of collaboration, a trend that has also affected our lack of detail in the articulation of multiple experiences of participation (Fish et al. 2011).

Hence, in this session we would like to suspend for a moment many of the assumptions we have over collaboration to ask some simple questions: What do we mean when we call a form of relation ‘collaborative’? What ethical imprint do we concede to such a practice? What are the political dimensions attributed to it?

In doing so we would like to take into account the invocation of collaboration in contemporary knowledge-production contexts without forgetting its twofold character referring either to the manifold ways of ‘doing together’ (collaboration as a social form) or to the more specific ways of joint thinking and information sharing (collaboration as an epistemic mode). In this vein, maybe collaboration might be characterized as a specific contemporary mode of inquiry on the transformations of relationality in knowledge production contexts. For this panel we would like to follow this trail, exploring this twofold features in the ongoing revival of more explicit forms of ethnographic research collaboration. We believe that doing so might open up the possibility not only to think of the contemporary conditions of production of anthropological knowledge but also to explore the transformation of the contemporary as a consequence of the intensification of the circulation of knowledge.

Or, to say it otherwise, to think of collaboration practices as experimental forms for ethnographic research. Building on the practices of experimental sciences, both Isabelle Stengers (2006) and Hans-Jorg Rheinberger (1997) have characterized ‘experimentation’ as the sociomaterial craft of devices that pose us new questions. An experiment is a controlled situation that has the power to convey us with the power to speak and think otherwise about our world, as creating ‘causes for thought.’ More concretely, Rheinberger (1997) describes experiments as a situations that allow experimenters to pose new questions that they might not even have had in advance. Thus, we would like to think of collaboration practices as experiments that allow anthropologists to pose questions that they might still not be able to grasp. Collaboration, therefore, is not simply a methodological strategy but a relational and epistemic mode which anthropologists recursively unfold to pose questions that they are still not able to articulate. In this vein, ‘experimentation’ becomes a figure for capturing the transformation of ethnography in these collaborative situations (Marcus 2013).

Building from this, in this invited panel we would like to focus on a cluster of modes of field engagement derived from these transformations and problematizations that we might call ‘ethnography as collaboration/experiment.’ We would like the slash in our title to direct our attention to collaboration as an experiment, proposing experimentation as a strategy for problematizing the diverse and always particular modes of collaboration. It is our believe that different modes of experimentation/collaboration might entail a proposal to ‘rethink from’ and maybe ‘experimenting with’ new ethnographic modes (Harvey & Knox, 2008; Rabinow, 2011). Hence, in this invited panel we are interested in works addressing the specificities of those modes of engagement we deem ‘collaborative’ and what we mean when we call a relation collaborative. Indeed, we would like to to pay attention to the temporalities of these relations and when they might be said to be collaborative and how they might be sustained in time. It is our believe that these questions challenge us with new questions related to our role as anthropologists:

  • What are the contexts –in spatial, temporal and relational terms- needed for ethnography as collaboration/experiment to happen?
  • How could experimental collaboration be established and maintained? What are its catalysers and experimental devices? Could experimental collaboration explode, such as laboratory experiments sometimes do?
  • What might the methodological, epistemic and relational transformations of such collaboration/experiments be? How is the expertise of social science redistributed in these experimental collaborations? Could collaborative experiments in the field make us think of more experimental forms of fieldwork collaboration?

In sum, we believe that paying attention to the contemporary contours of ethnography as ‘collaboration/experiment’ might offer us the possibility of exploring new conditions for the production of anthropological knowledge.

References

Faubion, J. D., & Marcus, G. E. (Eds.). (2009). Fieldwork Is Not What It Used to Be: Learning Anthropology’s Method in a Time of Transition. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Fassin, D., & Bensa, A. (Eds.). (2008). Les politiques de l’enquête: Épreuves ethnographiques. Paris: La Découverte.

Fish, A. et al. (2011). Birds of the Internet: Towards a field guide to the organization and governance of participation. Journal of Cultural Economy, 4(2), 157–187.

Harvey, P., & Knox, H. (2008). “Otherwise Engaged:” Culture, deviance and the quest for connectivity through road construction. Journal of Cultural Economy, 1(1), 79–92.

Holmes, D., & Marcus, G. E. (2005). Cultures of Expertise and the Management of Globalization: Toward the Refunctioning of Ethnography. In A. Ong & S. J. Collier (Eds.), Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics, and Ethics as Anthropological Problems (pp. 235-252). Oxford: Blackwell.

Holmes, D. R., & Marcus, G. E. (2008). Para-Ethnography. In L. Given (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods (pp. 596–598). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hymes, D (Ed.) (1972). Reinventing anthropology. New York: Random House

Juris, J. S. (2007). Practicing Militant Ethnography with the Movement for Global Resistance (MRG) in Barcelona. In S. Shukaitis & D. Graeber (Eds.), Constituent Imagination: Militant Investigation, Collective Theorization (pp. 164-176). Oakland, Calif: AK Press.

Kelty, C. et al. (2009). Collaboration, Coordination, and Composition: Fieldwork after the Internet. In J. D. Faubion & G. E. Marcus (Eds.), Fieldwork is Not What it Used to Be: Learning Anthropology’s Method in A Time of Transition (pp. 184–206). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Lury, C., & Wakeford, N. (Eds.). (2012). Inventive Methods: The happening of the social. London: Routledge.

Marcus, G. (2013). Experimental forms for the expression of norms in the ethnography of the contemporary. Hau. Journal of ethnographic theory, 3(2), 197–217.

Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Oxford: Polity.

Rabinow, P. (2011). The Accompaniment: Assembling the Contemporary. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.

Rheinberger, H.-J. (1997). Toward a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Ruby, J. (1992). Speaking For, Speaking About, Speaking With, or Speaking Alongside: An Anthropological And Documentary Dilemma. Journal of Film and VIdeo, 44(1-2), 42–66

Savage, M., & Burrows, R. (2007). The Coming Crisis of Empirical Sociology. Sociology, 45(5), 885-889.

Stull, D., & Schensul, J. J. (1987). Collaborative research and social change: applied anthropology in action. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Stengers, I. (2006). La Vierge et le neutrino : Les scientifiques dans la tourmente. Paris: Les Empêcheurs de Penser en Rond / La Découverte.

Strathern, M. (2012). Currencies of Collaboration. In M. Konrad (Ed.), Collaborators Collaborating. Counterparts in Anthropological Knowledge and International Research Relations (pp. 109-125). New York and Oxford: Berghahn.

__

13th EASA Biennial Conference
Collaboration, Intimacy & Revolution – innovation and continuity in an interconnected world
Department of Social and Cultural Anthropology, Estonian Institute of Humanities, Tallinn University, Estonia
31st July – 3rd August, 2014

Convenors

Adolfo Estalella (The University of Manchester)
Tomás Sánchez Criado (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona)

Panel Discussant

Alban Bensa (Iris – EHESS), French anthropologist, Directeur d’études at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales and joint director of the IRIS (Institut de recherche interdisciplinaire sur les enjeux sociaux – Sciences sociales, Politique, Santé), with field expertise in New Caledonia and the Kanak people. He has worked on the epistemological and political groundings of an anthropology of action, the event and social transformations. He has also worked on the political and practical conditions of anthropological fieldwork, a field in which he has recently co-edited with Didier Fassin the book Les politiques de l’enquête. Épreuves ethnographiques (2008).

Key dates
Call for papers: 27/12/2013-27/02/2014
Registration opens: 10/04/2014
End of early-bird rate: 22/05/2014

CfP Opening up the urban interface – 4S/ESOCITE Buenos Aires 2014

Opening up the urban interface: The smart city and other experimental forms of ‘infrastructural politics’

Martin Tironi, Centre de Sociologie de l’Innovation, Mines ParisTech

Tomás Sánchez Criado, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

Francesca Musiani, Centre de Sociologie de l’Innovation, Mines ParisTech

Open Panel for the Annual Meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science (4S) / ESOCITE, Buenos Aires, 20-23 August 2014, Intercontinental Hotel, (City Center).

Proposal

‘Smart city’ is becoming a fashionable concept in urban design (Picon, 2014), designating cities governed through the pervasive use of digital devices. In line with these prospects, many contemporary cities around the world are engaging in an experimental deployment of smart devices (Marres, 2012; Karvonen & van Heuer, in press). They ask experts and citizens to either become avid interpreters of sensors’ data or engage in urban automated governance on a variety of aspects, including air quality, urban hygiene, traffic lights and roads maintenance, mobility and public transportation or urban accessibility. Thus, they contribute to the articulation of cyborg citizens (Gandy, 2005; Sheller & Urry, 2006) or citizens as sensors (Goodchild, 2007).

However, beyond these top-down institutional and industrial-led projects, many citizens are also organizing into grassroots collectives seeking to ‘open up the urban interface’ in different ways. These are activist-led projects, permeated by a hacker ethos, targeting the intervention/transformation of a wide variety of urban infrastructures, articulating free-culture-like formats of public space design and use (Corsín, in press; Musiani, 2013; Van Oost et al., 2009). We believe such an ‘opening’ might bring to the fore a new ‘infrastructural politics’ (Denis & Pontille, 2013; Domínguez Rubio & Fogué, 2013). This allows scholars to counter the disembodied versions of the smart city project, and to rethink the very notion of ‘script’ considering the constant and ongoing work of intervening and maintaining scenarios and their alleged predispositions (Sánchez Criado et al., in press; Tironi, in press).

This session invites empirical work reflecting on the different ways in which the urban interface is being ‘opened up’ for scrutiny through these different experimental projects. It seeks to understand and theorise the different ways in which these projects are developing, intervening and countering the smart city project – and the definition of smartness itself.

References

Corsín, A. (in press). The Right to Infrastructure: A Prototype of Open Source Urbanism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. Retrieved from http://www.prototyping.es/uncategorized/the-right-to-infrastructure

Denis, J. & Pontille, D. (2013). Material Ordering and the Care of Things. CSI Working Papers Series nº 34. Retrieved from http://www.csi.ensmp.fr/working-papers/WP/WP_CSI_034.pdf

Domínguez Rubio, F., & Fogué, U. (2013). Technifying Public Space and Publicizing Infrastructures: Exploring New Urban Political Ecologies through the Square of General Vara del Rey. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(3), 1035-1052.

Gandy, M. (2005). Cyborg urbanization: complexity and monstrosity in the contemporary city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(1): 26-49.

Goodchild, M. F. (2007). Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal, 69(4), 211–221.

Karvonen, A. & Van Heur, B. (in press). Urban Laboratories: Experiments in Reworking Cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research

Marres, N. (2012). Material Participation: Technology, the Environment and Everyday Publics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Musiani, F. (2013). Nains sans géants. Architecture décentralisée et services internet. Paris: Presses des Mines.

Picon, A. (2014). Smart Cities. Théorie et critique d’un idéal auto-réalisateur. Paris: Edition B2.

Sánchez Criado, T.; López, D.; Roberts, C. and Domènech, M. (in press). Installing telecare, installing users: Felicity conditions for the instauration of usership. Science, Technology and Human Values.

Sheller, M. & Urry, J. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A, 38(2): 207-226.

Tironi, M. (in press) Faire circuler des velos et des personnes. L’écologie urbaine et maintenance du programme Vélib’ de Paris. Revue d’Anthropologie des connaissances.

Van Oost, E., Verhaegh, S., & Oudshoorn, N. (2009). From innovation community to community innovation user-initiated innovation in wireless Leiden. Science, Technology & Human Values, 34(2), 182-205.

__

Deadline for submissions March 3, 2014.
Submission abstracts should be up to 250 words. Paper titles should not exceed 10 words.
Languages accepted: English/Spanish/Portuguese
To apply, submit an “individual abstract” via the 4S portal
Once you have a user name and password, go to submit proposal > submit new proposal > paper abstract. After entering your details, check the box beside Open Session #71 Opening up the urban interface: The smart city and other experimental forms of ‘infrastructural politics’

Innovation in Digital Culture Research

Para quien esté por Barcelona en estas fechas. El Colectivo de investigadores Medi@acciones, de la Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, organiza una serie de seminarios interdisciplinares. El objetivo de los mismos es explorar el potencial creativo e innovador de las prácticas de investigación y los objetos de estudio de la cultura digital y la sociedad red.

Esta es la información sobre los seminarios abiertos:

Ethnography for theorising media and change
Dr. John Postill, Vice Chancellor’s Senior Research Fellow,
School of Media and Communication, RMIT University
25 Nov. 16:00-19:00
Sala Mitchell, IN·3, MediaTic
Roc Boronat, 117 Barcelona

Mobile Mediations: An Ethnography of Infrastructure on the Border of Haiti and the Dominican Republic
Dr. Heather A. Horst, Vice Chancellor’s Senior Research Fellow,
School of Media and Communication, RMIT University
26 Nov. 16:00-19:00
Sala Mitchell, IN·3, MediaTic
Roc Boronat, 117 Barcelona

Rethinking Fieldwork in Social Media
Dr. Annette Markham. Associate Professor, Dept. of Aesthetics & Communication, Aarhus University, Denmark. Guest Professor of Informatics, Umeå University, Sweden Affiliate Professor of Digital Media, School of Communication Loyola University-Chicago
11 Des. 16:00-19:00
Sala Mitchell, IN·3, MediaTic
Roc Boronat, 117 Barcelona

También podéis registraros en unos talleres que los mismos ponentes importirán. Para más información consultar aquí.

Simposio “Teoría del Actor-red: más allá de los estudios de ciencia y tecnología”

A propósito de la próxima publicación del libro “Teoría del Actor-Red: más allá de los estudios de ciencia y tecnología”, editado por Francisco J. Tirado y Daniel López, hemos organizado un simposio en el II Encuentro de la Red EsCTS que se celebrará en Gijón los días 24, 24 y 25 de Mayo. Contaremos con la participación de algunos de los autores, que nos presentarán sus contribuciones al libro, y a continuación tendremos un coloquio sobre el papel de la ANT como dispositivo especulativo.

Para que os hagáis una idea sobre el contenido de este simposio aquí tenéis detalladas las intervenciones y las personas que participarán. Tendrá lugar el jueves 24 de mayo de 15:30 a 17:30 en el Antiguo Instituto Jovellanos de Gijón.

  • Presentación del libro “Teoría del Actor-Red: más allá de los estudios de ciencia y tecnología” a cargo de Francisco J. Tirado (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona)
  • Jorge Castillo Sepúlveda y Francisco J. Tirado (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona), “La nueva materialidad del cáncer. Teoría del actor-red y objetos potenciales”
  • Blanca Callén Moréu (Lancaster University), “Software libre: abriendo las cajas negras de la tecnociencia”
  • Tomás Sánchez Criado (Universitat Oberta de Catalunya), “¿Cómo se mantiene una usuaria? Prácticas de apuntalamiento en la teleasistencia para personas mayores”
  • Daniel López Gómez (Vrije Universiteit Brussel), “Transiciones hacia otra(s) teoría(s) del actor-red: agnosticismo, interés y cuidado”
  • Paloma García Díaz (Universidad de Granada), “El rol diplomático del científico social y el modelo de normatividad interpretativa de Bruno Latour”
  • Isaac Marrero Guillamón (University of London, Birkbeck), “Por una teoría del actor-red menor: perspectivismo y monadología”
  • Coloquio “Teoria del actor-red: ¿dispositivo crítico o dispositivo especulativo?”, modera Daniel López Gómez (Vrije Universiteit Brussel)

Eventos de la Emerging Security Unit (Keele, UK)

Hola
Luís Lobo-Guerrero, director de la Emerging Securities Unit de la Keele University nos ha escrito para invitar a quien quiera a participar de sus próximos eventos.

El próximo día 7 de Noviembre tendrán un taller bajo el titulo de ‘Epistemologies of the Global, the Political and the International’ con Michael Shapiro como invitado especial. Más detalles en: http://epistemologiesofthepolitical.blogspot.com/

Asimism, en Junio de 2012 organizan un congreso de estudiantes doctorales alrededor de biopolítica, seguridad, etc. El profesor invitado sera Mark Duffield.

Id viendo la página web de la Emerging Securities Unit para más información actualizada: http://www.keele.ac.uk/esu/

Salud,
T

Diálogo entre Philippe Descola y Bruno Latour

En el marco de las actividades del Grupo FRUCTIS de la Université de Liège, dedicado al estudio las controversias tecnocientíficias como motor de innovación social, Philippe Descola y Bruno Latour van a tener un diálogo titulado: L’usage du tableau : anthropologie et histoire des sciences. Adjunto el programa para quien pueda estar interesado.

Bruno Latour et Philippe Descola à l’ULg les 28 et 29 septembre 2011


L’usage du tableau : anthropologie et histoire des sciences

L’université de Liège (ULg) et le Groupe de recherche Fructis ont le plaisir de recevoir Bruno Latour et Philippe Descola les 28 et 29 septembre 2011.

PROGRAMME

 28 septembre 2011 : Dialogue entre Philippe Descola (Collège de France et EHESS, Paris) et Bruno Latour (Sciences Po, Paris)

L’émergence d’une philosophie de la nature entre le 16ème et la fin du 18ème siècles reste, entre historiens et philosophes, un sujet de débats d’autant plus vifs que les questions écologiques s’imposent à la pensée. La controverse concerne à la fois l’anthropologie de la nature développée par Philippe Descola et les « humanités scientifiques » proposées par Bruno Latour. Dans ce dialogue nous voudrions ajouter la question clef des techniques de représentation et particulièrement l’influence des techniques picturales. La question à explorer en commun devient celle de savoir ce que les sciences naissantes ont tiré des inventions des peintres.

9h30-9h45 : Accueil et introduction des journées : Laurence Bouquiaux, Vinciane Despret, Lucienne Strivay

9h45-11h15 : Conférence de Philippe Descola

11h15-11h45 : pause café

11h45-13h : Réponse de  Bruno Latour

Pause de midi

14h30h-16h00 : Conférence de Bruno Latour

16h00-16h30 : pause café

16h30-17h45 : Réponse de Philippe Descola

17h45-18h30 : Débat avec la salle

29 septembre 2011 de 9h30 à 18h30 : Dialogue avec Philippe Descola (Collège de France et EHESS, Paris)

Le pouvoir qu’exercent sur nous les images vient en partie de ce qu’elles paraissent animées d’une causalité intentionnelle propre qui en fait des agents sociaux presque comme les autres. Mais la manière dont elles prennent vie n’est pas uniforme et dépend des propriétés ontologiques que l’on prête par ailleurs aux objets du monde. La conférence en proposera une systématique raisonnée.

9h30-11h : Conférence de Philippe Descola : « La vie des images » (1e partie)

11h-11h30 : pause café

11h30-13h : Conférence de Philippe Descola : « La vie des images » (2e partie)

Pause de midi

14h30-16h00 : Table ronde (1e partie)

Animée par Bernard Charlier (Paris/LAS), Sébastien Laoureux (FUNDP), François Mélard (ULg/Seed)

16h00-16h30 : pause café

16h30-17h45 : Table ronde (2e partie)

Animée par Catherine Mougenot (ULg/Seed), Olivier Servais (UCL/Laap), Lucienne Strivay (ULg)

17h45-18h30 : Débat avec la salle.

 

Comité organisateur

Pour le Groupe de recherche Fructis (www.fructis.ulg.ac.be) :Laurence Bouquiaux (ULg, Philosophie des sciences), Vinciane Despret (ULg, Philosophie des sciences) et Lucienne Strivay (ULg, Anthropologie de la nature).

Lieu

Salle des Professeurs

Place du XX-Août, 7

Université de Liège

4000 Liège

Belgique

Accès libre, places limitées, inscription obligatoire :

Bastien Dannevoye (bdannevoye@ulg.ac.be)