Theobjectofthispaperistopresentanoutlineofwhatisnowcalledsociologyoftranslationandtoshowthatthisanalyticalframeworkisparticularlywelladaptedtothestudyoftheroleplayedbyscienceandtechnologyinstructuringpowerrelationship

PontodePartida:Nosestudosdecinciaetecnologia,humaclaraassimetriaWhenitcomestoacknowledgingtherightofthescientistsandengineersthattheystudytodebate,sociologiststoleranceknowsnolimits.Thesociologistsactimpartiallyandrefertothedifferentprotagonistsinthesameterms,evenifoneamongthemsucceedsinimposinghiswill.Thesociologistsattributetheactorswithneitherreason,scientificmethod,truth,norefficiencybecausethesetermsdenotetheactorssuccesswithoutexplainingthereasonsforit.

However,theliberalismofthesesociologistsdoesnotextendtoallowtheactorsstudiedtodiscusssocietyanditsconstituentsinanopenmanner.Foroncetheyhavetakenthescientificandtechnicalaspectsofthecontroversiesintoaccount,thesociologistsfaithfullyrestoretheexistingpointsofviewtotheirplacesand,inaddition,theyrightlyabstainfromtakingsides.TheyacknowledgetheexistenceofapluralityofdescriptionsofNaturewithoutestablishinganyprioritiesorhierarchiesbetweenthesedescriptions.However,andthisiswheretheparadoxisrevealed,withintheirproposedanalyses,thesesocialscientistsactasifthisagnosticismtowardsnaturalscienceandtechnologywerenotapplicabletowardssocietyaswell.ForthemNatureisuncertainbutSocietyisnot

Thisasymmetryplaysacrucialroleintheexplanationofscienceandtechnology.SinceNaturebyitselfisnotinapositiontoestablishaconsensusbetweenexperts,thensociologistsandphilosophersrequiresomethingwhichismoreconstrainingandlessequivocal,toexplaintheemergence,development,andeventualclosureofcontroversies.Somerelegatethissuperiorforcetothescientificmethodand,consequently,totheexistenceofsocialnormswhichguaranteeitsexecution.4Othersturntoexistingsocialforcessuchasclasses,organizationsorprofessions.5Whenthesocietydescribedbysociologistsconfrontsnature(nomatterwhichdescriptiontheygive),societyalwayshasthelastword.6Ifthenormsareremoved,thesciencescollapses.Iftheexistenceofsocialclassesandtheirinterestsisdeniedorifthebattlewagedagainstscientiststoincreasetheirpersonalcapitalofcredibilitydisappears,thenscienceandtechnologycomestoahalt,deprivedofanyoutlet.

Issogeratresgrandesdificuldades:

1)Thefirstandmostapparentdifficultyisamatterofstyle

Thesociologisttendstocensorselectivelytheactorswhentheyspeakofthemselves,theirallies,theiradversaries,orsocialbackgrounds.HeallowsthemtoexpressthemselvesfreelyonlywhentheyspeakofNature.TheimpressionofsociologicalreductionismtoooftengivenbythebestwritingsonscientificcontentisevidentlyaproductofthissystematicandattimesrelentlesscensorshipundertakenbysociologistsinthenameofsociologyThesocialanalysesandinterpretationswhichtheyproposeanddiscussatthesametimeareconsideredtobeirrelevant,orworse,areusedagainstthemtocriticizetheirscientificandtechnicalchoices.8Sometimestheeffectcanbesodevastatingthatthereaderhastheimpressionofattendingatrialofnaturalsciencepresidedoverbyaprivilegedscientificknowledge(sociology)whichhasbeenjudgedtobeindisputableandabovecriticism.

2)Theseconddifficultyisofatheoreticalnature.Asanumberofauthorshaverevealed,thecontroversiesoversociologicalexplanationsareinterminable.Consensus,whenitoccurs,seemsevenmorerareandfragilethaninotherfields

Theissueisclear:thesociologicalexplanationofscientificandtechnicalcontroversiesisasdebatableastheknowledgeandobjectswhichitaccountsfor.Thetheoreticaldifficultyisthefollowing:fromthemomentoneacceptsthatbothsocialandnaturalsciencesareequallyuncertain,ambiguous,anddisputable,itisnolongerpossibletohavethemplayingdifferentrolesintheanalysis.SincesocietyisnomoreobviousorlesscontroversialthanNature,sociologicalexplanationcanfindnosolidfoundations

3)thethirddifficultyismethodological.Duringtheirelaborations,thosesociologistswhohavestudiedscientificandtechnicalinnovationshaverealizedthatboththeidentityandtherespectiveimportanceoftheactorsareatissueinthedevelopmentofcontroversies.

WhataretheconvictionsofPasteurorPouchetconcerningspontaneousgeneration?Thepositionsoftheprotagonistsareneverclearlydefined,evenretrospectively.Thisisbecausethedefinitionofthesepositionsiswhatisatissue.Scienceandtechnologyaredramaticstoriesinwhichtheidentityoftheactorsisoneoftheissuesathand.Theobserverwhodisregardstheseuncertaintiesriskswritingaslantedstorywhichignoresthefactthattheidentitiesofactorsareproblematic.

Onewaytoavoidthesedifficultieswouldbetoreturntothebeginningandsimplydenythepossibilityofprovidingasociologicaldefinitionofscienceandtechnology.Anotherpossibilityconservesandextendstherecentfindingsofthesociologyofscienceandtechnology.

OBJETIVO:Inthispaper,wehopetoshowthattheanalysiscanbecarriedoutusingasocietywhichisconsideredtobeuncertainanddisputable

Questoes:Withinthecontroversiesstudied,theinterveningactorsdevelopcontradictoryargumentsandpointsofviewwhichleadthemtoproposedifferentversionsofthesocialandnaturalworlds.Whatwouldhappenifsymmetryweremaintainedthroughouttheanalysisbetweenthenegotiationswhichdealwiththenaturalandthesocialworlds?Wouldtheresultinevitablybetotalchaos?

PRINCPIOSMETODOLGICOS

1)AgnosticismoThefirstprincipleextendstheagnosticismoftheobservertoincludethesocialsciencesaswell.Notonlyistheobserverimpartialtowardsthescientificandtechnologicalargumentsusedbytheprotagonistsofthecontroversy,buthealsoabstainsfromcensoringtheactorswhentheyspeakaboutthemselvesorthesocialenvironment.Herefrainsfromjudgingthewayinwhichtheactorsanalyzethesocietywhichsurroundsthem.Nopointofviewisprivilegedandnointerpretationiscensored.Theobserverdoesnotfixtheidentityoftheimplicatedactorsifthisidentityisstillbeingnegotiated.

2)SimetriaGeneralizadaThegoalisnotonlytoexplainconflictingviewpointsandargumentsinascientificortechnologicalcontroversyinthesameterms.WeknowthattheingredientsofcontroversiesareamixtureofconsiderationsconcerningbothSocietyandNature.Forthisreasonwerequiretheobservertouseasinglerepertoirewhentheyaredescribed.Therulewhichwemustrespectisnottochangeregisterswhenwemovefromthetechnicaltothesocialaspectsoftheproblemstudied.

Thevocabularychosenforthesedescriptionsandexplanationscanbelefttothediscretionoftheobserver.Hecannotsimplyrepeattheanalysissuggestedbytheactorsheisstudying.However,aninfinitenumberofrepertoiresispossible.14Itisuptothesociologisttochoosetheonethatseemsthebestadaptedtohistaskandthentoconvincehiscolleaguesthathemadetherightchoice.Nessecaso,escolhidoovocabulriodatraduo

3)LivreAssociaoTheobservermustabandonallaprioridistinctionsbetweennaturalandsocialevents.Hemustrejectthehypothesisofadefiniteboundarywhichseparatesthetwo.Thesedivisionsareconsideredtobeconflictual,fortheyaretheresultofanalysisratherthanitspointofdeparture.Further,theobservermustconsiderthattherepertoireofcategorieswhichheuses,theentitieswhicharemobilized,andtherelationshipsbetweenthesearealltopicsforactorsdiscussions.Insteadofimposingapre-establishedgridofanalysisuponthese,theobserverfollowstheactorsinordertoidentifythemannerinwhichthesedefineandassociatethedifferentelementsbywhichtheybuildandexplaintheirworld,whetheritbesocialornatural.

OPROCESSODETRADUO

Thisendeavourconsistsoffourmomentswhichcaninrealityoverlap.Thesemomentsconstitutethedifferentphasesofageneralprocesscalledtranslation,duringwhichtheidentityofactors,thepossibilityofinteractionandthemarginsofmanoeuvrearenegotiatedanddelimited.

1)Problematizao

Butintheirdifferentwrittendocumentsthethreeresearchersdidnotlimitthemselvestothesimpleformulationoftheabovequestions.Theydeterminedasetofactorsanddefinedtheiridentitiesinsuchawayastoestablishthemselvesananobligatorypassagepointinthenetworkofrelationshipstheywerebuilding.Thisdoublemovement,whichrendersthemindispensableinthenetwork,iswhatwecallproblematization.AsFigure2shows,theproblematizationdescribesasystemofalliances,orassociations,28betweenentities,therebydefiningtheidentityandwhattheywant

1.1definiodosatores

Thequestionsformedbythethreeresearchersandthecommentariesthattheyprovidebringthreeotheractorsdirectlyintothestory:21thescallops(Pectenmaximus),thefishermenofSt.BrieucBay,andthescientificcolleagues.22Thedefinitionsoftheseactors,astheyarepresentedinthescientistsreport,isquiterough.Howeveritissufficientlyprecisetoexplainhowtheseactorsarenecessarilyconcernedbythedifferentquestionswhichareformulated.Ofcourse,andwithoutthistheproblematizationwouldlackanysupport,thethreeresearchersalsorevealwhattheythemselvesareandwhattheywant.Theypresentthemselvesasbasicresearcherswho,impressedbytheforeignachievement,seektoadvancetheavailableknowledgeconcerningaspecieswhichhadnotbeenthoroughlystudiedbefore.Byundertakingthisinvestigation,theseresearchershopetorenderthefishermenslifeeasierandincreasethestockofscallopsofSt.BrieucBay.Thisexampleshowsthattheproblematization,ratherthanbeingareductionoftheinvestigationtoasimpleformulation,touchesonelements,atleastpartiallyandlocally,whicharepartsofboththesocialandthenaturalworlds.AsinglequestiondoesPectenmaximusanchor?isenoughtoinvolveawholeseriesofactorsbyestablishingtheiridentitiesandthelinksbetweenthem.25

1.2definiodospontosdepassagemobrigatorios(opp)

Thethreeresearchersdonotlimitthemselvessimplytoidentifyingafewactors.Theyalsoshowthattheinterestsoftheseactorslieinadmittingtheproposedresearchprogramme.Theargumentwhichtheydevelopintheirpaperisconstantlyrepeated:ifthescallopswanttosurvive(nomatterwhatmechanismsexplainthisimpulse),iftheirscientificcolleagueshopetoadvanceknowledgeonthissubject(whatevertheirmotivationsmaybe),ifthefishermenhopetopreservetheirlongtermeconomicinterests(whatevertheirreasons)thentheymust:1)knowtheanswertothequestion:howdoscallopsanchor?,and2)recognizethattheiralliancearoundthisquestioncanbenefiteachofthem.

2)Thedevicesofinteressement'

Onpaper,ormoreexactly,inthereportsandarticlespresentedbythethreeresearchers,theidentifiedgroupshavearealexistence.Butrealityisaprocess.Likeachemicalbodyitpassesthroughsuccessivestates.Atthispointinourstory,theentitiesidentifiedandtherelationshipsenvisagedhavenotyetbeentested.Thesceneissetforaseriesoftrialsofstrengthwhoseoutcomewilldeterminethesolidityofourresearchersproblematization

Eachentityenlistedbytheproblematizationcansubmittobeingintegratedintotheinitialplan,orinversely,refusethetransactionbydefiningitsidentity,itsgoals,projects,orientations,motivations,orinterestsinanothermanner.Infactthesituationisneversoclearcut.Asthephaseofproblematizationhasshown,itwouldbeabsurdfortheobservertodescribeentitiesasformulatingtheiridentityandgoalsinatotallyindependentmanner.Theyareformedandareadjustedonlyduringaction.Interessementisthegroupofactionsbywhichanentity(herethethreeresearchers)attemptstoimposeandstabilizetheidentityoftheotheractorsitdefinesthroughitsproblematization.Differentdevicesareusedtoimplementtheseactions

[Inproblematization,theresearchersdefinethe]goalsortheinclinationsoftheirallies.Butthesealliesaretentativelyimplicatedintheproblematizationsofotheractors.Theiridentitiesareconsequentlydefinedinothercompetitiveways.Itisinthissensethatoneshouldunderstandinteressement.Tointerestotheractorsistobuilddeviceswhichcanbeplacedbetweenthemandallotherentitieswhowanttodefinetheiridentitiesotherwise.AinterestsBbycuttingorweakeningallthelinksbetweenBandtheinvisible(orattimesquitevisible)groupofotherentitiesC,D,E,etc.whomaywanttolinkthemselvestoB.

ThepropertiesandidentityofB(whetheritisamatterofscallops,scientificcolleagues,orfishermen)areconsolidatedand/orredefinedduringtheprocessofinteressement.BisaresultoftheassociationwhichlinksittoA.ThislinkdisassociatesBfromalltheC,D,andEs(iftheyexist)thatattempttogiveitanotherdefinition.Wecallthiselementaryrelationshipwhichbeginstoshapeandconsolidatethesociallinkthetriangleofinteressement.

Therangeofpossiblestrategiesandmechanismsthatareadoptedtobringabouttheseinterruptionsisunlimited.ItmaybepureandsimpleforceifthelinksbetweenB,CandDarefirmlyestablished.ItmaybeseductionorasimplesolicitationifBisalreadyclosetotheproblematizationofA.ExceptinextremelyrarecaseswhentheshapingofBcoincidesperfectlywiththeproposedproblematization,theidentityandgeometryoftheinterestedentitiesaremodifiedallalongtheprocessofinteressement

3)Enrolment

Nomatterhowconstrainingthetrappingdevice,nomatterhowconvincingtheargument,successisneverassured.Inotherwords,thedeviceofinteressementdoesnotnecessarilyleadtoalliances,thatis,toactualenrolment.Theissuehereistotransformaquestionintoaseriesofstatementswhicharemorecertain:Pectenmaximusdoesanchor;thefishermenwanttorestocktheBay.

Enrolmentdoesnotimply,nordoesitexclude,pre-establishedroles.Itdesignatesthedevicebywhichasetofinterrelatedrolesisdefinedandattributedtoactorswhoacceptthem.Interessementachievesenrolmentifitissuccessful.Todescribeenrolmentisthustodescribethegroupofmultilateralnegotiations,trialsofstrengthandtricksthataccompanytheinteressementsandenablethemtosucceed.

Thereforeforthemostpart,thenegotiationiscarriedoutbetweenthreepartiessincethefourthpartnerwasenrolledwithoutanyresistance.Thisexampleillustratesthedifferentpossiblewaysinwhichtheactorsareenrolled:physicalviolence(againstthepredators),seduction,transaction,consentwithoutdiscussion.Thisexamplemainlyshowsthatthedefinitionanddistributionofroles(thescallopswhichanchorthemselves,thefishermenwhoarepersuadedthatthecollectorscouldhelprestocktheBay,thecolleagueswhobelieveintheanchorage)arearesultofmultilateralnegotiationsduringwhichtheidentityoftheactorsisdeterminedandtested.

Thelistgoeson.Averitablebattleisbeingfought.Currentsandvisitorsareonlysomeoftheforceswhichareopposedtotheallianceswhichtheresearcherswishtoforgewiththescallops.39InthetriangleA-B-Cwhichwespokeofearlier,C,thepartytobeexcluded(whetheritiscalledcurrentsorstarfish)doesnotsurrendersoeasily.C(thestarfish)hasthepossibilityofinterruptingtherelationshipsbetweenA(theresearchers)andB(thelarvae).CdoesthisbyalsointerestingB(thelarvae)whicharecovetedbyall.

Thetowline,aninteressementdevice,revealsthelevelsofanchoragetotheobserver.Thehypothesesandtheinterpretationsoftheresearchersarenothingbutaprogrammeofnegotiations:larvae,shouldwesearchforyouatthebottomoftheBayorshouldwewaitforyouonyourwaydowninordertotrapyouasyousink?Thisisnotall.Theresearchersarereadytomakeanykindofconcessioninordertolurethelarvaeintotheirtrap.Whatsortofsubstancesdothelarvaeprefertoanchorthemselveson?Anotherseriesoftransactionsisnecessarytoanswerthequestion.

Withscientificcolleagues,thetransactionsweresimple:thediscussionoftheresultsshowsthattheywerepreparedtobelieveintheprincipleofanchorageandthattheyjudgedtheexperimenttobeconvincing.Theonlyconditionthatthecolleaguesposedisthattheexistenceofpreviousworkberecognized,workthathadpredicted,albeitimperfectly,thescallopscapacitytoanchor.43Itisatthispricethatthenumberofanchoragesclaimedbytheresearcherswillbejudgedassufficient.Ourthreeresearchersacceptafterironicallynotingthatallbonafidediscoveriesmiraculouslyunveilprecursorswhohadbeenpreviouslyignored.

Transactionswiththefishermen,orrather,withtheirrepresentatives,arenon-existent.Theywatchlikeamusedspectatorsandwaitforthefinalverdict.Theyarepreparedsimplytoaccepttheconclusionsdrawnbythespecialists.Theirconsentisobtained(inadvance)withoutanydiscussion.

4)MobilizationofAllies

Whospeaksinthenameofwhom?Whorepresentswhom?Thesecrucialquestionsmustbeanswerediftheprojectledbytheresearchersistosucceed.Thisisbecause,aswiththedescriptionofinteressementandenrolment,onlyafewrareindividualsareinvolved,whetherthesebescallops,fishermenorscientificcolleagues.

DoesPectenmaximusreallyanchoritself?Yes,accordingtothecolleagues,theanchorageswhichwereobservedarenotaccidental.Yet,thougheveryonebelievesthattheyarenotaccidentaltheyacknowledgethattheyarelimitedinnumber.Afewlarvaeareconsideredtobetheofficialrepresentativesofananonymousmassofscallopswhichsilentlyandelusivelylurkontheoceanfloor.Thethreeresearchersnegotiatetheinteressementofthescallopsthroughahandfuloflarvaewhichrepresentalltheuncountableothersthatevadecaptivity.Themassesatnotimecontradictthescallopswhichanchorthemselves.Thatwhichistrueforafewistrueforthewholeofthepopulation.

TheCBInegotiateswithuniondelegatestheyconsiderthelattertoberepresentativesofalltheworkers.Thissmallnumberofindividualsspeaksinthenameoftheothers.Inonecase,theepistemologistsspeakofinduction,inanother,politicalscientistsusethenotionofspokesman.Thequestionhoweveristhesame.Willthemasses(employers,workers,scallops)followtheirrepresentatives?Representationisalsoanissueintheresearcherstransactionswiththecolleaguesandfishermen.Properlyspeaking,itisnotthescientificcommunitywhichisconvincedbutafewcolleagueswhoreadthepublicationsandattendtheconference.ItisnotthefishermenbuttheirofficialrepresentativeswhogivethegreenlighttotheexperimentsandsupporttheprojectofrestockingtheBay.

Inbothcases,afewindividualshavebeeninterestedinthenameofthemassestheyrepresent(orclaimtorepresent).Thethreeresearchershaveformedarelationshipwithonlyafewrepresentativeswhethertheybelarvaeonacollector,professionaldelegatesorscientificcolleaguesparticipatingatacolloquium.Howeveritmayseemthatthesituationsarenotcomparable.Thedelegatesandcolleaguesspeakforthemselveswhilethelarvaearesilent.Ontheonehand,theyarerealspokesmenbutontheother,theanchoredlarvaearesimplyrepresentatives.Howeverthisdifferencedisappearsoncloseranalysis.

Usingthenotionofspokesmanforalltheactorsinvolvedatdifferentstagesoftheprocessofrepresentationdoesnotpresentanyproblem.Tospeakforothersistofirstsilencethoseinwhosenamewespeak.Itiscertainlyverydifficulttosilencehumanbeingsinadefinitivemannerbutitismoredifficulttospeakinthenameofentitiesthatdonotpossessanarticulatelanguage:thissupposestheneedforcontinuousadjustmentsanddevicesofinteressementthatareinfinitelymoresophisticated

Threemenhavebecomeinfluentialandarelistenedtobecausetheyhavebecometheheadofseveralpopulations.Theyhavemixedtogetherlearnedexperts,unpolishedfishermen,andsavourycrustaceans.Thesechainsofintermediarieswhichresultinasoleandultimatespokesmancanbedescribedastheprogressivemobilizationofactorswhorenderthefollowingpropositionscredibleandindisputablebyformingalliancesandactingasaunitofforce:PectenmaximusanchorsandthefishermenwanttorestocktheBay.

Thenotionofmobilizationisperfectlyadaptedtothemechanismsthatwehavedescribed.Thisisbecausethistermemphasizesallthenecessarydisplacements.Tomobilize,asthewordindicates,istorenderentitiesmobilewhichwerenotsobeforehand.Atfirst,thescallops,fishermen,andspecialistswereactuallyalldispersedandnoteasilyaccessible.Attheend,threeresearchersatBrestsaidwhattheseentitiesareandwant.Throughthedesignationofthesuccessivespokesmenandthesettlementofaseriesofequivalencies,alltheseactorsarefirstdisplacedandthenreassembledatacertainplaceataparticulartime.

Thescallopsaretransformedintolarvae,thelarvaeintonumbers.thenumbersintotablesandcurveswhichrepresenteasilytransportable,reproducible,anddiffusablesheetsofpaper(Latour,1985).InsteadofexhibitingthelarvaeandthetowlinestotheircolleaguesatBrest,thethreeresearchersshowgraphicrepresentationsandpresentmathematicalanalyses.Thescallopshavebeendisplaced.Theyaretransportedintotheconferenceroomthroughaseriesoftransformations.Thechoiceofeachnewintermediary,ofeachnewrepresentativemustalsomeetadoublerequirement:itrenderseachnewdisplacementeasieranditestablishesequivalenceswhichresultinthedesignationofthethreeresearchersasspokesmen.ItisthesameforthefishermentransformedintovotingballotsandthenprofessionaldelegateswhosepreviouslyrecordedpointsofviewarereportedtoBrest.

Ahandfulofresearchersdiscussafewdiagramsandafewtableswithnumbersinaclosedroom.Butthesediscussionscommituncountablepopulationsofsilentactors:scallops,fishermen,andspecialistswhoareallrepresentedatBrestbyafewspokesmen.Thesediversepopulationshavebeenmobilized.Thatis,theyhavebeendisplacedfromtheirhomestoaconferenceroom.Theyparticipate,throughinterposedrepresentatives,inthenegotiationsovertheanchorageofPectenmaximusandovertheinterestsofthefishermen.Theenrolmentistransformedintoactivesupport.

Theguarantor(orthereferent)existsoncethelongchainofrepresentativeshasbeenputintoplace.Itconstitutesaresultandnotastartingpoint.Itsconsistencyisstrictlymeasuredbythesolidityoftheequivalenciesthathavebeenputintoplaceandthefidelityofafewrareanddispersedintermediarieswhonegotiatetheirrepresentativityandtheiridentity

Thesocialandnaturalrealityisaresultofthegeneralizednegotiationabouttherepresentativityofthespokesmen.Ifconsensusisachieved,themarginsofmanoeuvreofeachentitywillthenbetightlydelimited.Theinitialproblematizationdefinedaseriesofnegotiablehypothesesonidentity,relationshipsandgoalsofthedifferentactors.Nowattheendofthefourmomentsdescribed,aconstrainingnetworkofrelationshipshasbeenbuilt.52Butthisconsensusandtheallianceswhichitimpliescanbecontestedatanymoment.Translationbecomestreason.

DISSIDNCIAS:TRAIESECONTROVRSIAS

Duringrecentyears,sociologistshavedevotednumerousstudiestocontroversiesandhaveshowntheimportantroletheyplayinthedynamicsofscienceandtechnology.Whyandinwhatconditionsdocontroversiesoccur?Howaretheyended?Theproposedschemaofanalysismakesitpossibletoexaminethesetwoquestionsinthesameway.Atthesametime,thisschemamaintainsthesymmetrybetweencontroversieswhichpertaintoNatureandthosewhichpertaintoSociety.

Isaspokesmanoranintermediaryrepresentative?Thisisapracticalandnotatheoreticalquestion.Itisaskedinthesamemannerforthescallops,thefishermenandthescientificcolleagues.Controversyisallthemanifestationsbywhichtherepresentativityofthespokesmanisquestioned,discussed,negotiated,rejected,etc.

Bynotchangingthegridofanalysis,themechanismsoftheclosureofacontroversyarenowmoreeasilyunderstood.Closureoccurswhenthespokesmenaredeemedtobebeyondquestion.Thisresultisgenerallyobtainedonlyafteraseriesofnegotiationsofallsortswhichcouldtakequitesometime.Thescallopsdonotfollowthefirstanchoredlarvaeandthefishermendonotrespectthecommitmentsoftheirrepresentatives;thisleadsthethreeresearcherstotransformthedeviceofinteressementusedforthescallopsandtheirlarvaeandtoundertakeavastcampaigntoeducateandinform(i.e.form)thefishermentochooseotherintermediariesandotherrepresentatives.

ExemploLetusstartwiththescallops.Thefirstexperimentor,ifweuseourvocabulary,actofinterressement,mobilizesthemintheformoflarvaeanchoredtocollectorsandintheformofdiagramsdiscussedatBrestbeforealearnedassembly.Thisgroupestablishedafact:Pectenmaximusanchorsitselfwheninthelarvalstate.Butisthismovementlikelytolast?Willthescallopscontinuetoanchortheirlarvaeonthecollectorsgenerationaftergeneration?Thisquestionisofcrucialimportancetoourthreeresearchers.Theyearspassandthingschange.Therepeatedexperimentresultsinacatastrophe.Thelarvaedetachthemselvesfromtheresearchersprojectandacrowdofotheractorscarrythemaway.Thescallopsbecomedissidents.Thelarvaewhichcompliedarebetrayedbythosetheywerethoughttorepresent.ThesituationisidenticaltothatoftherankandfilewhichgreetstheresultsofUnionnegotiationswithsilentindignation:representivityisbroughtintoquestion.Thiscontroversyovertherepresentivityofthelarvaewhichanchorthemselvesduringthefirstyearsexperimentsisjoinedbyanother:thistimeitisthefishermen.Inthetwoyearsfollowingthefirst(andonly)anchorages,thescallopshatchedfromthelarvaeinterestedbythecollectors,afterbeingregroupedatthebottomofthebayinanareaprotectedbyaconcretebelt,areshamelesslyfished,oneChristmasEve,byahordeoffishermenwhocouldnolongerresistthetemptationofamiraculouscatch.Brutally,andwithoutaword,theydisavowedtheirspokesmenandtheirlongtermplans.

Facedwiththesesilentmutiniesofscallopsandfishermen,thestrategyofthethreeresearchersbeginstowobble.Isanchorageanobligatorypassagepoint?Evenscientificcolleaguesgetsceptical.Thethreeresearchershavenowtodealwithgrowingdoubtonthepartoftheirlaboratorydirectorandtheorganisationswhichhadagreedtofinancetheexperiment.Notonlydoesthestateofbeliefsfluctuatewithacontroversybuttheidentityandcharacteristicsoftheimplicatedactorschangeaswell.(Whatdothefishermenreallywant?HowdoesPectenmaximusbehave?...).NatureandSocietyareputintoplaceandtransformedinthesamemovement.

CONCLUSES

1)Tocomplywiththefirst(generalizedagnosticism)principlewelookedathowthethreeresearchersconsideredthefactsofNatureandthesocialcontextswhichtheyelaboratedandshaped.Wefaithfullyreporteddoubtsaboutsocietyandthealliancesthatcouldbecreated.Wewereconsequentlyabletotreatuncertaintiesaboutthepropertiesofscallopsanduncertaintiesaboutfishermenandtheirinterestsinthesameway.Inaddition,andthisenabledustodealwiththefirstdifficultyrevealedbyrecentstudiesinsociologyofscience,wesystematicallyforcedourselvestojudgeneitherthepositionstakenbytheactorsnortoreducethemtoaparticularsociologicalinterpretation.Forexample,thethreeresearchersbeliefintheanchorageoflarvaeorintheexistenceofahomogeneousgroupoffishermenwiththesamelongterminterestswasneverpresentedasanillusionoranerrorofjudgment.Theexistenceorthenon-existenceoftheanchorageorofthissocialgroupmayonlybedeterminedattheendofthecoursewhichwasfollowedanditisthethreeresearcherswhorevealthisthroughtheirdifferentendeavours

2)Thesecondprinciple(generalizedsymmetry)compelledusnottochangethegridofanalysisinordertostudycontroversiesinconnectionwithNatureandthoseinconnectionwithSociety.Wehavecarefullyfollowedthisrequirementbyusingthesamevocabularythroughout.Problematization,interessement,enrolment,mobilizationanddissidence(controversy-betrayal)areusedforfishermen,forthescallopsandforscientificcolleagues.Thesetermsareappliedtoalltheactorswithoutdiscrimination.Byfollowingthisprocedure,wehaveavoidedtheseconddifficultymentionedintheintroduction.Wedidnotusesocialfactors,norms,orparticular,institutionalororganizationalconfigurationstoexplainwhydiscussionsconcerningthescallopsorthefishermentookplaceorwereclosedAtnotimecansocietybereducedtoabalanceofpowerortoaseriesofconditionsinordertoexplainthegrowthandtheclosureofacontroversy.

3)Thethirdprinciple(freeassociation),madeitpossibletofollowallthevariationswhichaffectedthealliancesforgedbythethreeresearcherswithoutlockingthemintofixedroles.Notonlywastheidentityofthescallopsorthefishermenandtherepresentativesoftheirintermediariesorspokesmen(anchoredlarvae,professionaldelegates,etc.)allowedtofluctuate,buttheunpredictablerelationshipsbetweenthesedifferententitieswerealsoallowedtotaketheircourseThestorydescribedhere,althoughcenteredaroundthethreeresearchers,didnotbringinanyactorthattheythemselvesdidnotexplicitlyinvokenordiditimposeanyfixeddefinitionontheentitieswhichintervened.

Despitewhatmightbejudgedahighdegreeofpermissivenessintheanalysis,theresultswerenotanindescribablechaos.Certainlytheactorsstudiedwereconfrontedwithdifferenttypesofuncertainties.Thesituationproposedforthemhereismuchlesscomfortablethanthatwhichisgenerallygivenbythesociologyofscience.Buttheircompetencesprovetobeworthyofthedifficultiestheyencountered.Theyworkedincessantlyonsocietyandnature,definingandassociatingentities,inordertoforgealliancesthatwereconfirmedtobestableonlyforacertainlocationataparticulartime.Thismethodologicalchoicethroughwhichsocietyisrenderedasuncertainanddisputableasnature,revealsanunusualrealitywhichisaccountedforquitefaithfullybythevocabularyoftranslation.

notionoftranslationemphasizesthecontinuityofthedisplacementsandtransformationswhichoccurinthisstory:displacementsofgoalsandinterests,andalso,displacementsofdevices,humanbeings,larvaeandinscriptionsTotranslateistodisplace:thethreeuntiringresearchersattempttodisplacetheiralliestomakethempassbyBrestandtheirlaboratories.Buttotranslateisalsotoexpressinonesownlanguagewhatotherssayandwant,whytheyactinthewaytheydoandhowtheyassociatewitheachother:itistoestablishoneselfasaspokesman.Attheendoftheprocess,ifitissuccessful,onlyvoicesspeakinginunisonwillbeheard.Thethreeresearcherstalkinthenameofthescallops,thefishermen,andthescientificcommunity.

Atthebeginningthesethreeuniverseswereseparateandhadnomeansofcommunicationwithoneanother.Attheendadiscourseofcertaintyhasunifiedthem,orrather,hasbroughtthemintoarelationshipwithoneanotherinanintelligiblemanner.Butthiswouldnothavebeenpossiblewithoutthedifferentsortsofdisplacementsandtransformationpresentedabove,thenegotiations,andtheadjustmentsthataccompaniedthem

Translationisaprocessbeforeitisaresult.Thatiswhywehavespokenofmomentswhichinrealityareneverasdistinctastheyareinthispaper.Astheaphorismsays,traduttore-traditore,fromtranslationtotreasonthereisonlyashortstep.Itisthisstepthatistakeninthelaststage.Newdisplacementstaketheplaceofthepreviousonesbutthesediverttheactorsfromtheobligatorypassagepointsthathadbeenimposeduponthem.Newspokesmenareheardthatdenytherepresentivityofthepreviousones.Translationcontinuesbuttheequilibriumhasbeenmodified.Thisisthecaseforthestorywhichwaspresentedhereinwhichthreeresearchers-spokesmenendupbeingdenounced.Atthesametime,thedescriptionofthesocialandnaturalrealitybeginstofluctuate.

>>>>Translationisthemechanismbywhichthesocialandnaturalworldsprogressivelytakeform.Theresultisasituationinwhichcertainentitiescontrolothers.Understandingwhatsociologistsgenerallycallpowerrelationshipsmeansdescribingthewayinwhichactorsaredefined,associatedandsimultaneouslyobligedtoremainfaithfultotheiralliances.Therepertoireoftranslationisnotonlydesignedtogiveasymmetricalandtolerantdescriptionofacomplexprocesswhichconstantlymixestogetheravarietyofsocialandnaturalentities.Italsopermitsanexplanationofhowafewobtaintherighttoexpressandtorepresentthemanysilentactorsofthesocialandnaturalworldstheyhavemobilized.