In this contribution to the Common Knowledge symposium “Fuzzy Studies,” the authors, all of whom work in the field of science, technology, and society, begin from the assumption that, as Bruno Latour has put it, “we have never been modern.” They accept the STS thesis that, while modern practices purport to be entirely rational and coherent, on closer inspection they turn out to be as much noncoherent as coherent. This article poses the question of what forms “noncoherences” take and how they are managed. The basic argument is that there is a range of styles of noncoherence or “modes of syncretism.” In small case studies, the authors identify six such modes or styles, which they term denial, domestication, separation, care, conflict, and collapse. Given that consistency and coherence seem less important now than they were once taken to be — and given that the conditions of possibility for purity are, in any case, in decline — this list and its supporting case studies, while not meant to be definitive, are offered as a way of understanding how practices that do not cohere may still function and fit together admirably.
Research Article|January 01 2014
Modes of Syncretism: Notes on Noncoherence
; ; ; ; ;
Common Knowledge (2014) 20 (1): 172-192.
John Law, Geir Afdal, Kristin Asdal, Wen-yuan Lin, Ingunn Moser, Vicky Singleton; Modes of Syncretism: Notes on Noncoherence. Common Knowledge 1 January 2014; 20 (1): 172–192. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/0961754X-2374817
Download citation file: