Unscrewing the Big Leviathan Callon y Latour

7/30/2019 Unscrewing the Big Leviathan Callon y Latour

1/17

'276 .l . Habermassequcnce However, the dcvclopment ol 'social intcsru1l,rt l i5 bv rt onleans svnorlvmous w.rth a sequential decrease n social exploi tation.l 'rom an cv,olutionary perspective, th e tvpe ol 'social intesratiorrthat is t ied to thc kinship syslem an d that , in


2/17

278 M. Callonand B. Latour4), and which has some aerlap ith cicourel's;focusn the summariln.qpiocedureshroughwhich hemacrosgeneratedithin micro-socialction see'chapterI and crion 5 of the ntroduction)' n a senset canbe seen s themacro-counterpartf the las mentioned icro-conceptions'f

I Hobbes's ParadoxGiven:a mulr i tudeol 'equal. goisr ic en ivinewithoutan y aw n amerciless tateo['nature ha t ha sbeendescribed s, th ewar ol'e'u'eryon e againstevery one'.rHow can this statebe brought to an end?Everyoneknows Hobbes's eply: hrougha contract ha t everyman-uk., with everyother and which givesone man,or a group ol'mebound to noneother, he ight to speak n behalt'ol 'all. 'I 'hey ecome:the .actor' ol ' which th e multitude linked by contractsar e th e.authors'.2T'hus authorized'.,rthe sovereign ecomesheperson hosayswhat the othersare' what they want an d what theyare worth'accountantol'all debts,guarantorol'all laws, recorderol'propertyreeisters, suPreme measurerol ' ranks, opinions, udgments and.u...n.y. I., sho.t thesovereign ecomeshe Leviathan: that MortalGod, to which we owe under the lmmortal God, ou r peat'ean ddelnse'.{Th e solution proposed by Hobbes is ol' interest to polit icalphilosophyan d o1:maiormportance osociology'brmulatingclearlyas t doe. br th e first time th e relationship etweenmicro-actors ndmacro-actors.Hobbessees o dillrence l- evelor sizebetween hemicro-actors and the Leviathan uhich s not he esult J'aransaction''l'hem u l t i t ude ,saysHobbes , i sa t t hesame t im e theFo rm and theN la t t e ro l . t hebodypo l i t i c. . I . hecons t ruc t i ono l ' t h i sa r t i f i c i a l bodyi sca l cu -lated in sucha way thar th e absolute overeignsnothingothe thanthe sum of'themultitude'swishes. -houghhe expression'Leviathan'is usually considerecl ynonymouswith 'totalitarian monster" inHobbes ih e soueteign aysnothing on his own authority' He saysnothing without hai'ing been authorizedby th e multitude' whosespokerman,mask-bearer nd amplifierhe is'; ' l 'he sovereigns no tiboue he peoPle'eitherby natureor by lunction,nor is he higher'orgreater,o. oi'dil lr.nt substanceHe is the people tsell ' i . anotherstate as we speakol'a gaseous r a solidstate'1h i spo in t , . . . , t ouso |' cap i t a l im p t r r t ance'a r rd i l r t h i spape rwe

Llnscreuingthe big Leaiathan ')79should l ike to examine al l it s consequences.Hobbes states ha t thereis rr o di l lrence between the actors which is inherentin heirnature. \ l ldi l lrences in level, size an d scope are the result ol 'a battle or anegotiation. !\ 'e cannot distinguish between macro-actors ( insti tu-tiorts, orpanizations, social classes,parties, states) and micro-actors(indir, ' iduals, groups, fmil ies) on th e basis ol ' their d imensions, sinccthey ar e al l , we mieht sal ' , the 'same size', or rather since size s whatis primari ly at stake in their strugeles t is also. therelbre, their mostimportant result. For Hobbes - an d lb r us too - i t i s not a quesrion ol 'classi ly ' ing macro- a nd micro-actors, or reconci l ing what we know ol 'the tbrmer and what we know ol ' the latter, but posing anew rhe oldquestion: how does a micro-actor become a macro-actor? How canmen ac t ' l i ke one man '?' l -hc original i ty ol ' the problem posedby Hobbes is partly concealedby' his solution - th e social contract - which history, anthropoloeyatrd now etholog,v have proved impossible. l 'he contract, however. ismerely a specif ic instance ol 'a more general phenomenon, that ol 'translation.'; By translation we understand al l the negotiations,intr igues, calculations. acts ol persuasi


3/17

280 M. Callon and B. Latourcomple te v , i l u ,ed i s t i ngu i sh bc tween ind i v i dua l s ' and ' i ns t i tu t i ons ' ;i l we supposecl ha t th e fir.st l l within th e sphere ol 'psychology, artdtl re seconclol 'ecolromic historv.r ' There reol 'course macro-actors attdmicro-actors. bu t th e di l lrence between them is brought about bypower relations an d th e constructions ol 'networks that wi l l e lude'analvsisil ' we presum e a priori that macro-actors ar e bigge than orsupe.i ,r . t, , ,r-, i ...r-u.tors. -I 'hcse power relat ions an d translationprocesses rcappear more t' learlv i l 'wc l t r l low Hobbcs in hi s srangesru-ptio,, that al l actors ar e isomorphic'r" lsomorphic does no t-.u,., ihut al l actors have the samesizebu t that apriori there is no wayto clecide th e size since i t i s th e consequence ol 'a long struggle"fhebest wal ' to understand this is to consider a('tors as netw()rks' ' I 'wol letworks ma v have the same shape althouqh otte s almost l imi ted to apoint ancl th e other extends al l o'u'er he country, exactlv l ikc rhes,rve.cigl t .an be on e among th c others an d th e personificati ()n ol 'a l lthe othrs. ' l 'he financier 's ol l ice is no larse than th e cobbler 's shop;ne i ther i s h i s bra i n , h i s cu l tu re , hi s ne twork o l ' t i i cnds nor h i s wor l d .' l ' l - r el a t te r i s . rnc re l y 'a mat r ; he lb rmer i s , as we sav . a 'g rea t nrnn ' .' l 'oo ol ien s


4/17

282 M. Callon and B. Latour{reer an d more complex. over 30 years, he study ol 'primates has thusbeen used as a projective test: first, bestial chaos was observed, then arigid, almost total i tarian system. Baboons have been obl iged to re -stiucture th e Lev iathan an d ro move from th e war of al l against al l toabsolute obedience.

Despite this, observers closer to th e monkeys have gradual lyworked out a dillrent Leviathan. 'I'he baboons do indeed haveorganization: not everything is equal ly possible n i t . one animal doesno t go close to just an y other; an animal does no t cover or groomuno.. by chance; nor does it move as ide us t at random; animalscannot go just where they wish. However, th is organization is neverr ig id enough to consti tute an integrated system. As the observe s have.o*. to know thei r baboons better, th e hierarchies ol 'dominance havebecome more flexible, f inal ly dissolvins - at least in the case ol 'themales.r8 Primary agpressiveness as become rarer: it has been seen obe consistently channel led and social ized unt i l f inal ly th e groups ol 'baboons have become surprisingly 'civi l ' . ' I 'he lmous elementaryimpulses which luel th e war ol 'al l against al l - eat ing, copulating,dominat ion, reproduction - have been observed to be constantlysuspended, hal ted an d di l l racted by the plav ol 'social interactions.Thre is no chaos, bu t no rigid system either. No w the baboons iv e inunirs, none o1'which is r ig id, bu t none o1'which s flexible. ln additionto di l lrences ol 'size se x a1 d age, sgcial inks, ar e th e lmilv, clal a1 dlr iendship networks, or evcn habits du e to tradit iotls an d customs.None ol 'these cateqories s clearly def ined since he y al l come into Plavtogether, an d ca n break apar t again. ()bservers no w constru(-t th ebaboor-r society as on e whose texture is much stronger than wa simagined by those wh o thought it a chaos of ' brutc beasts. bu tinf in i te ly more flexible than postwar obscn'ers thought'F or a societv ol 'baboons to bc at the same t ime so flexible and ve soclose-knit, ant amazins. hypothesis had to be adr,'anced: morc atrdmore extensir, 'esocial ski l ls ha d to be bestowed on th e monkcvs inorder to make them competent to repair, accomplish an d ceaselcssl l 'consol idate th c lbr ic tl f 'such a complex societ\"r"A baboon's l i l is not easv in the ne w society' ha t has been (rgcdlb r i t and is no lessdi l l i cul t than ou r l i l as revcaled b. vcthnomethod-oloeical works. He must crxrstantlv dcternrine wh o is who. wh o issuperior ancl wl.ro nlrir_rr, ho leads th e group and wh o l ir l lows, alrd*h o -.rr, stand back to lc t hi m pass. Atrd al l he has to help him arc

(Inscrewing the big Leuiathan 2tlllluzzv sets whose logi c is lshioned to evaluate hundreds ol 'elements.Each time i t is necessary,as the ethnomethodologists say, to repairindexical i ty. \ \ 'ho is cal l ing? \\ 'hat is t intending to say?No marks, nocostumes, no discreet signs. () l 'course, many signs, erowls and hintsexist, bu t none ol ' them is unambiguous enough. Only the context wi l ltel l , but simpl i ly ing and evaluating the conrexr is a consranrheadache. Hence the stranse impression these animals give today.Liv ing as they do in the heart ol ' the bush, al l they should be thinkingabout is eating and mating. But al l they care about is to stabi l ize thei rrelations, or, as Hobbes would say, durably to attach bodies withbodies. ,\s much as we do thev bui ld up a society which is theirsurroundings, shelter, task, luxury, same an d destiny.To simpl i ly we might say that baboons are 'social animals ' . ' I 'heword 'social ' derives, we know, l rom 'socius', which is akin to'sequi ',to fbl low. F rst ol 'al l to lb l low, then to l trrm an al l iance or to enl ist.then to have something in common, to share. Several act l ike a sinsleenti ty, the social l ink is there. Baboons are social l ike al l socialanimals in the sense that they lbl low each other, enrol each other,Itrrm al l iances, share certain l inks an d terr i tories. But they are social ,too, in that they can maintain and fbrti ly their al l iances, l inks an dparti t ions onlv with the tools and procedures that ethnomethodolo-gists grant us to repair indexical i ty. ' I-hey ar e constanrly stabi l iz ingth e l inks between bodies by acting on other bodies.2oOnly among the baboons are th e l iving bodies alone, as Hobbesrequires, at the same t ime the Form and the Matter ol ' the Leviathan.But what happens when this is the case?'I 'here s no Leviathan. Wemust now lbrmulate th e central question: i f ' the baboons real izeHobbes's conditions and ol lr us the spectacleol 'a society made withno sol id Leviathan or durable macro-actor, how are the sol id. durablemacro-actors which we se e brming everywhere in human societies,actual ly constructed?Hobbes thought th e Leviathan could be bui l t with bodies, bur rhenhe was only talking about babo ons. His Leviathan could never havebeen bui lt i l 'bodies had been the Form and Matter ol ' the social body.Although in order to stabi l ize society everyone- monkeys as wel l asme n - need to bring into play associations that last longer than theinteractions that Jrmed them, the strategies and resources may varybetwee n societiesol 'baboons or ol 'men. For instance, nstead ol 'actingstraight upon the bodies ol ' col leagues, parents and fi iends, l ike


5/17

28+ M. CaLtonand B. Latourbaboons, on e might tLrrn to more sol id an d less"'ariable mater ia ls inordel to ac t in a more durable wav upon th e bodies ol 'our col leagues,parenl.s a1 d lr iends. I1 the state ol 'nature , no one is strone enough tohold out against el 'erv coal i t ion.!r Bu t i l 'you translbrm the state olnature, replacing urrsettled al l iances as much as you can with wal lsan d wri tten contracts. th c ranks with uni l i rrms and tattoos attd re"'er-s ible lr iendships with names and signs, then you wi l l obtain aLer' ' iathan: 'His scales ar e his pride, shut uP together as with a closeseal. One is so near to at'rother ha t no air can come between them.' l 'hel 'are joined one to anther;hey stick together that they cannot bes u n d e r c d ' J o b { l : l 5 - l 7 ) .,,\ di l }rence in relative size s obtained when a micro-actor can, inaddi t ion to enl istins bodics. also errl ist he greatest number o|'durablematerials. He or she thus crcatcs greatnessat ld longev i tv making th eothers small and provisional in comparison. The secret ol ' the di l lr -etrce between micro-actors an d macro-actors l ies precisely in whatanalvsis ol en neglects to consider. The primatologists omi t to saythat. to stabi l ize the r world, the baboons do no t have at their disposa-an v o[ the human instruments manipulated bv the observer. Hox ' i s too r i g i d to desc r i be the I ' o r ceswhich shut ol l ' the stacks of'boxes, and keep them hermetical ly sealedand obscure, another metaphor is possible, one Hobbes might haveused had he read \\ 'addington.r ' i ln rhe fi rst momenrs ol ' lrt i l ization,al l cel ls are al ike. But soon an epieenetic landscape takes brm wherecourses are cut out which tend to be irreversible ; these are cal led'chreods'. ' l -hen cel lu lar di l lrentiati on be qins. Whether we speak ol 'black boxes or chreods, we are deal ing with the creation ol 'asym-metries. Let us then imagine a body where di l lrentiation is neverlul lv i rrer, 'ersible,where each cel l attempts to compel the others tobecome irreversibly special ized, an d where many organs are perma-nent ly claiming to be the head ol 'the programme. If we imagine sucha monsterwe shal l have a fi r ly clear idea ol ' the Leviathan's body,which we can at any moment se egrowing be(brc our very eyes.1'he paradox with which we ended the introduction ha s no w beenrcsolved. \\ 'e end up with act


6/17

I286 ful Callonand B. Lalourthe processes by which an actor creat es lasting asymmetries. ' l 'hatamong these processes ome ead to associationswhich are sometimescal led 'social ' (associationsol 'bodies). and that some ol ' the others aresometimes cal led 'technical ' (associations ol 'materials), need no lconcern us lurther. Only the di l lrences between what ca n be put inblack boxes and what remain open lbr Iuture negotiations are no wrelevant l trr us.To summarize, macro-actors are micro-actors seated on top ol-many (leaky) black boxes. They are neither larser, Iror more complexthan micro-actors; on the contrary, they are of th e same size and, aswe shal l see, hey are in lct simpler than micro-a('tors. \\ 'e arc able.now, to consider ho w the Leviathan is structured, since we know thatwe do not need to be impressed by the relative sizeol-themasters,or tobe l i ightened by the darkness of' the black boxes.

3 Essay n teratologyIn this section, we leave Hobbes's barbarous, uridical Leviathan. aswel l as the 'bush an d savannah' Lev iathan we sa w in action amonsthe baboons. We shal l lbl low up one detai l ol ' the huge, mythicalmonster in a modern context: the way in which two actors - Elec-t r i c i t y o l 'F rance (EDF) and Renau l t - var i ed the i r re l a t i ve d imen-sions in the course ol 'a struggle that took place between them durineth e 1970s . ! {' I-o replace th e usual divisions (macro/micro; human/animal;social /technical), which we have shown to be unprol i table, we needterms in keeping with th e methodological principles stated above.\4'hat is an 'actor '? Any element which bends space around itsel l ,makes other elements dependent up()n i tse l 'and translates the l wi lLinto a language ol' i ts own. An actor makes chanses in the set ol 'elements and concepts habitual ly used to describe the social and thenatural worlds. By stating what belongs to the past, and ol 'what theluture


7/17

2ttti M. Callon and B. Latourl ! )132;he vears l9tt2-90 wil l be the years ol 'zin


8/17

290 M. CallonandB' Latourtion - designed br them by EDF . tht adhere to the differences nlevel which the public e*'ttptitt has.laidout' Bu t now something'r,pp.tt *r,ich;il l hel;u' ut'dtt"u''d what we havebeenseekingoexplain since th e btgit; i; ol 'this chapter' that is how relativedimensionsar echanged'-

i; ; fe w years' time Renault will disappearas an autonomous

actor. Together wittr tht ptt'ol gngine it, is doomed' and has nooption but to ."otit'ltutt iL tttiuitils - unless he landscapewhichEDF projectsbefioreJ t'"""a itselfcan be remodelled'But can thisbe done?During tnt t'i ft * yearsRenault is unable to fight its way;;;;" tr,J EoE;' ftedictions' Evervoneasrees hat the privateca r is doomed.How can this black box be opened?As all sociologists gree'no onewill want a private car any to'e' How can the situationbe reversed?Wno .u.t reeal technitul ig"o'u'lte in.the scenarioof an enterprtsewhich ha sa monop"i, () tpt;a"ttion an ddistributiono{'electricity?nthesecircrrmstancesn" nty possible oncl,usions that Renaultwilllil, and one must bt;i;;t bt't o"t.tun tludup:t: tnt l: 1,1o::1lt'or,r. ittout the theimal car. And ye t Rerraultha s no wlsh to ors-apPear;Renault wants to remainautonomous nd indivisible' tselfdecidingwhat will Ut in t 'otiut an d technical utureof th e ndustrialworld. What ED! * ntrnft associates'- e.naultwould dearly like todissociate.So t


9/17

'292 M. Callon and B. Latourreal a1 d the unreal, between what is necessaryan d what continsentibetween the technical an d th e social . Everything is inv'olved n theseprimordial struggles through which Leviathans are structured: th estate ol ' techniques, th e nature ol - he social system, th e evolution olhistory', th e dimensions ol th e actors an d logics i tsel l ' As soon associological language a,uoids he assumptiolr that there is an a prioridistinction between actors, these combats ar e revealed as the lunda-mental principle underlying th e Leviathan. Sociological analysis isne\,ertheless involved, since i t l l lows th e associations and dissoci-at ions, bu t i t lb l lows them wherever they are produced b)' the actors'Th e actors ca n bond together in a block comprisirrg mi l l ions of .individuals, they can enter al l iances with i ron, with erains o1'sand,neurons, words, opinions an d al lcts. Al l th is is ol ' l i t t le importance,providing they ca n be l t r l lowed wi th the same lreedom as they them-selves practise. We cannot analyse th e Leviathan i l 'we give prece-dence to a certain type ol 'association, br example associationsol 'menwittr men, iron with iron, neurons with neurons' or a specific size ol 'lctors. Sociologv is only l ively and produ


10/17

294 M. Callon and B. Lalourbuild and repair itsell, t must be a living thing. Let us moveon tobiology.What is a body?A machineonceagain,bu t thereare manykinds: thermal, hydraulic, cybernetic, ata-processing Iiom whichthe operator is again absent. Shall we say finally that it is a set ol'chemical exchanges nd physical nteractions? lanwe compare twith the nterestof a market or an exchange ystem? n the ield of'theeconomy with what is it comparable? Once again with chemicalinteractions. And these n their turn may be compared with a field ofstruggling forces.The Leviathan is such a monster that its essentialbeing cannot be stabil ized n any of the great metaphorswe usuallyemploy. It is at the same ime machine,market,code,body,andwar.Sometimes, rces are transmitted as in a machine, sometimes per-ating ch arts come nto place n the sameway as cybernetic edbacks.Sometimes here s a contract, ometimes utomatic ranslation.Bu tone can never describe he whole se tof elementsusingonly one ol 'these metaphors.As in the caseof Aristotle's categories, e um pIiom one metaphor to another whenever we try to express themeaning of one of them.Monstrous s the Leviathan n yetanotherway. This s because, swe have se!n, here is not just oneLeviathan but many, interlockedone into another like chimera, each one claiming to represent hereality of all, the programmeof the whole. Sometimes omeof themmanage to distort the othersso horribly that for a while they seem heonly soul in this artificial body. The Leviathan is monstrous toobecauseHobbesbuilt it usingonly contracts nd th e bodies f ideal,supposedlynaked,men. But since he actors riumph by associatingwith themselvesother elements han the bodies ol me n, the result sterrifying. Steel plates, palaces, ituals and hard ened habits float onthe surface of a viscous-likegelatinous mass which functions at t hesame time like the mechanism of a machine, the exchanges n amarket and the clattering of a teleprinter.Sometimeswhole elementsfrom factory or technical systemsare redissolvedand dismemberedby forces never previously seen n action. These forces hen in turnproduce a rough outline of a chimera that others mmediately hastento dismember.NeitherJo b on his dunghill, nor the teratologistsntheir laboratorieshave observedsuchdreadful monsters.Impossible not to be terrified by this primordial combat whichconcerns everything that political philosophy, history and sociologyconsider indisputable frameworks or descript ion. Impossible not t o

L,nscrewinghebigLeuiathan 295be terrified likewise by the flood of speeches eviathans make aboutthemselves. n somedays an d with somepeopre hey ailow them-selves o be soundedor dismantled (depending whether they choosethat da y to be body or machine).Sometimes hey sham dead orpretend to be a ruin (metaphorof'a building), a corpse biologicalmetaphor), or a huge heapol'iron liom somemuseumol.industrialarcheology.At other times heyare nscrurabre nd delight n admit-ting themselvesmonstrousand unknowable.Th e nextoment theychangeand, dependingon theiraudience, tretchout on a couchan dwhisper heir mostsecret houghts r, crouching n theshadows f heconfssional, dmit their ultsand repentol'being o bigor sosmall,so hard or so soli, soold or so new.we cannoteve. state ha t theyar ein a continuous state of metamorphoses,br they only change npatchesand vary n size lowly,beingencumbered nd weiehed owrrwith the enormous echnicaldevices hey havesecreted' o.d., t, ,gro_w nd to restrict precisely his power to metamorphose.'I-heseimbricated .eviathansmore esembre never-ending uild-i 'e-site in some great metropolis.There is no overail architect oguide t, and no design, oweverunreflected. ac h ow. hall an deachpromotor' each king an d eachvisionaryclaim to possesshe overallplan and to understand he meaningol'thestory.Wholedistrictsar elaid ou t a' d roadsopenedup on th ebasis r-these'eralrplans,whichother struggles nd otherwills soon estricr o theegoistic nd specificexpressionol ' a period or an individual. constantly - bu t nevere'erywhereat thesame im e streets reopened, ousesazed o theground, watercoursesovered ver. Districlts reviousll,houshtout-ol-date or dangerous ar c rehabilitated;other modern buitdingsbecome ou t ol ' fshion, and are crestroyed. e fight about what

constitutes ur heritage, boutmethods l'transport nd tine aries obe lbllowed. consumers di e and ar e replacedby others,circuitsbydegrees ompel their recognition, nabling nlbrmation o run alonethe wires.Here and thereone etireswithin oneseil, cceptinghe atidecidedby others.or else neasreesoclefine .esell 'as . individualactor who will alternothingmore ha n hc partit ions n theapartme'tor the wallpaper in th e bedroom.At other times u.,o., *ho hu.lalways defined themselves nd ha d always beendefi.ed as micro-a.tors ally themselvesosetherarounda threate.eddistrict,marchto the town hall arrde.rol disside.t art'hitects. sy heir actio' thevnlanage o har''e radial roaddivertedor a towe that a macro-actor


11/17

?I96 M. Callon and B. Latourhad bui l t pul led down. Or aeain, as n the caseo( the lmous 'trou de sHal les' in central Paris, they pu t lrward 600 al ternative projects, inaddi t ion to the hundreds the Paris 'fown Hal l had already con-sidered. A t iny actor becomes a macro-actor, just l ike in the Frenchnursery rhyme: 'The ca t knocks over the pot, the po t knocks over th etable, the table knocks over th e room, the room knocks over the house,th e house knocks over the street, the street knocks over Paris: Paris,Paris, Paris has ll lenl ' lVe cannot know who is big an d wh o is small ,wh o is hard and who is sol i , wh o is hot and who is cold. The el lct ol 'these tongues which suddenly start to wag and theseblack boxes thatsuddenly snap shut is a ci ty, uncountabl e Leviathans with the beautyol ' the beast or o1'thc circles ol 'hel l .Hobbes's Leviathan was indeed a paradise by comparison wi thwhat we have described here. As lbr the baboons' Leviathan. i t i s adream ol 'the unadulterated society amid the beaut.vol ' the sti l l -wi ldsavannah. The monster that we are, that we inhabit and that weIshion s ings a qui te di l lrent song. l l 'Weber and his intel lectualdescendants lund that this monster was becoming 'disenchanted',th is was because they al lowed themselves o be int imidated by tech-niques an d macro-actors. ' I 'his is what we shal l no w show.

4 Conclusion: the sociologist LeviathanIn order to grow we must enrol other wi l ls by translating what theywant and by rei lying this translation in such a wa y that none of themcan desire anything elsean y longer. Hobbes resrictcd this processol -translation to what we now cal l 'pol i t ical representation'. Thescattered wil ls are recapitu.lated n th e person ol ' the sovereign wh osays what we want, and whose word ha s (brce ol ' law and cannot becontradicted. An d yet i t is a very long t ime no w since 'pol i t icalrepresentation' was alone sufhcient to translate the desires of themulti tude. Al ier pol i t ical science, hescienceofeconomics also claimsto sound loins and colfers, and to be able to say not only what thegoods, services an d people making up the Leviathan desire, but alsowhat they ar e worth. In this article we are not interested n pol i t icalscience or economics. We are interested in th e latecomers, the socio-logists, who also translate - us ing pol ls, quanti tative and qual i tativesurveys - no t only what the actors want, not only what th ey are worth,

(Jnscrewing he bis Leuiathan 297but also whal thel are. On the basis of scattered ir.rlbrmation, replies toquestionnaires, anecdotes, statistics and lel ings, th e sociologistinterprets, sounds out, incorporates and states what the actors ar e(classes, cateeories, groups, cultures, etc.), what they want, whatinterests them and how they l ive. Seldesisnated an d selappointed,spokesmen o1'the people, they have, lbr more than a century now,taken over l iom Hobbes's sovereign: he voice that speaks n th e maski s the i r own.1.1 The sociologistLeuiathan!\ 'e have l tr l lowed through the crearion ol-the pol i t ical Leviathan onthe b asis of a contract, th e lbrmation of the monkey-Leviathan and,last, the constructior.rol-the monster-Leviathan . No w we shal l seeho wth e sociologist-Leviathan is bui l t. We can already state as a matter ofprinciple that Leviathans ltrrmed l ike sociologies or sociologies ike[,eviathans.

So what do sociologistsdo ? Some say rhar there is a social system.'I-his interpretation ol ' the social credits translation processeswith acoherence that thev lack. To state that there is a system is to make anactor grow by disarming th e lbrces which he or she systematizes'and'unif ies'. Of course, as we have seen, the Le', ' iathan's ari thmetic isvery special : each system, each total i ty is added o the others withoutretrenching i tsel l , thereby producing the hybrid monster with athousand heads and a thousand systems. What else does the socio-logis t do? He or she interprets the Leviathan, saying fo r example thati t i s a cybernetic machine. So al l associations between actors aredescribed as circui ts ol 'an arti f ic ial intel l igence,an d rranslations ar eseen as 'integrations'. Here again the Leviathan is bui l t up by thistype ol 'description: i t i s proud to be a machine an d immediately, l ikean y machine, starts to transmit forces and motions in a mechanicalway. ()1-course this interpretation is added to al l the others an dstruggles against them. For the Leviathan is - somet imesand in someplaces - a tradit ional and not a cyberne ic machine l ikewise a body, amarket, a text, a game, etc. Since al l interpretations act upon i tsimultaneously, performing and transforming fbrces according rowhether they are machines, codes, bodies or markets, th e result is thissame monster again, at one and the same time machine, beast, god,word and town. What else can sociolosists do? They can say. ficr


12/17

T298 M. Callon and B. Latourexample, that they 'restr ict themselves to the study of the social ' .They then divide the Leviathan into 'real i ty levels' eaving aside, Ibrexample, the economic, pol i t ical , technical and cultural aspects inorder to restr ict themselves to what is 'social ' . The black boxes thatcontain these lctors ar e thus sealed up an d no sociologist can openthem without ste pping outside th e f ie ld. The Leviathans purr withrelief, for their structure disappears from view, whilst they allow theirsocial parts to be sounded. Of course, as we know (see he EDF), noactor is so powerlirl that it s decisionsand associations as a whole will bef inal ly an d defini tely considered as technical real i ty. The other actors,helped by sociologists, push back and trace anew the boundariesbetween what is technical, economic, cul tural and social .Th e result isthat here again the Leviathans are hacked about by conflictine teamsof sociologists, and are covered with scars like Frankenstein. Whatelse do sociologists do? Like everyone else, they never stop workine todefine who acts and who speaks. They tape the recol lections of'aworkman, a prosti tute or an old Mexican; they interview; they handou t open and closed questionnaires on every subject under th e sun;they unceasingly sound out th e opinions of the masses.Each time theyinterpret their surveys they inform the Leviathan, translb rming andperl i rrming it . Each t ime they construct a unity, define a sroup,attr ibute an ident i ty , a wi l l or a project;2e ac h time they explain whatis happening, the sociologist, sove e gn and author - as Hobbcs trsedth e term - add to th e struggl ing Leviathans ne w identi t ies, defini t ionsand wi l ls which enable other authors to grow or shrink, hicleaway orreveal themselves, expand or contract.Like al l the others, and lbr the same reason, sociologistswork on th eLeviathan. Their work is to define the nature ol ' the Leviathanwhether i t is unique or whether there are more than one, what theywant an d ho w they translbrm themselves and evolve. This specifictask is in no way unusual. There is no 'metadiscourse'- to speakarchaical ly - about th e Leviathan. Every t ime they wri te sociologistsgrow or shrink, become macro-actors - or do not - expand, l ikeLazarslld, to th e scale ol 'a multinational.;r{)or shrink to a restr ictedsector o{ 'the market. What makes them srow or shrink? The otheractors whose interests, desires and lbrces they translate more or lesssuccessful ly, and with who m the y al ly or quarrel . Depending on th eperiod, th e strategies, the insti tutions and the demands. the socio-logist 's work can expand unti l it becomes what everyone is saying

[Jnscreuing the big Leuiathan 2ggabout the Leviathan, or. shrink to what three Ph D students thinkabout themselves in some Bri t ish universi ty. Th e sociologists'laneuage ha s no privi leged relationship with the Leviathan. T'hey ac tupon i t. Suppose thev state that the Leviathan is unique and svstem-atic, suppose they create cybernetic, hierarchical ly integrated sub-svstems: ei ther this wi l l be accepted,or not, wi l l spread, or no t, wi l l beused as resourcesby others - or wi l l not. The success l ' this def in i t ionol ' the Leviathan proves nothing a.bout the latter 's ow n nature. Anempire is born, that ol 'Parsons, and that is al l . Clonversely, he lctthat ethnomethodologists might manase to convince thei r col leaguestha t mac ro-ac tors do no t ex i s t p roves no th i ng about the i r non-existence. Sociologists ar e neither better nor worse than an y otheractors. Neither are they more external no r more internal , more no rless scienti f ic."r Clommon. roo common.4.2 How to slip betweenwo mistakesA macro-actor, as we have seen, is a micro-actor seated on blackboxes, a lrce capable ol 'associating so rany other lrces that i t actsl ike a 'singlc man' . ' I 'he result is rhat a macro-acror is by def in i t ion nomore di l f i cul t to examine than a micro-acror. Growth is only possibleil ' one can associate long lasting l trrces with onesel l ' and therebl.s imp l i l v ex i s (ence.Hence a ma( . ro -ac tor s a t l eas t as s imp le as amicro-actor sinceotherzaiset couldnothaue ecome igger.M'e do not drar,r,closer to social real i ty by descendine to micro-neeotiations or byrisir.re owards the macro-actors. \\ 'e must leave behind the precor.r-( 'eptions w,hi


13/17

. l0o , l l . Cal lon and B. LatourTh e


14/17

302 M. Callonand B. Latourol'discourse s nvestedofa role', ike he notionof orce, t is no way limitedto 'human ' .9 See he devastatingcriticismol'psychoanalysis adeby G. Deleuzeand F.Guattari, L'Anti-Ocdipe,capitalisme tschiaophrnieParis: Ed. de Minuit,1972).For them there s no difference fsizebetweena child'sdreamsanda conqueror'sempire or between he amily li l story and the politicalstory. The unconscious,anyway, s not 'individual', so hat in ourinnermostdreamswe stil l act nside he wholebody politic and viceversa.l0 On this point, l ike on most,Cl .B. Macphe son, ThePolitieal heory JPosscssiaendiuidualism:Hobbeso Locke Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962),missedHobbes'soriginality. It isno t Marxism that he ps nterpretwhat isbeneath Hobbes's theory; t is,on the contrary, the atter that mightexplain what is beneath he former.SeeR. Collins (this volume) and P. Bourdieu (this volume).See he conclusionol'this chapter.For instanceA. C)icourel,Melhod ndMeasurementnSociologNew York:Free Press,1964),asan exampleol'the equirements hat tie he observer'shands. Ethnome hodologistshavesincemuch increased he constraintson what can be said about societv.l4 This part isbasedon an ongoingstudy on the sociology l 'primatologybyon e ol'us (B.L.). Most of this chapter s nspiredby the work ol'ShirleyStrum. She s n no way responsibleor the awkward situation n which weput her baboons,but only lor the new and revolutionaryway sheunderstands animal sociology.For direct references eeS. Strum, 'Lifewith the Pumphous-Gang' NationalGeographic,ay (1975) pp. 672-79'Interim Report on the Developmentof a Tradition in a T'roopol'OliveBaboons',ScienceB7 (1975),pp. 75F7; 'AgonisticDominance n MaleBaboons An Alternate View' (forthcoming).For an analysisol'the inkbetween primatology and political philosophy,seeDonna Haraway,'Animal Sociologyand a Natural Economyol'the Body Politic', Signs,4/l( I 978),pp . 2 -60.Except insects,of'course,Hobbes, TheLeaiathan,.225.Ib i d . , p . l 86 .For two generafpresentations, eeH. Kummer, PrimateSocietiesNewYork: Aldine, I 973) and T. Rowell,SociaL ehattiourf Monkels London:Penguin,1972). ora historical ackground eeDonnaHaraway,'AnimalSociologyand a Natural Economyol'the Body Politic',and'Signs ol'Dominance From a Physiology o a Cyberneticsol'PrimateSocieties,).R. Carpenter l93O-1970'(forthcoming).S. Strum, AgonisticDominancen Male Baboons An AlternateView'.This was already visible n H. Kummer, 'SocialOrganization of'Hamadryas Baboons' (Chicago:Aldine, l968), and very clear n H.Kummer, 'On the Value ol'SocialRelationships o Non-Human Primates.A Heuristic Scheme', Social ciencedormation, 7 ( 97U), pp.687-707.20 This is the caseeither n the sort olBourdieu sociology hat Kummer usedto describehi s baboons 'On the Value ofSocial Relationships'), r n thesociobiologicalmyth of delnceof investments.

l lt2l .)

l 5l 6t 7

l 8l 9

. l

Llnscreuing the big Leuiathan 303l lolr l res,The euiathan,. l t i3, r human,and Strum. ,\gonistic| )orninance n N{ale Baboons r\n Alte nate View', fr baboons.lnhis Mllho.f'theMachine NewYork: Harcourt, l96ti), Lewis I\lumlrdtlit's to integratedillrent sortsol'materials,bu t he makes wo majornristakes:irst, he sticks o themetaphor l ' the machine, nstead f'rl issol'u'ingt; second,he takes r granted the sizeol'the mesamachineirrstead l ' tracing ts senealoev.'I 'he am e hins can be said of'4. Leroi-( l{i0.' l 'hc lackof'distinction etween ol i and hard sciencess shown n B.Latour arrd S. \\'oolgar. LaboratoryiJ:TheSocialConstructionoJcienttJicic ls (London: Saee,1979).

]: J: rl l

2( r') 72u29Joril


15/17

Advances in social theory andmethodologyToward an integration of micro-and macro-sociologiesEditedbyK. Knorr-Cetina andA. V. Cicourel

@Routledge& Kegan PaulBoston,London and Henley


16/17

F'irst ublishzdn l98Iby RoutLedge KeganPaul Ltd9 Park Street,Boston,Mass. 02108,USA39 StoreStrcel,LondonWCIE 7DD, andBroadwayHouse,Newtoun Road,Henle2-on-Thames,xonRGg IENPhotosetn l0 on 12 Baskemilleb1Kelly T2pcsetting td, Bradford-on-Auon,Wiltshireandpinted in lhc Unitcd Statesof AmeritaIntroductinn ndediloial mauercopyighl @K. Krurr-CetinaandA. V. Cicourel 9BlContibutions@ Routledge KeganPaul I98lNo part of th* bookma2 be cproducednaryform wilhoutpermissionfromlupublisher,exceptfor lu quotation f bieJpassagesn citicismLibrary of Congress atalogingn PublicationDataAduancesn social heory nd methodologlt.Includesndex.Conlents Thc micro-sociologicalhallengeof macro-sociologtK. Knorr-Cetina-Nokson the ntcgration f micro-andmacro-leuelsof analysis A. V. Cicourel Micro-rrarclationas a thzory-buildingtrategt R. Collins letc.lI . SociologrM ethndoogy-Addresses, a)s,lec ure . 2. M icro ociooglt--Addre e , e a1t ,lcclures.3. Macrosociologlt-Addresses,ssa2s,lectures.. Knorr-Cetinn,K. II. Cicourel,A.V.HM24.A33 30t B1-89sISBN O-7(UI.ISEA_1 AACMISBN 0-7 n-47-X (pbk.)

Contents

Noteson contributorsPreface

fnoduction: The micro-sociological hallengeofmacro-sociology: owardsa reconstructionof socialtheory and methodologyK. Knorr-CetinaPart I The micro-foundations of social knowledge

I Notes on the intesrationof micro- and macro-levelsol'analysisA. V. Cicourel2 Micro-translation as a theory-buil ding strategyR. Cotlins3 Intermediate stepsbetweenmicro- and macro-integration: the caseofscreenine or inheriteddisordersT. Duster

Part 2 Action and structure: the cognitiveorganization of symbolic practice4 Philosophicalaspects f the micro-macro problemR. Harr

vl lxi

I+95 l8 l

r09

t37139


17/17

vi Contents5 Agency, institution and time-spaceanalysisA. Giddens6 Social itual and relative ruth in natural anguageG. Fauconnier

Part 3 Toward a reconstruction of systemsperspectives7 Transformational theory and the internalenvironment of action systemsV. LidzB Communicationabout aw in interaction ystemsN. Luhmann

Plrt 4 The production of societal macro-structures:aspects of a political eiconomy of practice9 Toward a reconstructionof historical materialism

J. Habermasl0 Unscrewing the big Leviathan: how actorsmacro-structure reality and how sociologists elp them todo soM. Callonand B. LatourI I Men and machinesP. Bourdieu

Index of namesIndex ofsubjects

t 6 l

203205234

t75

257259

. ) f ?

3043 19323

Notes on contributors

PierreBourdieus ProfessorofSociology at the EcoledesHautes Etudesen SciencesSociales n Paris. He began his careeras an anthro polo-gist in Algeria (c1.Tlu Algcians (1962), Outline f a Tluoryof Practice(1977), and Algeria ln| (1979)). Larer, he rurned to rhe sociologyofculture and education (Tlu Inluritors (lg7g) and, La Distinction.(English translation forthcoming)). From his widely diverseempirical work on education, ntellectuals, iterature, art and power,particularly of the ruling class, he developeda systematic heory ofthe social world founded upon the fundamental concepts f the ,field,an d the'habitus'.Michel Callon originally completed his studies as an Ingnieur desN1inesbetbre urning to sociologyand economics.His interest n thepolicies of great industrial enterprises ed to his work on the modali-ties ofthe social constructionand success fscientificobjects,ofwhicha first transfation into English appeared n theSociologltf theSciercesYearbook ol4 on TheSocialProcessf Scienttfcnuestigation1980) He iscurrently Matre de Recherche at rhe Centre de Sociologie deI'lnnovation at th e Ecole des Mines in Paris, where he teachessociologyol'scienceand technique.Aaron Victor Cicourel eceived his PhD in sociology from CornellUniversity. He has taught at various branchesol'the University ofCalifornia lbr the past 2l years.He is a Profssor f Sociology n theSchool ol-Medicine and the Deparrment of Sociologyat the Univer-sity ofCalifbrrnia, San Diego. Among his bestknown works are Methodand Measurementn Sociologlt1964), Thc SocialOrganilationof Juuenile

Documents

Unscrewing the Big Leviathan Callon y Latour