the life inside the left hand side - review malcolm ashmore body multiple

8/10/2019 The Life Inside the Left Hand SIde - Review Malcolm Ashmore Body Multiple

1/5

The Life Inside/The Left-Hand SideThe Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice by Annemarie MolReview by: Malcolm AshmoreSocial Studies of Science, Vol. 35, No. 5, Scientific Collaboration (Oct., 2005), pp. 827-830Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25046672.

Accessed: 23/12/2014 08:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Ltd.is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Studies of

Science.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Tue, 23 Dec 2014 08:55:56 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltdhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25046672?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25046672?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltd


2/5

SISIS

REVIEW

The

Life

Inside/The

Left-Hand

Side

Malcolm Ashmore

Annemarie Mol, The

Body

Multiple:

Ontology

in Medical Practice

(Durham,

NC:

Duke

University

Press,

2002),

224

pp.,

?45.95/

l50.00/$74.95

(hbk),

?16.96/

17.50/$21.95

(pbk).

ISBN

0-82232-902-6

(hbk),

0-82232-917-4

(pbk).

This

is1

a

very

good

book.

It

is

multiply

interesting:

to

people

in

science

studies,

to

philosophers

and

ethnographers,

to

anybody

interested

in

the

social sciences

of

medicine.

It

is rich and

multi-layered.

Beautifully

writ

ten. Unusually well-made (as

a

material object; Duke University Press was

a

sound

choice).

Buy

it and read

it;

think about

it;

then

use

it and cite it

and read it

again.

Above

all,

take

pleasure

in

it.

In

an

ideal

world,

in which

reviewing

a

text

was

simply

and

common

sensically

a

matter

of

'giving

one's

opinion'

as

a

guide

and recommenda

tion for

those

who

currently

do

not

know the

text,

that would be

it;

job

done. But of

course,

that is

not

the main function

of

reviewing

in

this

'scientific'

context

(for

a

comprehensive analysis

of the functions of scien

tific

reviews,

see

Restrepo

Forero

[2003]).

And

anyway,

it would be

quite

surprising

if there

are

many

readers of this

journal,

and hence this

review,

who

are

currently

unaware

of

The

Body

Multiple.

Arthur

Frank,

in his

highly

complimentary

review

in

the American

Journal

of

Sociology

(no less),

suggested

that

'Awards committees should take notice of

this

major

con

tribution'

(Frank,

2003:

534).

They

have: the book

won

the 2004 Ludwik

Fleck Prize

of

the

Society

for Social Studies of Science

(thereby providing

Mol with

an

'Author

meets

Critics' session

at

the

Society's

Paris

con

ference)

as

well

as

the

British

Sociological

Association's

Sociology

of

Health and Illness Book Prize, 2004. The commonsense function of this

particular

review is thus

very

likely

to

be redundant.

You

already

know this

book. You have

already

been

told,

officially,

that it

is

good.

At

any

rate,

I

am

going

to

proceed

on

that

assumption.

Book

reviewing

is

a

relatively

lowly

task in the academic division

of

labours. Not

too

many

British academics

will

(hope

to)

include

one

in

their

Research Assessment

Exercise

returns.

(I

haven't written

one

in

years.)

The

Social Studies

of

Science

35/5(October 2005)

827-830

?

SSS

and SAGE Publications

(London,

Thousand Oaks

CA,

New

Delhi)

ISSN

0306-3127

DOI: 10.1177/0306312705056053

www.

sagepublications.

com

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Tue, 23 Dec 2014 08:55:56 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/5

828

Social Studies

of

Science

35/5

pros

of the

practice:

you

get

the

book,

and

you

get

a

'proper'

(that

is,

instrumental)

reason

for

reading

it;

the best result

of which is that

you

read

it

more

thoroughly

than is often the

case

with

academic

writing

that

tends

to

be mined

for

quotes

and cites. The

cons

of

reviewing

are

its

low

status

as

an

activity

and its character

(more

often than

not)

as

a

chore,

undertaken

for

some

vague

collegiate

reason,

rather

than

for

any

intrinsic

pleasure.

Thus,

I

am

happy

to

report

that

the task

I

have undertaken

here

has

involved

two

linked

pleasures:

the

reading

of

a

very

fine

book

-

so

fine,

in

fact,

that

I had

already bought

and

started

it well

before

I

was

asked

to

review it

-

and this

writing, particularly

the

argument

you

will

find

in the

footnote

-

which

is,

of

course,

my

small and

relatively

unaccomplished

attempt

to achieve a Mollian double-text within the constraints of

my

fading

imagination

and this

journal's

typesetting

capabilities.

Note

1.

The

main theoretical

story

of

Annemarie Moi's

text,

which she

has

been

working

up

for

some

time

(together

with collaborators such

as

Marc

Berg [Berg

&

Mol,

1998]

and

John

Law

[Law

&

Mol,

2002]),

is

a

novel

account

of

ontology;

of,

that

is,

the

practices

involved in the

making

of 'this

is'

assertions.

It

is

novel in

two

senses:

first,

multiplicity:

not existence but existences; no-thing singular, every-thing plural; not 'This' but 'These'.

Or,

in

Moi's

(surprisingly

unrevolutionary)

phrase,

borrowed

from

Marilyn

Strathern,

'more

than

one,

but less than

many' (and

here

a

wag

of

a

weblogger quips,

'That would

be

...

two?'

[Spinuzzi,

2004]).

Despite

this fit of

moderation,

I

suspect

that 'This is

these'

('This

are

these'?)

will be the

gist,

the

takeaway

message,

the

news

of the main

(first,

top-of-the-page,

serif-fonted)

part

of this

appropriately

doubled

text,

produced

through

Moi's narrative of her

ethnography

of

hospital

Z,

somewhere

in

the Netherlands

-

or

rather,

as

she

insists,

her

'ethnography

of disease'

(p.

151);

the disease of

atherosclerosis.

The

second

novelty

of

Moi's

'ontic turn' consists in what it

turns

away

from,

and

wishes to replace; namely, the centrality of epistemology in philosophy and science

studies. Instead of

concerning

ourselves,

as

the

sociology

of

scientific

knowledge (SSK)

used

to

do,

with how

knowledge

is

achieved,

and

maintained,

and

lost,

and

destroyed,

instead

we

will

focus

our

attention,

like the

actors

in the

settings

we

examine,

on

that

which

is

the

object

of

their

attention,

the focus

of their

practices:

on

what 'it'

is,

on

its

ontic

character,

or

characters.

And

what,

in

Moi's

account,

links these novelties?

Practice. Intervention

as

opposed

to

representation.

What folks

do,

not

what

they

'think'

(though thought,

too,

is,

in

practice,

only analysable

in and

as

the

practices

of

discourse

[Edwards,

1997]).

Which

in

itself is

not

a

particularly

new

idea

(Hacking,

1983;

Pickering,

1992; Turner,

1994),

though

here

it

is

pretty

thoroughly

enacted via Moi's

preferred term, 'enactment'.

So

how does

'practice'

link

ontological multiplicity

and the

rejection

of

epistemology?

This

way

(among possible

others):

'ontology

is

not

given

in the

order

of

things

...

instead,

ontologies

are

brought

into

being,

sustained,

or

allowed

to

wither

away,

in

common,

day-to-day

sociomaterial

practices'

(p.

6,

top).

Note

two

things

here: the

similarity

between

this

account

of

the

bringing

into

being

of

ontologies,

and

my account,

above,

of the

concerns

of

SSK;

and the

hiding

of

epistemic

activity

in

the

gloss, 'brought

into

being,

sustained,

or

allowed

to

wither

away'.

Is

there such

a

thing

as

'ontic

practice',

independent

of,

and distinct

from,

'epistemic practice'?

Mol

clearly

thinks there

is:

ontics,

she

writes,

are

the third

step

'of the social sciences

in

the field

of

medicine',

where the first is the analysis of illness as patients' lived reality, the second is the analysis

of

medical

discourse,

in

which

we

enter

a

world

of

perspectival

meaning;

the world Mol

now

invites

us

to

leave with her third

step,

which takes

us

'into disease "itself"

...

[by]



4/5

Review: Ashmore:

The

Life

Inside/The

Left-Hand Side

829

foregrounding practicalities,

materialities,

events.

If

we

take this

step,

"disease" becomes

a

part

of what is done in

practice' (pp.

12-13,

top).

'Epistemology',

for

Mol,

is

a

term

of

art

in

professional

philosophy:

a

matter

of

representation, of correspondence, of normativity. But this image is irrelevant

-

or at

least,

seriously

retro

-

in

contemporary

science studies

inquiry,

as

I

am sure

she

is well

aware.

The

(social)

constructivist

programme

of SSK and its

successors

-

including

actor

network

theory (ANT)

and its

successors

-

has made it

so.

But

then

Mol

is

a

philosopher

(she

works

in

a

philosophy department);

and it is

an

oddity

of this

book

to

notice

how

often,

and

how

directly,

old-fashioned,

pre-SSK philosophy

of

science

is

being

addressed. And

to

this

audience,

no

doubt,

Mol's

approach

is

startling,

even

shocking.

Even within

STS,

it

can

sometimes

seem

that Mol

(along

with fellow

spirits

such

as

John

Law)

is

leading

an

incipient

movement.

As

Ronlyn

Duncan

reports

being

told,

'ontology

is the fundamental issue.

Epistemology,

it

seemed,

was

pass?'

(Duncan,

2004: 17).

(Parenthetically,

here

is

another odd

thing:

it is the

'top

text' which is

most

strongly

addressed

to

philosophers.

The

secondary, bottom-of-the-page,

two-columned,

sans

serif'd,

narrative is

not.

Which,

now

I

come

to

think of

it,

is

one

of the

reasons

that

I

find

it

the

more

interesting,

and

more

successful,

of the

two.

Positioned

on

the

page

as

a

running

footnote,

this

text

is

wholly

concerned with

another

practice:

that

of'relating

to

the literature'. And

I find

it

quite

wonderful

-

and

not

only

because

a

text

of mine

[I

mean ours

-Ashmore

et

al.,

1989]

is related

to

for

all

the

right

reasons

[pp.

161-64,

bottom]

including

its

style.

It

is

a

matter,

I

think

-

and

I

share this view with Ronald

Frankenberg

[2004]

-

of

its

simultaneous

defeat and instantiation of that

most

boring

of

genres,

the literature review. The achievement of

breathing

life into this

corpse

is

remarkable

in

itself.)

But

I

do

not

wish

to

endorse

epistemics

as

opposed

to

ontics.

Rather,

in

the

spirit

of

the

Both/And,

I

want to

suggest

that Mol's

approach

can

be understood

as a

further

move

in

the

dynamics

of

unmasking

that has

always

characterized the modernist

project

of

sociology

of

knowledge.

SSK

was

founded

on a

distinction between the

'standard

view'

of

science beloved

of normative

philosophy

and

its

own

'new view'

(Mulkay,

1979).

This

dichotomy

has several

names:

normal

versus

revolutionary;

cold

versus

hot;

uncontentious

versus

controversial;

ready-made

versus

in-the-making.

The classic

texts

of

SSK

(Collins,

1985; Latour, 1987)

opened

up

the

right-hand

side

of

the

dichotomy

to

examination

for the first

time: the excitement and

uncertainty

of

current

controversy,

the

hard and difficult labour

of

fact-making

in the lab and

in the

world;

these

became

and

remained the

object

of

epistemically

relevant work

in

STS.

And the left-hand side

of

the

founding

division

was

left for dead

(and

for

philosophy)

-

as

if it

really

was as

lifeless

and

static and finished

as

the

SSK

critical

mythology

asserted.

Atherosclerosis

is neither

novel

nor

uncertain.

Nothing

inMol's

ethnography

suggests

that its

reality

and truth

are

anywhere

contested.

Yet Mol

shows

beautifully

that

a

disease

(a

fact)

is still

an

epistopic

(Lynch,

1993)

despite

its

appearance,

to

medical

and

many

STS

practitioners

alike,

of

being

black-boxed

and finished

-

and

so,

so,

dull

This then is

Mol's

major

contribution:

to

show

that the

assumption

of

stability

(of

coldness)

in

'finished

science'

is

inappropriate.

Nothing,

it

now

appears,

is

really

'finished'.

The action does

not

stop;

the

epistemic

labour

of

coordination,

distribution

and

inclusion continues.

This

I

think

is what

the

trope

of 'more

than

one

and

less

than

many'

is

most

interestingly

pointing

to.

And

this

too

explains

Mol's otherwise

puzzling

attention

to

the

concerns

and

conceptions

of

professional philosophers:

after

all,

this

territory

of the left-hand

side

had hitherto

always

been theirs.

Despite

Mol's

own

occasional

rhetoric,

and that of her

followers,

it

seems

less than

useful

to

conceive

of

The

Body Multiple

as

the

instantiation

of

a

brand

new

programme

of

Ontics,

designed

and destined

to

replace

the tired

old routines

of

Epistemics.

I

suggest,

instead,

that

Mol's classic

ethnographic

move

of

uncovering

the

life

hiding

inside

a

mere

object

-

here,

the

object

of settled

science

-

is

an

important

(if

ironic)

renewal

of

the

dynamic

of

SSK.

So

let

us see

it

like

this:

epistemics

is that

branch

of

our

mutual



5/5

830

Social Studies

of

Science

35/5

enterprise

that deals

with

the

hot

side

of

science,

with

novelty

and

controversy,

while

ontics has

as

its

object

the

(not so)

cold

side

of

(un)finished, (un)settled

science.

Peace,

then?

References

Ashmore, Malcolm,

Michael

Mulkay

& Trevor

Pinch

(1989)

Health and

Efficiency:

A

Sociology of

Health

Economics

(Milton

Keynes,

Bucks.:

Open University

Press).

Berg,

Marc

&

Annemarie

Mol

(eds)

(1998) Differences

inMedicine:

Unravelling

Practices,

Techniques,

and Bodies

(Durham,

NC: Duke

University

Press).

Collins,

H.M.

(1985)

Changing

Order:

Replication

and Induction

in

Scientific

Practice

(London

&

Beverly

H?ls,

CA: SAGE

Publications).

Duncan,

Ronlyn

(2004)

'Science

Narratives',

EASSTReview

23(2):

17-18.

Edwards,

Derek

(1997)

Discourse and

Cognition (London,

Thousand

Oaks,

CA

&

New

Delhi:

SAGE

Publications).

Frank,

Arthur W

(2003)

'Book

Review',

American

Journal

of Sociology

109(2):

532-34.

Frankenberg,

Ronald

(2004)

Sociology

of

Health and Illness Book

Prize

Winner,

2004.

British

Sociological

Association.

Available

at

.

Accessed

12

December

2004.

Hacking,

Ian

(1983)

Representing

and

Intervening:

Introductory

Topics

in the

Philosophy of

Natural Science

(Cambridge: Cambridge

University

Press).

Latour,

Bruno

(1987)

Science in Action

(Cambridge,

MA: Harvard

University

Press).

Law,

John

& Annemarie Mol

(eds) (2002)

Complexities:

Social

Studies

ofKnowledge

Practices

(Durham,

NC: Duke

University

Press).

Lynch,

Michael

(1993)

Scientific

Practice

and

Ordinary

Action:

Ethnomethodology

and

Social

Studies

of

Science

(Cambridge

& NewYork:

Cambridge

University

Press).

Mulkay,

Michael

(1979)

Science and the

Sociology of Knowledge

(London:

Allen &

Unwin).

Pickering,

Andrew

(ed.) (1992)

Science

as

Practice and Culture

(Chicago,

IL:

University

of

Chicago

Press).

Restrepo

Forero,

Olga (2003)

On

Writing

Review

Articles and

Constructing

Fields

of

Study,

Unpublished

D.Phil

dissertation,

Department

of

Sociology,

University

of York.

Spinuzzi,

Clay

(2004)

'reading:

the

body

multiple',

clay

spinuzzi's

website:

the

eyes

of

texas

are

upon

you.

Available

at

.

Accessed

12

December 2004.

Turner,

Stephen

(1994)

The Social

Theory of

Practices:

Tradition,

Tacit

Knowledge,

and

Presuppositions

(Chicago,

IL:

University

of

Chicago

Press).

Malcolm

Ashmore is author

of The Reflexive Thesis

(University

of

Chicago

Press,

1989)

and

co-author

of

Health and

Efficiency (Open University

Press,

1989).

Interested

in

the

sociodiscursive

analysis

of

science

and

expertise,

he

is

currently researching

the

false/recovered

memory

controversy,

the

visuality

of

text,

the

ironies of

document

authentication,

and the

knowledges

of love.

Address:

Department

of Social

Sciences,

Loughborough University,

Loughborough,

Leicestershire

LE11

3TU,

UK;

fax:

+44

1509

223944;

email:

[email protected]

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Tue, 23 Dec 2014 08:55:56 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

the life inside the left hand side - review malcolm ashmore body multiple

Documents