Kom mig just för att läsa den där artikeln om Boltanski och Latour som symmetriska tvillingar.

Det där med symmetri och tvillingskap kan läsas som lite missvisande. I slutändan skriver Guggenheim och Potthast fram hur de två programmen trots allt divergerar:

At the moment, none of these approaches manages to include the other in a satisfactory way…

Hur som helst, lägger följande citat på minnet, inför kommande skrivprojekt:

Latour is heading for the expansion of a small field, science studies, into general sociology. Boltanski is trying to find a general sociology of critical situations. These two strategies also highlight the complex relationship between science studies and general sociology and they point to two mirroring problems. The former strategy points to how much modern societies have become shaped by science. General sociology then has to include or even become a form of science studies. However, the problem with this approach, as we can see from the expansion of Actor-Network theory, is that it tends to imagine all fields of society according to science, thereby ignoring important differences. (Sida 17 i ursprunglig online-version.)