{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"231a69de-8526-4d34-8fa7-231b09af93a8","title":"技术体系：理性的社会生活","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9787552024104","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"231a69de-8526-4d34-8fa7-231b09af93a8","id":"231a69de-8526-4d34-8fa7-231b09af93a8","uuid":"231a69de-8526-4d34-8fa7-231b09af93a8","title":"技术体系：理性的社会生活","normalized_title":"技术体系理性的社会生活","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9787552024104","isbns":["9787552024104"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":328,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/231a69de-8526-4d34-8fa7-231b09af93a8","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/%E6%8A%80%E6%9C%AF%E4%BD%93%E7%B3%BB%EF%BC%9A%E7%90%86%E6%80%A7%E7%9A%84%E7%A4%BE%E4%BC%9A%E7%94%9F%E6%B4%BB","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/231a69de-8526-4d34-8fa7-231b09af93a8/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/231a69de-8526-4d34-8fa7-231b09af93a8/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/231a69de-8526-4d34-8fa7-231b09af93a8","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/231a69de-8526-4d34-8fa7-231b09af93a8/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/231a69de-8526-4d34-8fa7-231b09af93a8/search"},"page":{"printed_page":106,"pdf_page":122,"physical_index":122,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"d490496775210863a5a881c11c84169471b6fcdfe9323d63e484e103b19e3a32"},"chapter":"第三章具体化西蒙栋和建构主义","content":"避免对现代性的常见的决定论解释是值得称赞的，但这只为我们搭建了舞台。现在的挑战是，提供关于现代性及相应政治的一幅可识别的图景。拉图尔提供了最具创造性的解决方案，用“实验室化(laboratorization)”“扩大规模(scalingup)”和“长网络(longnetworks)”等概念来代替马克思主义的“资本积累”、韦伯的“合理化”和马尔库塞的“技术理性”。但是，当科赫兄弟动员他们的亿万富翁网络来颠覆公众对气候变化的讨论时，以及皮凯蒂(Piketty)教授重新揭示了资本的偏颇逻辑时，这一切都是为了每次以某种方式消除对社会批判的需要。这一理论的高潮似乎是在于，在对自然的理解中面对马克思主义者和科学家权威的过分夸大的主张，对宽容和多元主义的呼吁。“妥协”而非“批判”是当今的新秩序，由此产生的政治是令人失望的抽象。①\n\n合作生产理论(theories of co-production)激发了更多关于技术政治的具体研究。这些理论既利用了社会建构主义也利用了行动者网络理论。它们认识到人造物和个体之间的相互依赖，对民主化的强调回应了在这种域境下所产生的利益冲突。①这似乎是改革技术的社会运动要求扩大民主的正当理由。\n\n106\n\n技术体系：理性的社会生活\n\n71\n\n① Bruno Latour, Politiques de La Nature (Paris: Editions la Decouverte, 1999)。 我意识到这一说法是有争议的，但为它辩护还需要另一章。作为我在争论中所采取的立场的一个例子，考虑一下Yaron Ezrahi，“Nature as Dogma”，AmericanScientist93, no. 1(January-February 2005)。 http://www. americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/nature-as-dogma.","previous_page":105,"next_page":null}