"Likewise, the belief that the spread of multinational corporations and global media coverage imply cultural homogenization has little basis in ethnographic evidence."

I disagree.  The extension of an economic model automatically imposes certain commercial activities onto local cultures.  The transposition of one culture (and population) into another region will assume certain integrations, even if only economically-related.  I would argue that the explanation on p.14 (easier forms of transportation and communication) can only be said to resist homogenization, not necessarily promote diversity. 

"In a sense the productive function of society would be transformed so that it would filled by organizations that more closely resemble progressive small businesses and non-profit organizations."

I think this leans towards decentralization and a form of socialism?  Page 244 states that it would be more realistic than socialism but how?  Certainly the non-profit model can be said to closely approximate a social-like condition?  As a theory I think it is fantastic but not sure how to argue for the complete removal of the competitive aspects of the current system.  Would this require the removal of capitalism as we know it - i.e. financial motivation? 

I honestly hope that what comes out of the current economic 'crisis' is a step to this direction of a civil-society society.  I think the recent governmental regulations on executive bonuses is a step in that direction.  It may force the alienation of american companies by the 'elite' groups of investment bankers, but perhaps this will initiate a shift to different motivations for being at these companies?

Is David's central quasi-evolutionary metaphor of pathways selected by social structure simply the mangle (resistance and accommodation) writ large or is there more going on?

-From TAing Woodhouse’s Intro to STS class twice, I have heard a lot about the “unintended consequences” of particular technologies…I do not know that I have heard of STS people (other than maybe Ron) talk about the unintended consequences of ideas. When we talk about being “reflexive”, it usually has something to do with power and social positioning, however, perhaps we ought to incorporate the notion of how our ideas could ultimately be used that are not the ways we in fact intended (just like we ask technologists).

-Is David coming in? If so, what are the ways he could imagine the concept of “Alternative Pathways” being used in unintended (negative) ways? He argues that it could be used to produce a more just and sustainable society…there are certainly other ways things could potentially go, however…

-Co-optation is a big theme in the book…in what ways can knowledge, in addition to social movements, be co-opted?

Pg. 87  Hess is suggesting that industry is driven by social change from the bottom up through groups like IOMs and other groups with social change agendas, and from the top down by the affect of those groups on elites and government, not that community run organizations should be driving industry on the massive scale of global industry.  The issue is the change in industry culture driven by social groups.   

Pg. 11  Similar to Keith I find Hess’s vague definition of globalization problematic, he seems to confuse “globalization” and “globalized.”  

So is this just a combination of SSK and Actor Network Theory? In that “knowledge” springs from the local conditions and is then legitimated based on “assembling” a powerful network?

How is the “third space” he advocates on the last page of the book any different from Galison’s trading zones? A place where different “rationalities” can speak…that sounds like a trading zone to me

I can understand why he calls this book a “motley” because for the most part…it is completely unclear and equivocal to me....and when I say "unclear" I don't mean the words I mean the meaning behind the words. I mean the main thing I get from the book is that all knowledge springs from local conditions and flows outward...is that all I'm supposed to be getting? Am I missing something?

Also, what the hell is transmodern, I didn't get a clear definition..."Trans" of course literally means "between" so is that what it means: "between" modern and post-modern?

Just finished reading "The Dream of a Global Knowledge
Network—A New Approach" in which the authors posit a method of cross-repository interoperability based on the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM).

From the CIDOC site: "The CIDOC CRM is intended to promote a shared understanding of cultural heritage information by providing a common and extensible semantic framework that any cultural heritage information can be mapped to. It is intended to be a common language for domain experts and implementers to formulate requirements for information systems and to serve as a guide for good practice of conceptual modelling. In this way, it can provide the "semantic glue" needed to mediate between different sources of cultural heritage information, such as that published by museums, libraries and archives."

They suggest "a generic global ontological model based on relations and co-reference rather than objects" effectively translating between knowledge worlds (in this case cultural heritage information).

-----

Isn't Turnbull, by casting science as local, more or less redefining the polyhedron?

Keith

Did anyone see the article on Freeman Dyson in the Times this weekend regarding climate change?  Thought it a good parallel to the discussion of HIV previously.

1) Old fashioned positivists

2) Biased science

3) Strong program, eg social construction

  Assemblage =

Bourdieu's Field

Foucault's episteme

Latour's network

Knor-Cetina Epistemic cultures

Kuhn's paradigms

Lakatos "research programme"

Pickering's mangle

  Easy dualisms to watch for:

holism/reductionism

natural/artificial

Bess

(Ch. 2  General Comment)
Architects still rely on 2D, sometimes 3D, visualizations (plans, sections, maps, models) for the construction of buildings.  Despite the use of computing technology in the design process, we are still using the same method of representation that was used right after the cathedral era, more than 700 years ago.  Some critics of the contemporary architecture believe this is what is holding back the profession from advancing to a new level of building techniques, materials and processes.  Perhaps if the lines of communication ("Talk") between architect and builder were increased, and the process of erecting buildings was more design-build and on-site, then new visualization techniques could be explored and communicated in order to transform the construction site back to the experimental laboratory.

Keith

p. 76 Tacoma Narrows Bridge reference:  Design for the local and the global is extremely important.  We have lost this in architecture through modernism and I found it interesting to see how Turnbull described the parallel position of science and technology.  The International Style of architecture was the equivalent of universal truths in science.

Kristin

Page 66- “This exposure to new sites and the work of others was a constant spur to innovation. Secondly, the construction site was an experimental laboratory in which the masons were able to see whether an innovation as successful. Talk, tradition, and template provided for a distributed, heterogeneous, design process strongly analogous to the scientific theory building….”

It seems as though compartmentalizing through having institutions of science is disadvantageous, though we’re aware that open “talk” and exchange is critical toward building knowledge. Where might institutions in the future be headed with this knowledge without having a collapse of infrastructure?