Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Modes of syncretism
View graph of relations

Modes of syncretism: notes on noncoherence

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Published

Standard

Modes of syncretism : notes on noncoherence. / Law, John; Afdal, Geir; Asdal, Kristin; Lin, Wen-yuan; Singleton, Vicky.

In: Common Knowledge, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2014, p. 172-192.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Harvard

Law, J, Afdal, G, Asdal, K, Lin, W & Singleton, V 2014, 'Modes of syncretism: notes on noncoherence', Common Knowledge, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 172-192. https://doi.org/10.1215/0961754X-2374817

APA

Law, J., Afdal, G., Asdal, K., Lin, W., & Singleton, V. (2014). Modes of syncretism: notes on noncoherence. Common Knowledge, 20(1), 172-192. https://doi.org/10.1215/0961754X-2374817

Vancouver

Law J, Afdal G, Asdal K, Lin W, Singleton V. Modes of syncretism: notes on noncoherence. Common Knowledge. 2014;20(1):172-192. https://doi.org/10.1215/0961754X-2374817

Author

Law, John ; Afdal, Geir ; Asdal, Kristin ; Lin, Wen-yuan ; Singleton, Vicky. / Modes of syncretism : notes on noncoherence. In: Common Knowledge. 2014 ; Vol. 20, No. 1. pp. 172-192.

Bibtex

@article{c512a2a6a0f84b1796b46f94777e589d,
title = "Modes of syncretism: notes on noncoherence",
abstract = "In this contribution to the Common Knowledge symposium “Fuzzy Studies,” the authors, all of whom work in the field of science, technology, and society, begin from the assumption that, as Bruno Latour has put it, “we have never been modern.” They accept the STS thesis that, while modern practices purport to be entirely rational and coherent, on closer inspection they turn out to be as much noncoherent as coherent. This article poses the question of what forms “noncoherences” take and how they are managed. The basic argument is that there is a range of styles of noncoherence or “modes of syncretism.” In small case studies, the authors identify six such modes or styles, which they term denial, domestication, separation, care, conflict, and collapse. Given that consistency and coherence seem less important now than they were once taken to be — and given that the conditions of possibility for purity are, in any case, in decline — this list and its supporting case studies, while not meant to be definitive, are offered as a way of understanding how practices that do not cohere may still function and fit together admirably.",
author = "John Law and Geir Afdal and Kristin Asdal and Wen-yuan Lin and Vicky Singleton",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1215/0961754X-2374817",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
pages = "172--192",
journal = "Common Knowledge",
issn = "0961-754X",
publisher = "Duke University Press",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Modes of syncretism

T2 - notes on noncoherence

AU - Law, John

AU - Afdal, Geir

AU - Asdal, Kristin

AU - Lin, Wen-yuan

AU - Singleton, Vicky

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - In this contribution to the Common Knowledge symposium “Fuzzy Studies,” the authors, all of whom work in the field of science, technology, and society, begin from the assumption that, as Bruno Latour has put it, “we have never been modern.” They accept the STS thesis that, while modern practices purport to be entirely rational and coherent, on closer inspection they turn out to be as much noncoherent as coherent. This article poses the question of what forms “noncoherences” take and how they are managed. The basic argument is that there is a range of styles of noncoherence or “modes of syncretism.” In small case studies, the authors identify six such modes or styles, which they term denial, domestication, separation, care, conflict, and collapse. Given that consistency and coherence seem less important now than they were once taken to be — and given that the conditions of possibility for purity are, in any case, in decline — this list and its supporting case studies, while not meant to be definitive, are offered as a way of understanding how practices that do not cohere may still function and fit together admirably.

AB - In this contribution to the Common Knowledge symposium “Fuzzy Studies,” the authors, all of whom work in the field of science, technology, and society, begin from the assumption that, as Bruno Latour has put it, “we have never been modern.” They accept the STS thesis that, while modern practices purport to be entirely rational and coherent, on closer inspection they turn out to be as much noncoherent as coherent. This article poses the question of what forms “noncoherences” take and how they are managed. The basic argument is that there is a range of styles of noncoherence or “modes of syncretism.” In small case studies, the authors identify six such modes or styles, which they term denial, domestication, separation, care, conflict, and collapse. Given that consistency and coherence seem less important now than they were once taken to be — and given that the conditions of possibility for purity are, in any case, in decline — this list and its supporting case studies, while not meant to be definitive, are offered as a way of understanding how practices that do not cohere may still function and fit together admirably.

U2 - 10.1215/0961754X-2374817

DO - 10.1215/0961754X-2374817

M3 - Journal article

VL - 20

SP - 172

EP - 192

JO - Common Knowledge

JF - Common Knowledge

SN - 0961-754X

IS - 1

ER -