Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

SAGETRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Social Studies of Science
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mialet, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Do Angels Have Bodies? Two Stories About Subjectivity in Science:

The Cases of William X and Mister H

Hélène Mialet

Department of Science and Technology Studies, 726 University Avenue, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14850, USA; fax: +1 607 255 0610; mialet{at}umich.edu (until January 2000), then helene.mialet{at}cornell.edu

How can we characterize an individual creator `in vivo' - or, to use a more traditional category in philosophy, a knowing subject `in the making'? While informed by philosophical modes of questioning, this paper addresses this problem using tools developed by anthropologists and sociologists of science. Based on two case studies - William X, a researcher working at France's largest petroleum company (Elf Aquitaine), and Stephen Hawking - the paper examines how these scientists came to distinguish themselves as creative geniuses. By breaking down the narrative representation of the creative process as a simple mental operation, the paper shows how creation is materially `distributed' in specific tools, practices and social networks. Conversely, it demonstrates how and why the distribution of competences into heterogeneous practices provides an explanation of how a person becomes a singular, inventive individual. In conclusion, it proposes a new conceptualization of the knowing subject as the distributed-centred subject.

Social Studies of Science, Vol. 29, No. 4, 551-581 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/030631299029004004


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Social Science InformationHome page
V. Bontems and Y. Gingras
De la science normale a la science marginale. Analyse d'une bifurcation de trajectoire scientifique: le cas de la Theorie de la Relativite d'Echelle
Social Science Information, December 1, 2007; 46(4): 607 - 653.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Science Technology Human ValuesHome page
A. Beaulieu, A. Scharnhorst, and P. Wouters
Not Another Case Study: A Middle-Range Interrogation of Ethnographic Case Studies in the Exploration of E-science
Science Technology Human Values, November 1, 2007; 32(6): 672 - 692.
[Abstract] [PDF]