Notes on: Callon, M (1986) Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay.  in J. Law, Power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge? London, Routledge, 1986, pp.196-223. Online http://www.thetransformationproject.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Actor-Network-Theory.pdf Dave Harris [Gripping and famous account. Tries to develop a neutral descriptive terminology to postpone distinctions between science and social science, and Nature and Society, even using neolohisms like interessement and hte rest. However: human researchers do all the integration andnegotiation. Scallops are said to negotiate or even vote but this is playful or misplaced neutrality --misplaced becaue it smuggles in anthropomorphism even though that intent is denied. Has to smuggle it on if there is to be 'equivalence', apolitical aimas well as neutrality? He has to admit in practice that the activities of the scallops are as he 'deems' them to be. He asserts 'no difference' between scallops being sampled and human representatives being selected for Unions, but this may depend on a disparaging view of worokers as cultural dopes cynically misled. Apart from anything else, there are substantial differences in which the term 'representative' is being used, although he glosses the technical and political uses, or lets the reader gloss them. Phony empiricism in pretending the case study was able to test the theory and concepts. Circularity among the definitions too? -- interessement seems to be entailed by the others?] This is about 'a sociology of translation'. It is based on 'agnosticism (impartiality between actors engaged in controversy), generalised symmetry (the commitment to explain conflicting viewpoints on the same terms) and free association (the abandonment of all a priori distinctions between the natural and the social)' [just asserted already] (1). It shows how translation occurs and how it this can be used to understand science and technology and power relationships. [It explicates a concept] There are four moments when researchers attempt to impose themselves and their definition of the situation on others: '(a) problematisationn where the problems are defined for the other actors and there is a suggestion that these problems would be resolved if actors took over the researcher's programme; (B) 'interessement' where researchers try to lock other actors into the roles that they have prescribed; (C) 'enrolment' where strategies are used to define and interrelate the various roles allocated to others; (D) 'mobilisation' where researchers ensure that various spokesman can represent collectivities. Translation is a process and it can fail, as in this case. Normal social science explanations and interpretations of science are asymmetric: the rights of scientists and engineers are tolerated, and treated impartially, but they are also seen as lacking reason, method, truth and efficiency — these display insufficient sociological reasons for success. These points of view are still treated as data, to be treated neutrally, and without a hierarchy, say between us and Nature. However, the same agnosticism is not applied towards society as well: 'Nature is uncertain but Society is not' (2). The removal of sociological knowledge from public discussion is actually crucial to explain science and technology, taking the place of Nature as a way of explaining emergence and closure of scientific controversies. Sometimes this 'superior force' has seen a scientific method, or social norms which support it, or forces such as classes, organisations or professions. In any confrontation with nature 'society always has the last word', and science would collapse without social norms and social interests. There are three major difficulties that arise. First, Sociological accounts usually have no trace of the actors' actual discussions. There is selective censorship of actors when they speak of themselves or of social allies or backgrounds. They speak freely only when they speak of Nature. Sociological reductionism is one product. Scientists own discussions of social situations or effects 'are considered to be irrelevant, or worse, used against them'. Sometimes sociological analysis can look like 'a trial' with sociological knowledge above criticism. Second controversies over sociological explanations 'are interminable' and there is rarely agreement. Sociology is equally divided by controversy, and it is common to defend positions with 'pugnacity' (3). However acknowledging this uncertainty and ambiguity leaves sociological accounts of science with 'no solid foundations'. Thirdly, there are methodological difficulties, especially turning on the importance of the actual actors, especially great men, or even corporate interests. Both identities are in fact problematic. One implication is that there might be no way to do sociological study of science and technology. Instead, this study sets out to preserve the controversies between the actors, risking chaos. There are three methodological principles as well — first to extend agnosticism to include social sciences, which would mean not censoring the actors' views [but he does condemn greedy fishermen] , and trying not to privilege a particular analysis of society [except ANT]. Second, generalised symmetry extends to the obvious mixture of considerations referring to Society and Nature, and requiring an observer 'to use a single repertoire' for both, whichever particular vocabulary is chosen. There is no point in repeating the analysis suggested by the actors, but there is an infinite number of other repertoires, and sociologists should 'choose the one that seems the best adapted to his task and then to convince his colleagues that he made the right choice' (4) [totally idealised of course]. We will be able to claim that our narrative is no more or no less valid than any other [kind of prophylactic relativism]. The main thing is not to change registers when moving from technical to social aspects. The particular repertoire chosen here is 'translation' which tries to avoid these problems. Thirdly, we abandon distinctions between natural and social events, seeing those as the result of analysis not an original departure. All such categories must be topics for actors' discussions, and the important thing is to see how actors define and associate the different elements. All this should lead to better understanding, and a focus on the capacity of some actors to get others to comply with them. Scallops have only been systematically fished for the last 20 years, but have become much sought after with spectacular prices. They are fished in Normandy. There are different species, some of which can be harvested all year round. In this case , St Brieuc Bay, they cannot be fished during spring and summer [because they lose their 'coral' which consumers like to eat]. The stock at Brest dwindled in the 1970s as a result of marine predators like starfish, hard winters, and overfishing which dredged scallops up before they could reproduce. St Brieuc managed to avoid the disaster because there were fewer predators and fishermen were already only fishing for half the year, so reproduction of the stock diminished less. New social relationships developed following an intervention bringing scientific knowledge, originally at a conference designed to discuss controlling the cultivation of scallops. There were three issues: first, some researchers had studied the cultivation of scallops in Japan using a particular technique to shelter larvae from predators and then to sow the larger shellfish in a safe area. This was the main issue. It was also apparent that there was no information about the 'mechanisms behind the development' of scallops, little scientific interest, and only a recent practical interest. A link between the fishermen and scallop larvae had to be established — by the researchers. Thirdly, fishing had been intensively pursued until it was producing bad commercial consequences. Scallops had already disappeared from Brest and seemed likely to do so from St Brieuc. The result was to develop scientific knowledge that got certified, to form a social group from the fishermen claiming a particular privilege, and the development of more specialists to study the scallops. Both knowledge and 'a network of relationships' were established, and both 'social and natural entities mutually control who they are and what they want' (6) [first silly generalisation --scallops control who they are?] We can trace the story by following three researchers who had returned from Japan and who are attempting 'domestication'. They displayed four 'moments' [of translation], which probably overlapped. First they wrote a series of reports and articles to summarise their impression and define their future projects [problematisation, 'or how to become indispensable']. They had seen evidence for themselves in Japan, and asked whether they could transpose practice to St Brieuc. However, the scallops were from a different species. No one has contradicted what they have said, so we can 'consider their statements are held to be uncontestable'. However, there was still much that was unknown, including how the larvae anchored themselves and how they actually metamorphosed. The intention was to restock the bay using Japanese experience. The researchers also tried to involve local actors, defining their identity in order to establish 'an obligatory passage point in the network of relations', the other component of problematisation [ie getting people to agree on a common definition of the problem]. As a result, three other actors were involved in the story — the scallop, the fishermen and scientific colleagues. The researchers defined these actors precisely enough to connect them up with different questions. For example, the fishermen were seen as not worrying about the stock, making large profits, and risking ruin. They were also considered to be interested in the long-term interest of restocking the bay, and to be able to approve the studies. The researchers knew nothing more about their identity and did not realise the mechanisms that affected the social group: they saw 'an average fishermen as a base unit of the community which consists of interchangeable elements' [very common definition in social policy too]. Scientific colleagues were taken as knowing nothing about scallops or the local situation and not understanding how shellfish anchor themselves, even though they might be interested in advancing knowledge once a suitable strategy had been developed – this had to be 'in situ rather than experimental tanks'. The scallop grows coral for only six months of the year. They are only known about as adults when they are dredged. There are questions about their behaviour especially whether they would '"accept" a suitable shelter. The researchers also presented themselves in a particular way — basic researchers, impressed by foreign achievements, hoping to advance knowledge of a species that had not been thoroughly studied, hoping to render fishermen's lives easier and increase the stock. We can see that elements of both social and natural worlds are involved — the issue of whether the scallop can anchor has consequences for other actors and their identities and relations. The researchers wanted to show that the interest of the other actors will be served by accepting the research programme. They did this by repeating a constant argument — the scallops will survive as a result of advanced scientific knowledge and if the fishermen hope to preserve their long-term interests [regardless of any differences between them, different motivations for researchers or fishermen, different explanations for anchoring]. Specifically if the fishermen want to preserve their interests they must know the answer to the question of how scallops anchor, so an alliance with the scientists will benefit everybody. This process of problematisation involves 'movements and detours'as well as alliances. No one can attain what they want just by themselves. There are obstacles. For example the scallop is perpetually threatened by predators, long-term interests of fishermen are threatened by short-term profits, scientific colleagues are required to acknowledge that they lack information about scallop behaviour in situ. The three researchers came to define their entire project around the question of how the scallop anchors. A system of alliances or associations developed. 'Interessement' is also important as well as the hypothetical aspects [getting people interested? Apparently engaging and allowing or representing their interests?] . The three groups exist on paper although again their reality passes through several states and there will be 'trials of strength' affecting solidarity (8). Each group can submit to being integrated or refuse the transaction and claim alternative identities or goals. What's more, these identities 'are formed and adjusted only during action'. Interessment is the process whereby entities try to stabilise the identity of the other actors, employing a group of actions and 'different devices'. The very etymology of the word indicates a connection with being in between, being interposed. The three researchers joined forces with the other entities [still including scallops] to attain a certain goal, which means defining the identity and goal of the allies. However, allies are then implicated in the subsequent problematisation of other actors, and this can be competitive. So interesting other actors means dealing with them and the other entities who want to define their identities differently — weakening links between other entities, for example, leaving the chosen identity dependent. Building one link while weakening others produces 'the triangle of interessement' (9) There is an unlimited range of strategies and mechanisms available, just as Feyerabend says about science generally — 'anything goes'. Strategies might include force, seduction, solicitation, usually involving modifications. The mechanisms are seen by looking at the domestication of scallops. The researchers liked the technique invented by the Japanese to trail collectors  ['a fine netted bag'] in the sea to support the anchorage of the larvae. This keeps off predators and allows free flows of water. We can understand this as interessement [acting in the interests of the larvae] : the larvae are extracted from the context, protected from predators and currents, physically dissociated from all the threatening actors including fishermen. At the same time, they provide evidence for the hypotheses supported by the researchers — predators are a constant threat, the larvae need to anchor, we can transpose the Japanese experience to France because the scallops are not fundamentally different. This form of [assembly of arguments] confirms the validity of problematisation, although in this case, it was 'eventually refuted'. It was originally hard to engage fishermen and colleagues in this interest. The researchers went instead for representatives of professional organisations via meetings and debates to offer explanations. They used data which was seen as indisputable, on the decline of scallops, and also presented the '"spectacular" results of the Japanese. Scientific colleagues were 'solicited' in conferences and through publications, where an exhaustive review of the literature first showed that nothing is known, and this is then to be regretted because of economic importance. The interests of the scallops are [represented indirectly] through assumptions about them from the other parties: all parties had an interest in preserving the scallops. Both social and natural entities were involved. However success is never assured, and actual enrolment in alliances does not always take place. What is key here [in scientific persuasion]  is transforming questions 'into a series of statements which are more certain' about scallop anchoring or fishermen's interests in restocking. Enrolment does not imply preestablished roles, but simply designates the way in which a set of roles is defined and attributed to actors. The process of interessement is successful if it achieves full enrolment. This will require various 'multilateral negotiations trials of strength and tricks'. Scallops can be enrolled. First they must be willing [!] to anchor, and this was one of the longest 'negotiations with the scallops'(10). Callan thinks in terms of 'a fairytale' with enemy forces setting out to thwart the project. Sources of problems were the currents, an originally unacknowledged variable in successful anchoring. So 'to negotiate with the scallops is first to negotiate with the currents' (11) [ridiculous slip into anthropomorphism, justified simply by his refusal to distinguish natural and social]. There are also parasites which can cause obstacles, and scallops appear to be particularly sensitive to combinations of various threats. The opponents do not surrender easily — for example the starfish interrupts the relationship between researchers and larvae by 'interesting… the larvae which are coveted by all' [how is this 'interesting' them-- gaining the attention of the scallops over all other factors?]. Anchorages themselves seem to vary more than expected, so that we have to negotiate with larvae choosing different depths to anchor. One issue becomes 'what sort of substances do the larvae prefer [!] to anchor themselves on', requiring further transactions — for example if collectors are made of some materials, they do not work as effectively. What emerges is 'a modus vivendi' — if all the conditions are present the larvae anchors itself. Even so, anchoring is also variable, and that emerged after scientists became interested. At first it was a simple matter to argue that larvae anchor, although in St Brieuc, they did not seem to do so in very large numbers, never attaining Japanese levels. The researchers demonstrated that they can increase anchoring by various manipulations which 'increase the interessement and… the active enticement which were used to retain the larvae' (12) Arguments with scientific colleagues were slightly different, and turned on whether the evidence was sufficiently persuasive, although colleagues tended to insist that previous work also be considered, some of which shows an incapacity to anchor [in order to deny the originality of the team?] . The three researchers seem to rely on 'ironically noting that all bone fide discoveries miraculously unveil precursors who had been previously ignored'. There were no transactions with fishermen or their representatives, who acted as 'amused spectators'. They were prepared to accept the conclusions, but their consent was obtained 'without any discussion', so the negotiation tended to go on between three parties. Enrolment took different forms: physical violence against predators, seduction, transaction, consent without discussion. [And scallops?] Multilateral negotiations were required to define and distribute different roles, including a role of anchoring for the scallops, and this involves determining and testing the identity of the actors. There is an issue of whether spokesmen were representative, and able to speak for others. The success of the project depended on that, because only 'a few rare individuals are involved' in each case, including scallops. Anchoring was considered to be real because it was not accidental, but it was also limited, so a few larvae 'are considered to be the official representatives of an anonymous mass of scallops'. Luckily the masses do not contradict their representatives so that a generalisation is safe. The same goes for negotiations with representatives of workers. This is the same epistemological issue as induction. Similarly, only a few colleagues need to be convinced in the scientific community, and only a few former relationship with the researchers, including larvae. However, there are differences [about time!] because the larvae do not speak for themselves but are only representatives, but we can manage this difference, by assuming that the anchoring larvae are '"equal" to the scallops' in the bay. They express nothing but they can act as 'an authentic spokesman' [anthropomorphic bollocks]. The issue is how many larvae can be originally trapped [seen as 'the negotiations between the scallops and the researchers'] [scallops now become 'interlocutors']. The only interest is how many larvae come to anchor themselves, so 'the anchorage is equivalent to a vote' [rubbish], just like electing spokesman for the fishing community, which is equally unengaged. Callan sees no difference between these cases [possibly because both are required for the success of the project and to defend the legitimacy of the research programme]. 'The symmetry is perfect' (13). Spokesman are designated through a series of intermediaries and equivalences, and 'the result is the same' (14) in that both fishermen and scallops can be invoked in the research programme. Scientists agree using much the sort of general mechanism. Overall 'the schema… Shows how entities as different as Pecton Maximus, the fishermen of St Brieuc and the community of specialists are constructed by interposed spokesman'. The spokesman mechanism in effect silences others. The difficulty of speaking for others is always a problem, especially with 'entities that do not possess an articulate language' and this involves increasingly sophisticated forms of interessement. The researchers are influential because they speak for several populations. They have progressively mobilised actors who are formed alliances and come to act as a unit, leading to indisputable propositions — that the scallops anchor and that the fishermen want to restock the bay. This process brings together formerly dispersed and inaccessible entities. Spokesman act to first displace and then reassemble actors, concentrating them [strategically]. As examples, scallops are transformed into larvae, larvae into numbers, numbers into data which then become 'easily transportable, reproducible and diffusible'. Larvae are not shown themselves but have been transformed into data. This displacement makes other displacements easier and also establishes equivalences [I think the argument is that only the researchers can grasp these]. In this way a handful of researchers discussing data commits 'uncountable populations of silent actors'(15) [yes -- humans commit scallops not vice-versa] this is how these populations 'participate' and come to actively support developments — 'the scallops and the fishermen are on the side of the three researchers in an amphitheatre at the Oceanographic Centre of Brest one day in November 1974'. The actual groups are far more elusive, and are only represented 'once the long chain of representatives has been put into place'. Consistency depends on equivalents and fidelity. Successful mobilisation re-designates the scallops as a species that anchors itself, the fishermen as keen on repopulation, colleagues who agree with results, a whole 'social and natural "reality"' produced by negotiations. Once established, margins of manoeuvre 'will then be tightly delimited', since 'a constraining network of relationships has been built'. However, it is still possible to contest them at any moment and then 'translation becomes treason'. There is a general sociological interest in how controversies arise and how they have a positive role in the dynamics of science and technology. Again we are to maintain 'the symmetry between controversies which pertain to nature and those which pertain to society' [why?]. The issue of whether spokesman's or intermediaries are representative is a practical question and we can ask it 'in the same manner' for scallops, fishermen and scientists. Controversy often manifests itself in challenging such representativity. We can see this with scallops. An experiment is 'an act of interessment' [getting to look pretty much like an intra-action, with the same rhetorical function]. Scallops are mobilised first in the form of larvae anchoring themselves and secondly in the form of diagrams discussed at a conference. The idea is to establish a fact that it anchors itself, and 'about a hundred larvae' were enough to convince the scientists. However, there is no guarantee for future behaviour and this will have an important consequence on the long term programme. In particular, eventually, the larvae refused to enter the collectors. Perhaps anchorages were therefore accidental. We can see the scallops as offering 'hostile interventions' to the scientist role as spokesperson for them. Scientists tried to investigate all sorts of other factors such as water layers, currents and so on, but the larvae successfully 'detach themselves from the researchers' project and a crowd of other actors carry them away. The scallops become dissidents. The larvae which complied are betrayed by those they were thought to represent. The situation is identical' [to what happens when the rank-and-file question their representatives in negotiations]. Fishermen also only initially supported long-term restocking. Those scallops that had developed from anchored larvae were soon 'shamelessly fished'. Thus, the fishermen themselves 'brutally, and without a word… disavowed their spokesman and their long-term plans' (16). [NB only fishermen act 'brutally'] These 'silent mutinies' affected the strategy of the researcher. Was it necessary to accept anchorage as 'an obligatory passage point'? Other scientists even became sceptical and there was growing doubt. Actors come to vary in their importance — what are the fishermen's wants and how does the scallop behave. Nature/society barriers are transformed. We can see this as a threat to the sort of closure propped  up as long as spokesman are beyond question, following successful negotiations. If closure disappears, we need to transform and adopt other devices, including campaigns to educate and inform fishermen and otherwise interest the scallops [entice them -- ionterest them on the colleting bags NOT in hte research programme]. Overall. He has respected his initial introductory principles, for example by treating 'uncertainties about the properties of scallops and uncertainties about fishermen and their interests' in the same way [generalised agnosticism]. He did not reduce the position of the actors to a particular sociological category, nor see their actions as an illusion or error — positions were constructed through different endeavours of the researchers. Generalised symmetry meant they studied controversies about nature and those about society in the same way, using the same vocabulary: 'problematisation interessement, enrolment, mobilisation and dissidence (controversy – betrayal)'. This is applied to all 'without discrimination' [bloody silly really] He did not use social factors or norms to explain the course of discussions. Natural events such as larvae anchoring show that 'the complicity of the scallops is needed as much as that of the fishermen. These three categories of actors are all equally important' (17.)  We cannot do sociological reductionism. The principle of free association meant we followed all the variations that affected the alliances, without categorising them [ambitious claim]. He saw the identities fluctuated and how there were unpredictable relationships with unintended courses. No category or relationship was prioritised. As a result, surprising consequences were noted: 'who the beginning of the story could have predicted that the anchorage of the scallops would have an influence on the fishermen?'. No actors were introduced except by the researchers themselves. Results do not show 'indescribable chaos' but rather 'different types of uncertainties' (18). Actors did confront difficulties, but developed suitable competencies, and did a lot of work 'on society and nature, defining and associating entities in order to forge alliances'. So overall, the method 'reveals an unusual reality which is accounted for quite faithfully by the vocabulary of translation' [fake testing by an example whereas the vocabulary was accepted in the first place]. To translate emphasises continuous displacements and transformations, of goals and interests and also devices and entities. Some displacements 'play a more strategic role than others'. Some may be expected in the earlier stages, during problematisation, and then during interessement [the example given is the larvae diffusing through the water until they are deflected and intercepted by nets]. Displacement during enrolment involved mutual concessions — trying new locations, displacing events to generalise them [turn them into data for the researchers]. There is also displacement during the dissidence phase, where fishermen refused to follow the researchers advice. These are unpredictable and so they all involve translation, by all the actors concerned. To translate is to displace. The researchers constantly attempt to displace allies. Translation also means expressing in your own language what others say and want and explaining what they do, 'it is to establish oneself as a spokesman'. If successful it ends in voices in unison. We can see the processes researchers attempting to speak in the name of all the other entities, putting them into communication, through a 'discourse of certainty' (19), making relationships intelligible. This depends on the processes of displacement and transformation, negotiation and adjustment: translation describes the overall mechanisms and their result. Translation is a process with moments which may not be as distinct as they are represented here. There may be a progression in negotiations which result in successful spokesmanship, and which transform problematisation into mobilisation. Dissidence can bring a role in undoing some gains. None of the actors acknowledge their roles in this story nor are aware of 'the slow drift in which they had participated, in their opinion, wholeheartedly' [so they are cultural dopes after all]. However, translation rapidly becomes treason and this can prevent actors from taking 'the obligatory passage points that had been imposed on them'. New spokesman can arise. There could be a new equilibrium. Spokesman can be denounced and the differences between social and natural reality can 'fluctuate'. Translation forms natural and social worlds progressively. Inevitably, some entities will control others. Power relationships generally means describing 'the way in which actors are defined, associated and simultaneously obliged to remain faithful to their alliances'. Examining actual translations preserves symmetry and tolerance of complexity, but also shows 'how a few obtain the right to express and to represent the many silent actors of the social and natural worlds they have mobilised'. Helpful? diagrams ensue showing how, for example the scallops the fishermen and the scientific colleagues are brought together by the researchers into an 'obligatory passage point' which concerned the explanation of how the scallop attaches itself, or illustrate the process of weakening some ties and building others. Another one shows how entities become deconextedd and turned into data which then serves researchers' explanations of the connections and relations between them. Notes trace the links with a long tradition of STS. Note 8 distinguishes between scientists and technologists about debates such as whether neutrinos really exist. Sociological studies have usually stopped when scientists leave their arena, and ignore things like resource accumulation and teaching programs or writing manuals and journals. It also shows that controversies are dynamic, and can involve both society and knowledge, until 'problems are separated more and more frequently from their social contexts' (24). Note 10 agrees with Popper on the logical problems of induction. Note 14 says that Weber says that sociologists must use their own values to select problems and elements of reality that seem important before they can do any work. His own generalised symmetry preserves these 'discretionary powers' but specifies that '[any research repertoire] must relate both to nature and society'. Note 21 says that he is using the term actor in the same way that semioticians do, but not restricting access to social identities, and keeping open identity and interests when social groups are formed [looks like figurational analysis]. Note 24 denies anthropomorphism, because the reasons for the conduct of scallops 'matter little' (25) and we are only interested in 'the definition of their conduct by the various actors identified. The scallops are deemed to attach themselves [deemed by humans that is, ignoring whether there are motives or genetic or divinely ordained programs] just as fishermen are deemed to follow their short-term economic interests. They therefore act'. Note 27 defines a problem in terms of interrelations of actors, so that a problematisation means to define actors and obstacles which prevent them achieving a goal. Problems will therefore arise between given actors and 'all the social and natural entities which it defines and for which it seems to become indispensable'. Note 35 says that scientific argument 'may be seen as a device for interessement', that this is been supported by lots of ANT studies, so he has ignored the rhetorical mechanisms. Note 39 again denies anthropomorphism — there is no need to endow currents with motives, although researchers 'sometimes use of vocabulary which suggests that starfish, climatic changes and currents have motives and intentions of their own' (26), but this should be interpreted as indicating the distance maintained by the observer from the actor and 'the neutrality of the former with respect to the point of view of the latter' in particular, his technical vocabulary, ingteressement and enrolment means we can describe struggles with opposing forces 'without taking any view about the nature [of these forces]' [in other words, as I suspected, he is using an allegedly neutral sometimes neologistic terminology, to skate over the issue of anthropomorphism. This claims to be a neutral description — it smuggles in humanism almost inevitably]. Note 46 insists that displaying samples of larvae in a science lab and scrutinising votes cast reveals 'no difference'. Note 52 says that the concept of the actor network is the best one 'to describe the network of constraints on resources that results from a series of operations of translation' (27). back to social theory page (under Latour).