Towards an Anthropology of Technology

Author(s): Pierre Lemonnier and Bryan Pfaffenberger

Source: Man, New Series, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Sep., 1989), pp. 526-527
Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2802707
Accessed: 23/11/2010 13:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rai.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Man.

http://www.jstor.org
526 CORRESPONDENCE

Radcliffe-Brown,A.R. 1958. Methodin social The bad newsis that,even withthe help of a
Chicago:Univ.Press.
anthropology. computer searchof Sociological Abstracts, a specialist
Rosaldo, M.Z. & J.M. Atkinson1975. Man the canobviously missbasicwritings on thesubject, and
hunterandwoman.In Willis1975. be unawareoflessfundamental butnumerous pub-
descentandalliance.
H.W. 1973.Kinship,
Scheffler, lications on research currently inprogress. Forsome
In Honigmann1973. reason,it happensthatpioneersin the fieldwere
1978. Australian kin classfication. Frenchscholars and althoughtheyoftenpublished
Cambridge: Univ.Press. in theirstrange language,goingthrough theirwork
Schneidman,E. (ed.) 1976. Death: currentperspectives. is stillan inescapable preliminary to anthropological
Palo Alto:Mayfield. investigations ontechnology. As'anthropologists [...]
Shapiro,W. 1971. Structuralism versussociology. have been slow to detectthe hiddeninfluence of
Mankind10, 64-66. technological somnambulism anddeterminism', we
1973. Residentialgroupingin northeast had betterstopperiodicaliy reinventing thewheel,
ArnhemLand.Man (N.S.) 8, 365-83. inordertoaccelerate ourresearches beforethecom-
1979. Social organization in aboriginal pletedisappearance oftraditional technologies.
Australia.Canberra:Australian NationalUniv. Thus,it is a pitythat,quotingMauss'sEssaisurle
Press. don,Pfaffenberger omitsthisauthor's 'Lestechniques
1981. Miwuyt marriage: the cultural du corps'(1934, easilyaccessible in English,1979)
anthropology ofaffinityin northeast ArnhemLand. whichis theclassical paperin thematter. Likewise,
Philadelphia: InstitutefortheStudyofHuman onecannot ignoreeither Leroi-Gourhan (1943;1945;
Issues. 1964; 1965) who, yearsago, setthepace forboth
1982.The placeofcognitive extensionism theoretical andmethodological aspects ofthestudy of
in the historyof anthropological thought. J. homo technicus, Haudricourt (1962;1964;1988),whose
Polynes.Soc. 91, 257-97. ethnoscientific insights promoted thestudyof social
1989. The theoreticalimportanceof representations of technology, or Gille(1978) who
pseudo-procreative symbolism. The devotedhundreds ofpagesto demonstrate theimpli-
Psychoanalytic StudyofSociety(in pressa). cations ofthesystemic sideoftechnology throughout
n.d. Of 'originsand essences':Aboriginal history. It is alsoto be remembered thatresearch on
conception ideology and anthropological theanthropology oftechnology isoften-ifnotmost-
conceptions ofAboriginal 'local organization'. ly-carriedoutbyhistorians andarchaeologists who
In essaysin thegeneration and maintenance of the proveto paymoreattention to thesubjectthaneth-
bodyin honourofJohnBarnes.(ed.) W. Shapiro. nologists, economists or philosophers. For example,
In preparation. one can greatly profit fromJ. Needham'sworkon
Strehlow, T.G.H. 1947. Aranda traditions. Chinaorfrom havinga lookatthecurrent debateon
Melbourne:Univ.Press. 'style'and 'function' in theJournal ofAnthropological
Turner, D. 1980. Australian Aboriginal social Archaeology, notto mentionfieldwork doneby 'eth-
organization. Canberra:Australian Institute of noarchaeologists' or the theoretical views of the
Aboriginal Studies. Cambridge so-called'contextual archaeologists' (even
Warner,W.L. 1937. A Blackcivilization. New York: thoughtheyaresometimes excessive; see comments
Harper. byYengoyan1985).
Willis, R. (ed.) 1975. The interpretation ofsymbolism. The SriLankanexampleitself isanother goodand
London:MalabyPress. well-documented demonstration thatforcesofpro-
ductionandsocialrelations ofproduction cannotbe
disconnected fromeachother.Butitmaynotbe the
Towards an anthropologyof technology bestillustration of Pfaffenberger's own theoretical
For two mainreasons,Pfaffenberger's paper(Man framework: theliterature beingwhatit is, thean-
(N.S.) 23, 236-52) was a good surprise.First,to thropology of technology has no longerto prove
readabouttechnology in an English-speaking an- thatmaterial culture(bytheway,whyabandonthis
thropological journalis a sortofan event;second, expression?) is a socialproductionand is made of
there'sreallynothing todisagree withintheauthor's 'choices'.As theauthorhimself suggested, itis now
theoretical viewson thetopic.Demonstrating that timeto investigate how and wheretechnological
to considertechnology asa givenis a dead-end,and choicestakeplace.Thisimplies, ofcourse,thestudy
usingkey-words as 'choices','system'or 'knowl- of'technological knowledge'ofsocieties, as wellas
edge and know-how' gives-to me-the right socialrelations of production; but it also makesit
imageof whattechnology is madefromand why necessary to pay the greatest attention to cultural
itis definitelya 'socialconstruction'. Furthermore,aspectsofphysicalactionsand theirimpacton the
by pointingat the 'interpenetration oftechnology material world.Strangely enough,theanthropology
withsocialformsand systems ofmeaning',andby oftechnology cannotescapethemostdetailedob-
raisingthe issue of the social dimensionof both servation, description and analysis of technological
failedand successfultechnologies,Pfaffenbergerbehaviour! There,too,is socialmeaning.
evokescrucialquestionsforthecontemporary ap- Last,takingthe riskof appearinga littlemore
proachto technological systems. chauvinistic, I cannotresistsuggesting interested
 CORRESPONDENCE 527

havealookatTechniques
scholars etculture
(published Even allowingforspace restrictions thatkeptmy
by CNRS), a twelve-year-oldjournalexclusively bibliography brief,ProfessorLemonnieris quiteright
devotedto 'culturaltechnology'...
withsummaries to chideme forslighting theworkof our French
in English. colleagues;it is indeedno mereGallicchauvinism
PierreLemonnier tosaythattheworkofFrenchscholars hasbeen,and
CNRS, Paris continues to be, indispensable fortheanthropology
of technology. so let me settherecordstraight by
Brewster, B. 1979,Sociology andpsychology.London: recommending in additionto thesourceshe cites
Routledge& KeganPaul. (andparticularly TechniquesetCulture)
theimportant
Gille,B.1978.Histoiredes Paris:Gallimard. workbeingdone scholars
techniques. attheEcole Nationale
by
Haudricourt,A.-G. 1962. Domesticationdes Superieure desMinesin Pans,including Madeleine
animaux,culturedes planteset traitement Akrich(1987), Michel Callon (1987) and Bruno
d'autrui.L'Homme2, 40-50. Latour(1988). On theothermatters he raises,such
1964. Natureet culturedansla civilisation asthevalueofarchaeological workandtheneedfor
de l'igname:l'originedes cloneset des clans. detailedobservation, I canonlyagreewholehearted-
L'Homme4, 93-104. ly.
1988. La technologie, sciencehumaine: BryanPfaffenberger
recherchesd'histoire destechniques.University
et d'ethnologie ofVirginia
Paris:Editionsde la Maison des Sciencesde
l'Homme. Akrich,M. 1987. Commentdecrireles objets
Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1943. Evolution et techniques: techniques? Techn.Cult.9, 49-63.
l'homme etla matiere
Paris:A. Michel. Bijker,W.B., T.P. Hughes& T. Pinch(eds) 1987.
1945. Evolutionet techniques: milieuet Thesocialconstruction oftechnological
systems:new
techniques.Paris:A. Michel. in thesociology
directions andhistory
oftechnology.
1964.Legeste etlaparole:
techniqueetlangage. Cambndge,MA: MIT Press.
Paris:A. Michel. Callon,M. 1987. Societyin themaking:thestudy
1965. Le gesteet la parole:la memoire etles oftechnology as a toolforsociological
analysis.
rythmes.Paris:A. Michel. In Bijkeretal. 1987.
Mauss, M. 1969. Sociology and psychology:essays. Latour,B. 1988. Mixinghumansand nonhumans
London:Routledge& KeganPaul. together: thesociologyofa door-closer. Social
1979.Bodytechniques. In Brewster 1979. Problems 35, 289-310.
Yengoyan,A. 1985. Digging for symbols:the
archaeologyof everydaymateriallife. Proc.
Prehist.
Soc.51, 329-34.