Social Science and the Ontological Turn
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This article aims to examine ontological studies that present controversies about "existence" and "reality" of things that challenges the conventional notion and paradigm that human beings make senses of the world and everything through social experience. However, in social science the direction of study of ontology is not homogeneous. But there have been retaliation and criticism against each other with 2 different approaches. The first approach describes ontology by viewing objects and things as active agency and intrinsic ones. The second approach describes ontology as a means of explaining truths under a linguistic mechanism that also relies on human interpretation. Both argumentations reflect the contradiction and disagreements of social science scholars. The ontological studies still a boundary of controversy that scholars should be carefully kept in mind.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
กิติตพัฒน์ นนทปัทมะดุลย์. (2562). แนวคิดความมั่นคงทางภววิทยา: จุดกำเนิดและการประยุกต์ใช้, รายงานสืบเนื่องการสัมมนาวิชาการเนื่องในโอกาสการสถาปนาคณะสังคมสงเคราะห์ศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยธรรมศาสตร์ ครบรอบ 65 ปี. (หน้า 11-25). กรุงเทพฯ: คณะสังคมสงเคราะห์ศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยธรรมศาสตร์.
โกมาตร จึงเสถียรทรัพย์. (2559). ศาสตร์-อศาสตร์: มานุษยวิทยา ณ จุดเปลี่ยนทางภววิทยา. ใน จันทนี เจริญ ศรี, (บก.), ศาสตร์ อศาสตร์ : เข้ามาข้างนอก ออกไปข้างใน, (หน้า 118-140). กรุงเทพฯ: พารากราฟ.
จักรกริช สังขมณี. (2560). ชาติพันธุ์วรรณนาว่าด้วยโครงสร้างพื้นฐาน. วารสารธรรมศาสตร์, 36(2), 33-57.
Aspers, P. (2015). Performing ontology. Social Studies of Science, 45(3), 449-453.
Aspers, P. & Kohl, S. (2013). Heidegger and socio-ontology: A sociological reading. Journal of Classical Sociology, 13(4), 487–508.
Barnes, B., & MacKenzie, D. (1979). Scientific judgement: The biometry-mendelism controversy. In B. Barnes & S. Shapin (Eds.), Natural order: Historical studies of scientific culture (pp. 191-210). Beverly Hills and London: Sage.
Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Bhaskar, R. (1975). A realist theory of science. Leeds: Leeds Books
Bhaskar, R. (1979). The possibility of naturalism: A philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences. Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press.
Brives, C. (2013). Identifying ontologies in a clinical trial. Social Studies of Science, 43(3), 397–416.
Cruickshank, J. (2004). A tale of two ontologies: An immanent critique of critical realism. The Sociological Review, 52(4), 567-585.
Descola, P. (2014). Modes of being and forms of predication. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 4(1), 271-80.
Fortun, K. (2014). From Latour to late industrialism. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 4(1), 309-29.
Gelman, S. A. (2003). The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Giere, R. N. (2006). Scientific perspectivism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Haraway, D. (2004). The Haraway reader. New York: Routledge.
Henare, A., Holbraad, M. & Wastell, S. (Eds.). (2007). Thinking through things: Theorising artefacts ethnographically. London: Routledge.
Heywood, P. (2012). Anthropology and what there is: Reflections on ‘ontology’. Cambridge Anthropology, 30(1), 143–151.
Heywood, P. (2020). All the difference in the world: The nature of difference and different natures. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 50(6), 543-564.
Holbraad, M. (2007). The power of powder: Multiplicity and motion in the divinatory cosmology of Cuban Ifa’ (or Mana, Again). In A. Henare, M. Holbraad, & S. Wastell (Eds.), Thinking through things: Theorizing artefacts ethnographically. (pp.189-225). New York: Routledge.
Holbraad, M. (2017). The contingency of concepts. Transcendental deduction and ethnographic expression in anthropological thinking.” In P. Charbonnier, G. Salmon & P. Skafish (Eds.), Comparative metaphysics: Ontology after anthropology. (pp. 131-56). London: Rowman & Littlefield.
Holbraad, M. & Pedersen, M.A. (2017). The ontological turn: An anthropological exposition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hollis, M., & Lukes, S. (Eds.). (1982). Rationality and relativism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kopenawa, D., & Albert, B. (2013). The falling sky: Words of a Yanomami shaman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, T. (1991). The road since structure. In A. Fine, M. Forbes & L. Wessels (Eds.), PSA 1990: Proceedings of the 1990 biennial meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol 2: Symposium and Invited Papers (pp. 3-13). East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.
Künne, W. (2003). Conceptions of truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Law, J., & Lien, M.E. (2013). Slippery: Field notes in empirical ontology. Social Studies of Science, 43(3), 363–378.
Mallon, R. (2016). The construction of human kinds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Miller, D. (2010). Stuff. Cambridge: Polity.
Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Moore A.W. (2012). The evolution of modern metaphysics: Making sense of things. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palecek, M., & Risjord, M. (2012). Relativism and the ontological turn within anthropology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 43(1), 3-23.
Pedersen, M. A. (2007). Talismans of thought: Shamanist ontologies and extended cognition in Northern Mongolia. In A. Henare, M. Holbraad, & S. Wastell, (Eds.), Thinking through things: Theorising Artefacts Ethnographically (pp.141-166). London: Routledge.
Pickering, A. (Ed.). (1992). Science as practice and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pickering, A. (1993). The mangle of practice: Agency and emergence in the sociology of science. American Journal of Sociology, 99, 559-89.
Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pickering, A. (2015). Science, contingency and ontology. In L. Soler, M. Trizio & A. Pickering (Eds.), Science as it could have been: Discussing the contingenty/inevitability problem (pp. 117-28). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Pickering, A. (2014). Reflections on the dance of agency: Islands of stability, science as performance. Paper presented at the history of science seminar. Sweden: Uppsala University.
Pickering, A. (2017). The ontological turn: Taking different worlds seriously. Social Analysis, 61(2), 314-150.
Pollini, J. (2013). Bruno Latour and the ontological dissolution of nature in the social sciences: A critical review. Environmental Values, 22(1), 25-42.
Sismondo, S. (2015). Ontological turns, turnoffs and roundabouts. Social Studies of Science, 45(3), 441-8.
Sivado, A. (2020). Ways to be understood: The ontological turn and interpretive social science. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 50(6), 565-585.
Sylvain, R. (2014). Essentialism and the indigenous politics of recognition in Southern Africa: Essentialism and recognition in South Africa. American Anthropologist, 116(2), 251-64.
Van Heur, B., Leydesdorff, L. & Wyatt, S. (2013) Turning to ontology in STS? Turning to STS through ‘ontology’. Social Studies of Science, 43(3), 341–362.
Vigh, H. E., & Sausdal, D. B. (2014). From essence back to existence: Anthropology beyond the ontological turn. Anthropological Theory, 14(1), 49-73.
Viveiros de Castro, E. (2004a). Exchanging perspectives: The transformation of objects into subjects in Amerindian ontologies. Common Knowledge, 10(3), 463-84.
Viveiros de Castro, E. (2004b). Perspectival anthropology and the method of controlled equivocation. Tipití: Journal of the Society for the Anthropology of Lowland South America, 2(1), 1-20.
Woolgar, S., & Lezaun, J. (2013) The wrong bin bag: A turn to ontology in science and technology studies?’ Social Studies of Science, 43(3), 321-340.
Woolgar, S., & Lezaun, J. (2015). Missing the (question) mark? what is a turn to ontology? Social Studies of Science, 45(3), 462-467.
