Symmetry, STS, Archaeology (Part 1 of 2)
Territorial wrangling is a good indicator that there is something emergent which is coveted amongst disciplines. The principle of symmetry, while a topic no longer generating any sustained discussion in its home setting of Science and Technology Studies (STS), is a case in point. Given recent disciplinary exchange involving symmetry, it seems appropriate to post the following piece, a version of which is forthcoming in The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Contemporary World. It discusses disciplinary agency in terms of Temporality, Representationalism/Performativity, Scale, and Symmetry. It also considers the broader issues of rhetoric and disciplinary politics, and the political economy of academic exchange and scholarship. These come under the banner of mereology, a modernist metaphysics with which the principle of symmetry is caught up.
In the world of knot making, there is a particular arrangement of two ropes that doubles the reach of either singly. It is not an especially complex knot, but it is incredibly useful, even lifesaving, when it is relied upon in circumstances such as Alpine mountaineering. Ropework is an ancient craft and the origins of particular knots are obscure (Hoste 2005). As a matter of course they derive, however, from mundane and practical pursuits. Only later did they re-emerge as integral to the success of rather more lofty pursuits. Though humbly deployed and, when capably acting, receding from immediate attention, we may nonetheless acknowledge their integral, if inconspicuous, role in a multitude of mundane activities and adrenaline-charged courses-of-action. There is all the same a remarkable sophistication to knot-theory and an irreducible elegance in the performance of a finely made knot.
Figure 1: Double Fisherman’s Knot
In sketching the cross-disciplinary setting involving Science and Technology Studies (STS) and archaeology, two fields in which I have held posts, practice as a “boundary scholar” and serve (however loosely) as a knot, I am going to suggest that knots themselves offer a rich heuristic for understanding their relations. I do not want to push the knot metaphor so far that it slips from rhetorical purchase. Yet I am sympathetic with Ingold’s (2000, 2007, 2010) “organic scholarship” with its attempt to forefront craft metaphors and everyday tools for thought. More importantly, these (sometimes) literal conceptual tools such as knots draw attention to ontological relations as opposed to the predominance of epistemological metaphors that figure prominently as guides for modernist thought (e.g. Peirce 1955; Putnam 1981; Rorty 1979). Contrary to these, knots urge “actualism” (Harman 2005, 2009b:291-3); they focus knowing upon the effect, outcome or action accomplished by objects, humans and nonhumans. Most importantly, I find that the topology of a knot aptly describes cross-disciplinary collaboration. Especially as the topology of knots urges our attention along the lines of engagement to discern the crucial distinctions that make a difference: when knots are actually unknots.
The Fisherman’s knot is a symmetrical knot that is itself composed of a series of overhand knots. Symmetry is critical for the overall ‘knot-strength’ of the Fisherman’s, and hence for its reliability in critical situations. To hold, the strands must enfold themselves in such a manner that they “strangle” one another. That way, an increase in the load weight lends greater friction between the ropes—pull harder, add more weight (to a point of course!) and the symmetry of the Fisherman’s folds only tighten together.
Tracing the topology of STS and archaeology under “load”, when they grapple with intellectual problems, it becomes apparent that they are entangled. However, when the weave of these intellectual fields is detailed we find asymmetric tension, but little friction. While the two “lines” of empirical investigation both contribute object-centred inquiries and seem capable, in concert, to extend our understanding of how we are ourselves knotted in the material world, their engagement with one another is passing and not binding in a productive sense. The weave is not a knot.
In this post I will first briefly consider the collegial ideal of disciplinary cooperation. I then move to the points of contact between STS and archaeology, exploring whether there is friction or slippage between the two disciplines. Here symmetry, not just as metaphor of parity but in the specific analytic form of generalised or “radical” symmetry is unpacked as one point of contact between the fields. After the currents of thought in the fields are followed, I conclude by suggesting waypoints for orienting around what I feel to be eddies in the disciplines’ respective radical currents, to offer a knot in the future of object-centred inquiries.
The Mereology of Inter-Disciplinary Dogma
Before moving on to describe the disciplines’ literary networks, I want to push a bit on the academic politics of interdisciplinarity (see Garrow and Yarrow 2010; Jensen and Rödje 2009). Equally, I feel provocation may be beneficial, especially when it comes in the form of questioning assumptions and operating principles. I am going to make the perhaps unpopular suggestion that discussions of collaboration across fields of practice are overly saccharine (Barry et al. 2009).
This is because such ideals of partnering across differences of background knowledge, working assumptions, practical skill, research goals and so forth predominately operate according to mereological reasoning; this is, following Strathern, the guiding framework for scholarship that believes that partial perspectives sum up to a more complete understanding of a whole (1991, 2010:368). Mereology suffuses modernist thought. To be sure, there is debate within STS over how prevalent the modernist mode of being actually is (compare Latour 1993a; Law 1994). And whether there are properly two competing sets of sensibilities or logics in operation through modernity (on the “Baroque” and the “Romantic” see Kwa 2002; Mol and Law 2002).
Mereology, nonetheless, stands out as a materializing logic of modernity when contrasted with metaphysics that place emphasis upon differing principles, such as alterity, complexity, contingency or incomprehensibility. While these metaphysics have been exhibited within Euro-American logic, with some in STS urging complexity and irreducible mess as the norm of modern sociotechnical systems (Law 2004a), mereology seems to best stand in relief when contrasted with non-Western examples (Viveiros de Castro 1992, 1996). Nature stands monolithic behind the vagaries of perspective upon a singular reality. However, other metaphysics do not experience contradiction in, or the impossibility of, allowing multiple cultures and multiple natures, questioning our more familiar scenario of multi-culturalism set against mono-naturalism. Such symmetry between epistemic and ontological pluralism opens vast venues to be negotiated. In considering collaboration, however, the significance of mereology is how it justifies the possibility of complete knowledge through a unified ontology (Nature) which serves to arbitrate the many partial, incomplete, situated or even erroneous “voices”.
Stengers (2010, 2011) draws our attention to the manifestation of mereology in a myriad of scientific procedures. This is especially so in the correlative species of mereology: reductionism (see Latour 1993b). Mol and Law (2002:5-8) argue that the “power of reductionism in the modern world” forms part of an oscillation to and from simplicity and complexity. It is an urge to simplify going back to the Enlightenment that they suggest may be expressive of dynamics of the human psyche. Reducing and simplifying is an integral gesture of mereological thought.
For if parts may be added to understand a singular whole, then the reliability of knowledge acquisition begins with breaking complex wholes into assimilable constituents. Let us consider, on the material register, the manner in which archaeologists routinely split “wholes” apart in excavation so that artifacts, features, and various media may be reassembled as a whole, as an archive of a (transformed) site (see Lucas 2001a, 2001b, 2012; Olsen, et al. 2012). Or consider the assembly of “outputs” of investigations in archaeology or STS, whether textual, laboratory analyses, or visual media (in archaeology see Shanks and Webmoor 2012; Witmore 2004; in STS see Ashmore 1989; Woolgar 1988).
Reaching far beyond mereological reasoning, these operational procedures and organizational devices partially fix how collaborative research is performed. While the earliest pre-modern experimental laboratories operated with a division of labor along class lines (Shapin 1988:395, 1989; Shapin and Schaffer 1988), separated tasks led to collective work of ostensibly more equal scholars. We might also look to the disciplining of antiquarian practice into what was to emerge as archaeology (Schnapp 1996; Schlanger and Nordbladh 2008; Olsen et al. 2012: chapter 3). Both reflexive archaeologists (e.g. Berggren and Hodder 2003) and STS ethnographers (e.g. Latour and Woolgar 1986; Mol 2002, 2008; Mol et al. 2010) draw attention to the organizational practices, hierarchies and relations of accountability that federate individual efforts. “Audit culture” and “audit society” in the contemporary academy bureaucratize the sociomaterial arrangement of interdisciplinary collaboration (Power 1997; Strathern 2000). But it is constraining, even counterproductive, to require collaboration in terms of measurable outputs and “impact” factors. Moreover, I would add that it further normalizes mereology by dissimulating its peculiar rationale behind everyday operations.
We might also ask, aside from requirements to do so, what really motivates researchers to form partnerships? Is this how the process of thinking and working together really happens? To the contrary, studies of interdisciplinary practices from the history of science and STS suggest that the notion of piecing partial contributions together is both more complex and more contentious than is suggested by the mereology of interdisciplinary partnerships. Such undertakings often work only by constituting a new hybrid output. Rather than intercalating research products into a predetermined “deliverable”, the process and temporary outcomes are both more uncertain and risky. Mol (2002, 2008) presents, in detail, how sociomaterial “coordination work” may stabilise “boundary objects” (Star and Griesmar 1989) in order that knowledge may be attached to them through shared “language” and exchangeable media (also Galison 1997).
Against mereology, Strathern argues that “disparate viewpoints can never add up” (2010:175). Social multiplicity is not vouchsafed by the singular ontology of a “Nature” and partial descriptions of an object or sociotechnical process do not add up to a complete description. Nor could they ever. We can only describe what is partially always in flux. A consequence is that, with Stengers (2011), we may spend more effort “wondering about materiality” then explaining it. Such a position of humility resonates with recent calls within archaeology and anthropology to (re)affirm radical, unknowable alterity (Alberti and Bray 2009; and Garrow and Yarrow 2010), and STS scholars remind us that such a non-mereological mode of being opens up alterity within our own sociotechnical processes and collective selves. “Bad” matter, unruly ruins, awkward or abject things have too readily been excised away from the “us” of humanity (Webmoor and Witmore 2008).
The consequences, then, of mereological reasoning extend to material practices of the scientific endeavor, the possibilities of knowing and to our ontological make-up. We must question the starting assumption of interdisciplinary collaboration as a concept and goal and unpack how it prefigures relations between practitioners.
Let’s return to the topology of the knot. If partnering through disciplines works, then we ought to look to the boundary objects, the mongrel materials that are composed to do work. A knot requires the type of “coordination work” that Mol (2002; also Mol et al. 2010) has sketched in complex medical settings. As a boundary object, a knot, exemplifies non-mereological symmetry in partnerships. Under load, it moves attention to how it performs, rather than to its static composition. When working properly, the knot is a mixture, “more than one but less than many” (Mol and Law 2002:11; also Harman 2009b, 2011). To continue with the suggestion that ontological composition is a paradox, too fluid to be rendered satisfactorily in mereological reasoning, I would urge letting go the interdisciplinary goal in the manner of a Zen kōan: loosen hold of the goal in order to attain it. It is to affirm that we can be collegial without being interdisciplinary.
Shed of the idea(l) of synergy, how do we describe the relations between STS and Archaeology? Like our climber on the cliff setting up a rescue abseil, ensuring that what is in the hands is not an unknot requires understanding whether the topology will “bind” when under load. I look at two primary sets of literature where disciplinary interests connect: ethnographies of practice; discussions of descriptive work. Sketching these literary networks I identify four points of slippage between archaeology and STS: temporality; representationalism/performativity; scale; symmetry.
. . . continued in Part 2 of 2.
Alberti, Benjamin, and Tamara L. Bray (editors) 2009 Animating Archaeology: Of Subjects, Objects and Alternative Ontologies, A Special Section for Cambridge Archaeological Journal. 19(3):337-441.
Amann, K., and Karen Knorr-Cetina 1990 The fixation of (visual) evidence. In Representation in Scientific Practice, edited by Michael Lynch and Steve Woolgar, pp. 85-122. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Ashmore, Malcom 1989 The Reflexive Thesis: Wrighting Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Barad, Karen 2007 Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Duke University Press, Durham, N.C.
Barry, Andrew, Georgina Born, and Gisa Weszkalnys 2009 Logics of Interdisciplinarity. Economy and Society 37(1):20-49.
Berggren, Åsa, and Ian Hodder 2003 Social Practice, Method and Some Problems of Field Archaeology. American Antiquity 68:421-34.
Callon, Michel 1986 Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?, edited by John Law. Routledge, London.
Callon, Michel, and Bruno Latour 1981 Unscrewing the Big Leviathan: How Actors Macrostructure Reality and How Sociologists Help Them To Do So In Advances in Social Theory and Methodology Toward an Integration of Micro and Macro Sociologies, edited by Karen Knorr-Cetina and Aaron Victor Cicourel, pp. 277-303. Routledge, London.
Callon, Michel, and Bruno Latour 1992 Don’t Throw the Baby Out With the Bath School! A Reply to Collins and Yearlety. In Science as Practice and Culture, edited by Andrew Pickering, pp. 343-363. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Callon, Michel, and John Law 1997 After the Individual in Society: Lessons on Collectivity from Science, Technology and Society. Canadian Journal of Sociology 22(2):165-82.
Collins, H.M., and Steven Yearley 1992 Epistemological Chicken. In Science as Practice and Culture, edited by Andrew Pickering, pp. 321-326. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Edgeworth, Matt (editor) 2006 Ethnographies of Archaeological Practice: Cultural Encounters Material Transformations. Alta Mira Press, Lanham, MD.
Edgeworth, Matt 2010 On the Boundary: New Perspectives from Ethnography of Archaeology. In Archaeology and Anthropology: Understanding Similarity, Exploring Difference, edited by Duncan Garrow and Thomas Yarrow, pp. 53-68. Oxbow, Oxford.
Flannery, Kent V. 1982 The Golden Marshalltown: A Parable for the Archaeology of the 1980s. American Anthropologist 84(2):265-278.
Garrow, Duncan, and Thomas Yarrow (editors) 2010 Archaeology and Anthropology: Understanding Similarity, Exploring Difference. Oxbow, Oxford.
Gero, Joan 1996 Archaeological Practice and Gendered Encounters with Field Data. In Gender and Archaeology, edited by R. Wright, pp. 126-39. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
González-Ruibal, Alfredo, Almudena Hernando, and Gustavo Politis 2011 Ontology of the Self and Material Culture: Arrow-making Among the Awá Hunter–gatherers (Brazil). Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30:1-16.
Goodwin, Charles 1984 Professional Vision. American Anthropologist 96(3):606-633.
Gosden, Chris 1999 Anthropology and Archaeology: A Changing Relationship. Routledge, London.
Haraway, Donna 1999 Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. In The Science Studies Reader, edited by Mario Biagioli, pp. 172-188. Routledge, New York.
Harman, Graham 2005 Guerrilla Metaphysics: Phenomenology and the Carpentry of Things. Open Court, Chicago.
Harman, Graham 2009a Dwelling with the Fourfold. Space and Culture 12(3):292-302.
Harman, Graham 2009b Prince of Networks: Bruno Latour and Metaphysics. Re.Press, Melbourne.
Harman, Graham 2011 The Quadruple Object. Zer0 Books.
Harrison, Rodney 2011 Surface Assemblages. Towards an Archaeology In and Of the Present. Archaeological Dialogues 18 (2):141–161.
Harrison, Rodney, S. Byrne and A. Clarke (editors) 2012 Reassembling the Collection: Ethnographic Museums and Indigenous Agency. SAR Press, Santa Fe, in press.
Hodder, Ian 2011 Human-Thing Entanglement: Towards an Integrated Archaeological Perspective. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 17:154-77.
Holbraad, Martin 2009 Ontology, Ethnography, Archaeology: An Afterword on the Ontology of Things. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 19(3):431-441.
Hoste, Jim 2005 The Enumeration and Classification of Knots and Links, Handbook of Knot Theory, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Ingold, Tim 2000 The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. Routledge, London.
Ingold, Tim 2007 Lines: A Brief History. Routledge, London.
Ingold, Tim 2010 The Textility of Making. Cambridge Journal of Economics 34:91–102.
Jensen, Casper Bruun, and Kjetil Rödje (editors) 2009 Deleuzian Intersections: Science, Technology, Anthropology. Berghahn Books, Oxford.
Knappett, Carl, and Lambros Malafouris (editors) 2008 Material Agency: Towards a Non-anthropocentric Approach. Springer, New York.
Knorr-Cetina, Karen, and Michael Mulkay (editors) 1983 Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science. Sage Publication, London.
Kwa, Chunglin 2002 Romantic and Baroque Conceptions of Complex Wholes in the Sciences. In Complexities: Social Studies of Knowledge Practices, edited by John Law and Annemarie Mol, pp. 23-52. Duke University Press, Durham, NC.
Latour, Bruno 1986 Visualization and Cognition: Thinking with Eyes and Hands. In Knowledge and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Culture Past and Present, edited by H. Kuklick and E. Long, pp.1-40.
Latour, Bruno 1987 Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Latour, Bruno 1993a We Have Never Been Modern. Translated by Catherine Porter. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Latour, Bruno 1993b The Pastuerization of France. Translated by A. Sheridan. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Latour, Bruno 1996 Aramis, Or the Love of Technology. Translated by Catherine Porter. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Latour, Bruno 2005 Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Latour, Bruno 2010 An Attempt at Writing a ‘Compositionist Manifesto’. New Literary History 41:471-90.
Latour, Bruno and Steve Woolgar 1986 Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts, 2nd Edition. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Latour, Bruno, and Pierre Lemonnier 1994 De la préhistoire aux missiles balistiques. Paris.
Law, John 1986 On the Methods of Long Distance Control: Vessels, Navigation, and the Portuguese Route to India. In Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? Sociological Review Monograph 32, edited by John Law, pp. 234-263. Routledge, London.
Law, John 1994 Organizing Modernity. Blackwell, Oxford.
Law, John 2004a After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. Routledge, London.
Law, John 2004b Matter-ing: Or How Might STS Contribute? Electronic document, http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/staff/law/law.htm, accessed May 15, 2011.
Law, John 2009 The Greer-Bush Test: On Politics in STS, Electronic document, http://www.heterogeneities.net/publications/Law2009TheGreer- BushTest.pdf, accessed 1 April 2011.
Law, John, and John Hassard (editors) 1999 Actor Network Theory and After. Blackwell, Oxford.
Law, John, and Vicky Singleton 2000 Performing Technology's Stories: On Social Constructivism, Performance, and Performativity. Technology and Culture 41(4):765-775.
Law, John, and Annemarie Mol (editors) 2002 Complexities: Social Studies of Knowledge Practices. Duke University Press, Durham, NC.
Lemonnier, Pierre (editor) 1993 Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Cultures Since the Neolithic. Routledge, London.
Lipe, William 1974 A Conservation Model for American Archaeology. The Kiva 39(3-4):213-245.
Lucas, Gavin 2001a Critical Approaches to Fieldwork. Contemporary and Historical Archaeological Practice. Routledge, London.
Lucas, Gavin 2001b Destruction and the Rhetoric of Excavation. Norwegian Archaeology Review 34(1):35-46.
Lucas, Gavin 2012 Understanding the Archaeological Record. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Lynch, Michael 1985 Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory. Routledge, London.
Lynch, Michael, and Simon Cole 2005 Science and Technology Studies on Trial: Dilemmas of Expertise. Social Studies of Science 35(2):269-311.
Madsen, Anders Koed 2012 Web-visions as Controversy-lenses. In Computational Picturing, edited by Annamaria Carusi, Aud Sissel Hoel, and Timothy Webmoor, a special section for Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 37(1):51-68.
Marres, Noortje 2009 Testing Powers of Engagement Green Living Experiments, the Ontological Turn and the Undoability of Involvement. European Journal of Social Theory 12(1):117-133.
Mol, Annemarie 2002 The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Duke University Press, Durham, NC.
Mol, Annemarie 2008 The Logic of Care. Routledge, London.
Mol, Annemarie, and John Law 2002 Complexities: An introduction. In Complexities: Social Studies of Knowledge Practices, edited by John Law and Annemarie Mol, pp. 1–22. Duke University Press, Durham, NC.
Mol, Annemarie, Moser, Ingunn, and Jeannette Pols (editors) 2010 Care in Practice: On Tinkering in Clinics, Homes and Farms. Transcript Verlag.
Olsen, Bjørnar 2010 In Defense of Things: Archaeology and the Ontology of Objects. Alta Mira Press, Lanham, MD.
Olsen, Bjørnar, Michael Shanks, Timothy Webmoor, and Christopher Witmore 2012 Archaeology: The Discipline of Things. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Peirce, Charles Sanders 1955 The Philosophical Writings of Peirce. New York: Dover Publications.
Power, Mike 1997 Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Putnam, Hilary 1981 Reason, Truth and History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ratto, Matt 2006 Epistemic Commitments and Representation in Archaeology. Paper presented at the Society for the Social Study of Science (4S), Vancouver.
Ravetz, Jermone 1971 Scientific Knowledge and Its Social Problems. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Rorty, Richard 1979 Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Schiffer, Michael Brian 1981 Some Issues in the Philosophy of Archaeology. American Antiquity 46(4):899-908.
Schlanger, Nathan, and Jarl Nordbladh (editors) 2008 Archives, Ancestors, Practices: Archaeology in the Light of Its History. Berghahn Books, Oxford.
Schnapp, Alain 1996 The Discovery of the Past: The Origins of Archaeology. Translated by I. K. a. G. Varndell. British Museum Press, London.
Shanks, Michael 2007 Symmetrical Archaeology. World Archaeology 39(4):589-598.
Shanks, Michael, and Randall McGuire 1996 The Craft of Archaeology. American Antiquity 61:75-88.
Shanks, Michael, and Timothy Webmoor 2012 A Political Economy of Visual Media in Archaeology. In Re-Presenting the Past: Archaeology Through Image and Text, edited by Sheila Bonde and Stephen Houston, pp. 87-110. Oxbow, Oxford.
Shapin, Steven 1988 The House of Experiment in 17th Century England. Isis 79(3):373-404.
Shapin, Steven 1989 The Invisible Technician. American Scientist 77:554-563.
Shapin, Steven, and Simon Schaffer 1985 Leviathon and the Air-Pump. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Star, Susan Leigh 1991 Power, Technologies and the Phenomenology of Conventions: On Being Allergic to Onions. In A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, edited by John Law. Routledge, London,
Star, Susan Leigh, and James Griesemer 1989 Institutional Ecology, 'Translations' and Boundary Objects. Social Studies of Science 19:387-420.
Stengers, Isabelle 2010 Cosmopolitics I. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Stengers, Isabelle 2011 Wondering About Materialism. In The Speculative Turn: Continental Materialism and Realism, edited by Levi Bryant, Nick Srnicek, and Graham Harman, pp. 368-380. re.press, Melbourne.
Strathern, Marilyn 1991 Partial Connections. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, New York.
Strathern, Marilyn 2000 Introduction: New Accountabilities. In Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics, and the Academy, edited by Marilyn Strathern, pp.1-18. Routledge: London.
Strathern, Marilyn 2010 Commentary. Boundary Objects and Asymmetries. In Anthropology and Archaeology: Understanding Similarity, Exploring Difference, edited by Duncan Garrow and Thomas Yarrow, pp. 171-178. Oxbow Books, Oxford.
Trentmann, Frank 2009 Materiality in the Future of History: Things, Practices, and Politics. Journal of British Studies 48(2):283-307.
Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo 1992 From the Enemy’s Point of View. Humanity and Divinity in an Amazonian Society. Translated by C. Howard. Chicago University Press, Chicago.
Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo 1996 Os pronomes cosmológicos e o perspectivismo amerindio. Mana 2(2):115–144.
Watts, Laura 2005 Towards an Archaeology of the Future. Paper presented at the Society for the Social Study of Science (4S), Pasadena.
Webmoor, Timothy 2005 Mediational Techniques and Conceptual Frameworks in Archaeology: A Model in 'Mapwork' at Teotihuacan, Mexico. Journal of Social Archaeology 5(1):52-84.
Webmoor, Timothy 2007 What About ‘One More Turn After the Social’ in Archaeological Reasoning? Taking Things Seriously. World Archaeology 39(4):563-578.
Webmoor, Timothy 2012 An Archaeological Metaphysics of Care. On Heritage Ecologies, Epistemography and the Isotopy of the past(s). In Contemporary and Historical Archaeology in Theory, edited by Brent Fortenberry and Laura McAtackney, pp. 13-23. British Archaeological Reports, Oxbow, Oxford.
Webmoor, Timothy, and Christopher L. Witmore 2005 Symmetrical Archaeology Collaboratory. Electronic document, humanitieslab.stanford.edu/symmetry, accessed October 1, 2011.
Webmoor, Timothy, and Christopher L. Witmore 2008 Things Are Us! A Commentary on Human/Things Relations Under the Banner of a ‘Social’ Archaeology. Norwegian Archaeology Review 41(1):53-70.
Wikie, Alex, and Mike Michaels 2009 Expectation and Mobilisation: Enacting Future Users. Science, Technology and Human Values 34(4):502-522.
Witmore, Christopher L. 2004 On Multiple Fields. Between the Material World and Media: Two Cases from the Peloponnesus, Greece. Archaeological Dialogues 11:133-164.
Witmore, Christopher L. 2007 Symmetrical Archaeology: Excerpts from a Manifesto. World Archaeology, 39(4):546-62.
Woolgar, Steve 1988 Knowledge and Reflexivity: New Frontiers in the Sociology of Knowledge. Sage Publications, London.
Woolgar, Steve 2004 What Happened to Provocation in Science and Technology Studies? History and Technology 20(4):339-439.
Woolgar, Steve, Catelijne Coopmans, and Daniel Neyland 2009 Does STS Mean Business? Organization 16(1):5-30.
Yarrow, Thomas 2003 Artefactual Persons: The Relational Capacities of Persons and Things in the Practice of Excavation. Norwegian Archaeological Review 36(1):65-73.