Short Abstract:

How do we understand the persistent demand of politicization in STS? Do critical projects need further politicization or is politicization part of the problem? Roundtable with Andrew Barry, Stephen Collier, Ignacio Farias, Anke Gruendel, Cameron Hu, Chris Kelty, Noortje Marres, and Katinka Wijsman.

Long Abstract:

This roundtable discusses controversies arising around the demand for politicization today. From city planning and environmental regulation to housing and welfare policy, the politics of politicization are shifting. Politicization was long a demand from the Left that had no “internal principle of limitation” (Foucault 1994). But today “progressive” politics is increasingly divided between those who call for further politicization and those who argue that politicization is part of the problem.

The “politics of politicization” is an enduring concern of STS. For many years, the core critical instinct of STS has been to question the authority of science and technocratic expertise and to uncover the political agendas that underpin claim. This critical instinct has more recently been called into question. Considering a mounting “anti-science” critique from the Right, Latour (2004) asked whether the project of questioning the unaccountable authority of experts had “run out of steam.” But perhaps today we find ourselves in a different moment, with different political stakes (Marres 2023). We increasingly face imperatives to “do big things”, like reducing emissions and addressing a housing crisis, requiring central authority and expertise. “Politicization” here is increasingly seen as a problem, employed simultaneously by conservative opponents of radical change and by actors who think that rapid and radical change is urgent.

What can a renewed inquiry into the politics of politicization in scholarship look like? We discuss this with Andrew Barry, Stephen Collier, Ignacio Farias, Anke Gruendel, Cameron Hu, Chris Kelty, Noortje Marres, and Katinka Wijsman.