Practising Ambivalence: The Feminist Politics of Engaging with Technoscience

  • Celia Roberts

Part One

Technoscience is of immense interest to contemporary social theorists. Post-humanists are no exception: scholars identifying with this moniker, including many contributing to this volume, engage with technoscientific concepts, theories, objects and findings to make their own political and philosophical arguments about human/other-than-human relations and the coming into being of worlds. “There is a posthuman agreement,” Rosi Braidotti writes, “that contemporary science and biotechnologies affect the very fibre and structure of the living and have altered dramatically our understanding of what counts as the basic frame of reference for the human today” ( 2013, 40). Braidotti exhorts colleagues to engage with these fields, suggesting that such engagements constitute “trans-disciplinary discursive fronts” that will reshape the humanities in necessary and positive ways:

Today, environmental, evolutionary, cognitive, bio-genetic and digital trans-disciplinary discursive fronts are...



I would like to thank Maureen McNeil, Jackie Stacey, Adrian Mackenzie and this volume’s editors for their feedback on earlier drafts of this chapter.


  1. Adams, Vincanne, Michelle Murphy, and Adele E. Clarke. 2009. Anticipation: Technoscience, life, affect, temporality. Subjectivity 28: 246–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alaimo, Stacy. 2010. Bodily natures: Science, Environment, and the material self. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Alaimo, Stacy. 2012. Sustainable this, sustainable that: New materialisms, posthumanism, and unknown futures. PMLA 127: 558–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Åsberg, Cecilia, Redi Koobak, and Ericka Johnson. 2011. Post-humanities is a feminist issue. NORA: Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research 19(4): 213–216.Google Scholar
  5. Barad, Karen. 2007. Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blaagaard, Bolette, and Iris van der Tuin. 2014. The subject of Rosi Braidotti: Politics and concepts. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. Braidotti, Rosi. 2013. The posthuman. Cambridge, UK and Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, Nik. 2003. Hope against hype–accountability in biopasts, presents and futures. Science and Technology Studies 16(2):3–21.Google Scholar
  9. Butler, Judith. 1993. Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of sex. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Butler, Judith. 2014. Reflections on ethics, destructiveness, and life: Rosi Braidotti and the posthuman. In The subject of Rosi Braidotti:Politics and concepts. eds. Bolette Blaagaard, and Iris van der Tuin, 21–28. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Colebrook, Claire. 2012. Sexual indifference. In Telemorphosis: Theory in the era of climate change ed. Tom Cohen, 167–182. Ann Arbor, MI: Open Humanities Press.Google Scholar
  12. Colebrook, Claire. 2014. Disaster feminism. In The subject of rosi braidotti: Politics and concepts eds. Bolette Blaagaard, and Iris van der Tuin, 72–77. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Coole, Diane, and Samantha Frost. 2010. New materialisms: Ontology, agency and politics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Franklin, Sarah, and Celia Roberts. 2006. Born and made: An ethnography of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Princeton, NJ and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Frost, Samantha. 2014. Re-considering the turn to biology. Feminist theory 15(3):307–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grosz, Elizabeth. 2005. Time travels: Feminism, nature, power. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haraway, Donna. 1991. Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature. London: Free Association Books.Google Scholar
  18. Hemmings, Clare. 2011. Why stories matter: The political grammar of feminist theory. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hemmings, Clare. 2014. The materials of reparation. Feminist Theory 15(1): 27–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kelty, Christopher, and Hannah Landecker. 2009. Ten thousand journal articles later: Ethnography of “The Literature” in science. Empiria Revista Metodología Ciencias Sociales 18: 173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kirby, Vicki. 2011. Quantum anthropologies: Life at large. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Latour, Bruno. 2004. Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Law, John. 2004. After method: Mess in social science research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Law, John. 2007. Pinboards and books: Juxtaposing, learning and materiality. In Education and technology: Critical perspectives, possible futures eds. David Kritt, and Lucien T. Winegar, 125–149. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  25. Lewis, Gail. 2014. Not by criticality alone. Feminist Theory 15(1): 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McNeil, Maureen. 2010. Post-millennial feminist theory: Encounters with humanism, materialism, critique, nature, biology and darwin. Journal of Cultural Research 14(4): 427–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McNeil, Maureen, and Celia Roberts. 2011. Feminist science and technology studies. In Theories and methodologies in postgraduate feminist research: Researching differently eds. Rosemarie Buikema, Gabriele Griffin, and Nina Lykke, 29–44. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Milligan, Christine, Celia Roberts, and Maggie Mort. 2011. Telecare and older people: Who cares where? Social Science and Medicine 72(3): 347–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mol, Annemarie. 2002. The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mol, Annemarie. 2013. Mind your plate! The ontonorms of Dutch dieting. Social Studies of Science 43(3): 379–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mort, Maggie, Celia Roberts, and Blanca Callén. 2013. Ageing with telecare: Care or coercion in austerity? Sociology of Health and Illness 35(6): 799–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Preciado, Paul B. 2013. Testo junkie. New York: Feminist Press.Google Scholar
  33. Roberts, Celia. 2007. Messengers of sex: Hormones, biomedicine and feminism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Roberts, Celia. 2010. Early puberty and public health: A social scientific pinboard. Critical Public Health 20(4): 429–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Roberts, Celia. 2015. Puberty in crisis: The sociology of early sexual development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roberts, Celia, Maggie Mort, and Christine Milligan. 2012. Calling for Care: “Disembodied” work, teleoperators and older people living at home. Sociology 46(3): 490–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sánchez-Criado, Tomás, Daniel López, Celia Roberts, and Miquel Domènech. 2014. Installing telecare, installing users: Felicity conditions for the instauration of usership. Science, Technology and Human Values 39(5):694–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stacey, Jackie. 2014. Wishing away ambivalence. Feminist Theory 15(1): 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Suchman, Lucy. 2011. Subject objects. Feminist Theory 12(2): 119–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wiegman, Robyn. 2014. The times we’re in: Queer feminist criticism and the reparative “Turn”. Feminist Theory 15(1): 4–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Winance, Myriam. 2006. Trying out the wheelchair the mutual shaping of people and devices through adjustment. Science, Technology and Human Values 31(1): 52–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Winance, Myriam. 2010. Practices of experimenting, tinkering with, and arranging people and technical aids. In Care in practice: On tinkering in clinics, homes and farms eds. Annemarie Mol, Ingunn Moser, and Jeanette Pols, 93–117. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.Google Scholar
  43. Žižek, Slavoj. 2011. Living in the end of times. London and Brooklyn, NY: Verso.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Professor of Gender and Science Studies, Department of Sociology, Lancaster UniversityLancasterUK

Personalised recommendations