10.6092/issn.2038-3460/16832
In order to map out the German engagements with STS, this article draws some historical and conceptual connecting lines: first, the technological society, second, the sociology of everyday devices and third, the sociology of innovation. The historical developments of discussing the relation of science, technology and society in Germany will be used as the starting point. The reception of STS in Germany will be depicted in reference to these precursors and some peculiarities of the German debates will be addressed. The article roughly follows the institutionalisation of science and technology studies in Germany and highlights some intersections with STS from the early 1980s until today.
application/pdf
2038-3460
16832
2
en
Cornelius Schubert
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
Tecnoscienza – Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies
philosophy of technology
In the Middle of Things. Germany’s ongoing Engagement with STS
Text.Serial.Journal
https://tecnoscienza.unibo.it/
2
Cartographies
2011-12-29
2023-04-25
2011-12-29
2023-07-06
103-113
TS
Cornelius Schubert
2011/12/29
10.6092/issn.2038-3460/16832
103
Technische Universität Berlin
2038-3460
2
philosophy of technology
en
113
In the Middle of Things. Germany’s ongoing Engagement with STS
https://tecnoscienza.unibo.it/article/download/16832/15815
2
                                                                        Cartographies

In the Middle of Things
Germany’s ongoing Engagement with STS


Cornelius Schubert



      Abstract In order to map out the German engagements with STS, this article
      draws some historical and conceptual connecting lines: first, the technological so-
      ciety, second, the sociology of everyday devices and third, the sociology of innova-
      tion. The historical developments of discussing the relation of science, technology
      and society in Germany will be used as the starting point. The reception of STS in
      Germany will be depicted in reference to these precursors and some peculiarities
      of the German debates will be addressed. The article roughly follows the institu-
      tionalisation of science and technology studies in Germany and highlights some in-
      tersections with STS from the early 1980s until today.

      Keywords Technological society; mundane devices; innovation studies; technolo-
      gy studies; philosophy of technology




1. Introduction
    This is a brief and sketchy mapping of the precursors to and later reception of
STS in Germany. To narrow down the broad discussions on science, technology
and society, I will focus on the discussions of technology from a sociological per-
spective. This line of thought will be enriched by a historical account of ideas from
the philosophy of technology.
    Since the early 1970, there have been critical remarks, for instance formulated
by Hans Linde (1972), that in the early 20th century, sociology started to excom-
municate things, objects and devices from its conceptualisations for the sake of
formal and methodological purification. In short, Linde argues that while things
figured strongly in the works of Marx and Durkheim, the turn towards interpreta-
tive sociology proposed by Weber tipped the scales in favour of purely cogni-
tive/cultural approaches to social relations. Thus, although there has been an on-
going interest towards things and technology in the German philosophical tradi-
tion1, the following 50 years saw a steady cleansing of material objects from social

1
  By the late 1920s, technology, tools and devices were being discussed in philosophy from a va-
riety of viewpoints. Martin Heidegger’s ([1927] 1996) famous tool analysis highlighted the phe-


TECNOSCIENZA
Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies
Volume 2(2) pp. 103-113 - ISSN 2038-3460
http://www.tecnoscienza.net                       © 2011 TECNOSCIENZA
104   SCHUBERT



      theory. To reverse this neglect of objects, Linde calls especially for the sociological
      engagement with mundane artefacts in social arrangements. This line of thought
      became known in Germany as a “realistic sociology of technology”, which was lat-
      er pursued by authors such as Bernward Joerges (1989). Of course, the develop-
      ments in sociological and philosophical reasoning concerning the relations of hu-
      mans, technology and society in the 20th century are much more complex (cf. Jok-
      isch 1982; Joerges 1988; Weingart 1989). I will take up some arguments in more
      detail later, but to end this introduction, it is important to note some peculiarities
      concerning the reception of STS in Germany today.
         On the one hand, Germany has a long tradition of studying the relations of
      technology and society. Even though this tradition has many common ancestors,
      disciplinary boundaries between sociology, philosophy, history or political science
      are maintained as the various disciplines follow their own research questions (cf.
      Cronberg and Sörensen 1995 for a European perspective). Therefore, out of the
      inherently interdisciplinary repertoire of STS, only certain aspects may appear to
      be fruitful to the respective disciplines. The impact of STS in Germany thus differs
      strongly depending on the field of research. On the other hand, the critical recep-
      tion of STS has transgressed the boundaries of science and technology studies and
      authors such as Bruno Latour are discussed by a much wider audience, for in-
      stance in sociology (Kneer et al. 2008).
         In the following paragraphs, I will revisit some of the discussions concerning
      the relation of technology and society in Germany. The aim is to sketch out some
      of the arguments predating the onset of STS in the 1960s (by revisiting the argu-
      ments concerning the technological civilisation), to look for similarities and differ-
      ences in relation to STS since the 1980s (by looking at the sociology of everyday
      devices and innovation studies) and to map out some current engagements with
      STS in Germany. I have willingly kept the references to English language publica-
      tions from German authors at a minimum for the sake of concentrating on the
      German debates. By doing so, I unfortunately add to the underrepresentation of
      German contributions to English science and technology studies, but this would
      be the topic of another paper.




      nomenological aspects of tools-in-use, Hans Freyer ([1923] 1966) conceived devices as objecti-
      fied segments of purposeful action in an anthropological fashion and Ernst Cassirer ([1930]
      1985) saw the distinct form of technology in mediated action, i.e. in the productive detours tak-
      en in the human engagement with the world. Several other authors could be named, but this
      short list shall suffice to make the point. A central line of thought can be traced back to the end
      of the 19th century, when Ernst Kapp set forth an anthropological approach in the philosophy of
      technology. The idea of technology as “organ projection” (Kapp 1877, p. 29) became a recur-
      ring topic not only in the philosophy of technology, but also served as a link between philoso-
      phy and sociology, for instance in the work of Arnold Gehlen concerning human life in techno-
      logical societies (1957).
                                                                TECNOSCIENZA – 2(2)        105



2. The technological society
In a very simplistic fashion, the different positions concerning the intermingling of
modern technology and science in the early and middle 20th century can be ar-
ranged along the well-known dichotomy between technical and social determin-
ism. Whereas some authors of those times see the benefits of technical progress
and argue for an intrinsic technical logic coming from outside society, others insist
that technology is an inherently cultural phenomenon. One of the ensuing debates
in Post-World-War-Two-West-Germany was the so-called “debate on technocra-
cy”. In the 1960s, conservative authors such as Helmut Schelsky (1961) argued
with more left wing thinkers such as Jürgen Habermas (1968) about the political
influence and control of technological systems.
    In Schelsky’s analysis, the modern state is increasingly turned into a technologi-
cal state based on three developments. First, as technological means proliferate in-
to the lives of a majority of people, they become means of political power. In order
not to relinquish this power to non-political forces, the state has to seize control of
these means, as it did in case of the railways, air transport or atomic power. Se-
cond, the immense costs associated with modern technologies cannot be borne by
individual companies and thus requires the economic power of entire nations. This
leads, third, to an increase in state control over many aspects of life which are
linked up by the manifold technical means. Drawing on Jacques Ellul ([1954]
1964), Schelsky sees this as a total fusion of the modern state with modern tech-
nology. In consequence, the reason of state is transformed into manifold technical
constraints (“Sachzwänge”), which in turn dissolve the substance of democracy. In
short, Schelsky sees the fate of the state as being tied to technoscientific decisions
which are exempt from a democratic forming of political will. This very drastic ac-
count of technological societies of course met with heavy opposition.
    Habermas (1968) criticised Schelsky’s technocratic model for presuming im-
manent constraints of technical progress and supposing a continuum of rationality
in dealing with technical matters. More often than not, he argues, technical con-
straints are in fact political logics in disguise. Neither do scientists and engineers
colonise politics, nor is it the other way round. Because both are mutually entan-
gled in the process of governing technological societies, it is precisely in contrast to
Schelsky that the substance of democracy is not eroded, but reinforced. Habermas
refers to the interdependencies of science and politics as the “pragmatistic model”,
which overcomes the one-sidedness of both the “technocratic model” of the un-
bound rule of the engineers and scientists as well the “decisionistic model” of all-
dominant political will.
    Even though there are obvious differences between the positions of Schelsky
and Habermas, they both see science and technology as distinct realms, which are
inherently different to that of politics. And they both take the increasing influence
of science and technology on modern societies as a starting point for their argu-
ments.
    One could say that the constructivist studies of science and technology and the
social shaping of technology have made both positions obsolete. However, some of
106   SCHUBERT



      the issues concerning the relation of technology, politics and society raised in this
      debate continue to be relevant today (cf. Grunwald 2008; Mai 2011). For instance,
      how can the relations between experts, politicians and the public be designed in
      order to allow for democratic and participatory decisions? The recent public op-
      position to large scale technical projects such as Stuttgart’s new underground train
      station shows how these questions are still on the agenda. Also, the materiality of
      technical systems comes back into focus as it limits voluntaristic notions of political
      control. Such issues have been pursued in Germany mostly within the framework
      of technology assessment (TA). And in recent years, there are a growing number of
      intersections between TA and STS on these issues which might be fruitfully ex-
      ploited in the future.


      3. Everyday devices
          When Linde (1972) deplored the excommunication of things from sociological
      theory in the early 1970s, he did not so much think about the dominance of large
      technical systems in the technological society, but rather called for greater en-
      gagement with simple, mundane devices. His main criticism was that sociology
      falsely reduced technical devices to non-social-objects. Accordingly, sociology
      must re-endorse the institutional qualities of devices and the social consequences
      of their use. These, as Linde points out, were present in the writings of Marx and
      Durkheim, but got purged for instance by Weber, who, at the first German Socio-
      logical Meeting in Frankfurt 1910 in a reply to Sombart (and in strong opposition
      to Marx) argued for a culturalistic understanding of technology and emphatically
      renounced any ideas of technological forces driving social change (Weber [1911]
      1988).
          In order to reverse this culturalistic bias, Linde drew on the anthropological
      tradition in the German philosophy of technology, especially on Freyer’s ([1923]
      1966) notion of device (“Gerät”). In Freyer’s view, devices are not any other thing.
      They are materialised segments of purposeful action and therefore can only be ana-
      lysed in use. Devices are never final “things in themselves”, but need to be embed-
      ded in courses of action. As such, they then transform the courses of action they
      are embedded in. Freyer uses the example of a bowl to fetch water: instead of hav-
      ing to cup their hands, humans execute different movements when using a bowl.
      And what is more, they start to look for wood and manufacture knifes in order to
      make more bowls. This way, humans are increasingly occupied with manufacturing
      means, creating productive detours, under which Freyer also subsumes devices
      such as clothing, boats, roads or cultivated fields.
          Let us take a brief historical look at this line of thought. In the philosophical
      reasoning at the end of the 1920s, technical devices are primarily conceived in
      means-ends relationships. However, they are not conceived to be “mere” means,
      but always as a transformative force which influences courses of action. Likewise,
      devices are not considered to be “mere” materiality, but to be constitutively en-
      meshed with sense, signs and symbols. Freyer (1929) and Cassirer ([1930] 1985),
                                                               TECNOSCIENZA – 2(2)        107



for instance, link their anthropological concepts of technology, the “form” of tech-
nology, closely with concepts of language. Freyer sees “devices” as one category of
objective thought. In his book, he continues to elaborate on the importance of
“signs” as a related category. Like devices, signs bear references which transgress
their boundaries, they are enmeshed in systems of meaning. Thus, devices and
signs are not something different, rather they are similar categories in the devel-
opment of objective thought. Cassirer puts the similarities and differences of tools
and language at the start of his arguments. In short, he conceives language and
technology as related yet distinct symbolic forms, both of which are artificial objec-
tivations situated between humans and their environment. Cassirer thus offers a
distinctly processual concept of technology. Last but not least, Heidegger ([1927]
1967) states that equipment (“Zeug”) never “is” in itself, but must be understood
as a reference in relations of “in-order to”. Such references of the equipment can
be seen as equal to the references of signs and Heidegger uses the example of the
newly introduced indicators on cars to illustrate how signs actually become equip-
ment. We can see here that the intermingling of meaning and materiality has al-
ready been a central tenet in this line of thought, just like processual conceptualisa-
tions of tools-in-use.
    Linde takes up this lead and grounds his analysis of mundane artefacts on two
assumptions. First, devices incorporate a specific means/ends combination for a
limited time. As such, devices must be considered essentially social entities. Se-
cond, the means/ends combination must be extended into a means/ends/sanctions
combination, so that the devices may become perfectly institutionalised patterns of
social action. This way, Linde seeks to re-integrate mundane artefacts into the
basic fabric of everyday social life, because they are not only entrenched with
meaning, but also with the capacity to sanction actions.
    Ten years after Linde published his small book and roughly twenty years after
the debate on technocracy, the sociology of technology was well on its way to be-
coming a new “sociology of …” in the spectrum of German sociology (Jokisch
1982).
    The 1980s may be seen as the heydays of German sociology of technology, with
professorships and curricula being set up, for instance in Berlin and Bielefeld. The
1986 meeting of the German Sociological Association, which was conducted under
the topic “technology and social change”, shows the broad array of issues, which
were discussed under the headings “technology and work”, “technology and eve-
ryday life”, “special effects of technology”, “technology and developing countries”
and, last but not least, “technology and society – special aspects and problems”.
Looking at some of the prominent German publications of the 1980s, we can see
that the STS contributions of those days are increasingly referred to, starting at the
beginning of the decade (Jokisch 1982; Joerges 1988; Weingart 1989). For in-
stance, the collections edited by MacKenzie and Wajcman (1985) or Bijker,
Hughes and Pinch (1987) are frequently cited. The year 1982 also saw the birth of
a new yearbook called “technology and society” (Bechmann et al. 1982). The year-
book sought to combine the academic research into technology with a practical cri-
tique of technology and until 1999, ten yearbooks were published. Most of the
108   SCHUBERT



      contributions were from Germany, but the second volume (published in 1983), for
      instance, also included a paper by Michel Callon on electric vehicles.
          Metaphorically speaking, the German discussions on technology and society
      continuously took the pulse of STS since the early 1980s, but they also kept a criti-
      cal distance, for instance with regard to ANTs principle of “free association” (Cal-
      lon 1986). Mainly, German authors did and do not see the need to abandon con-
      ceptual distinctions between the social, the technical and the natural before the
      analysis. Rather they try to conceptualise the different qualities of humans, tech-
      nology and nature as they are interwoven in social practice. Especially, it was often
      considered futile to abandon the notion of actors in favour of actants, because
      many insights from sociology would be lost in the process. Subsequently, ANT and
      its “flat” ontology are considered to be “too flat”.
          In the 1980s it were especially Bernward Joerges (1989) and Karl Hörning (in a
      more culturalist manner 1989), who insisted on taking the material substance for
      everyday social action seriously. Both connected the sociology of technology close-
      ly with sociological theories of action. The focus on the microstructures of techni-
      cally mediated action drew on the legacy of late 1920s anthropological philosophy
      of technology, but situated action firmly in the context of daily social activities in
      highly industrialised countries.
          As the (chicken) debate about non-human agency (Pickering 1992) started to
      draw wider circles in the 1990s, the question of the agency of devices began to be
      discussed not so much with respect to mundane artefacts and activities, but with
      respect to the challenges posed by novel systems of (distributed) artificial intelli-
      gence (cf. Rammert and Schulz-Schaeffer 2002). So far, there have been only lim-
      ited efforts to re-engage with the agency of simple devices, but there currently
      seems to be a growing interest, which can be traced through an increase of confer-
      ences concerning the topic over the last couple of years. This might be tied to the
      recent revival of a general material agency in STS and beyond (i.e. Barad 2007;
      Turkle 2007; Pickering and Guzik 2008; Pinch and Swedberg 2008; MacKenzie
      2009; Bennett 2010; Coole and Frost 2010). This is interesting in so far, as we un-
      surprisingly find Bruno Latour as one of the main references in this revival, but
      likewise Heidegger and critical appraisals of his work seem to have become of
      greater interest over the last couple of years.


      4. Innovation studies
         The last issue I would like to discuss briefly is the sociology of innovation. This
      has been a core issue of STS since the beginning and it is a very important field
      within the German sociology of technology. Again, the sociological interest for
      technical innovation traces back to early 1980s. This interest is essentially based on
      an evolutionary understanding of technical innovation which drew on different
      sources: Evolutionary economics (Nelson and Winter 1982) and the concepts of
      technological paradigms (Dosi 1982) or path dependency (David 1985) deviated
      from economic neo-classic orthodoxy and made room for sociological explanations
                                                              TECNOSCIENZA – 2(2)        109



of technical innovation. Organisational studies were concerned with the contin-
gencies of decision making processes leading to dominant designs (Abernathy and
Utterback 1978; Tushman and Rosenkopf 1992). And in STS, likewise, the meta-
phor of evolution was used to characterise the emergent nature of technological
innovation, for instance in Hughes’ (1987) study on “the evolution of large techno-
logical systems” or in terms of variation and selection, which lie at the heart of
SCOT (Pinch and Bijker 1984). In addition, the general evolutionary approach al-
so connected STS with evolutionary economics (van den Belt and Rip 1987).
    In Germany, these developments were closely followed as the sociological de-
bates turned (in the mid 1980s) from classic technology assessment towards the so-
cial shaping of technology. This new line of research was labelled “Technikgenese”
(Dierkes 1987; Rammert 1988) and combined ideas form technology assessment
with those of evolutionary economics and SCOT, with the aim of keeping up with
the complex dynamics of technology development in modern societies (cf. Dierkes
and Hoffmann 1992; Rammert 1997). One aspect that was highlighted in this line
of research was that of the phases of technological innovation, which encompassed
the whole innovation process from beginning to end. These phases are not thought
of as linear or as actually coming to an end. Rather, they represent different stages
of innovation, with different sets of actors being involved at different times and
with different interests as the technology is being developed from the first idea to a
more or less final product (Weyer 2008).
    But innovation processes were not only discussed with respect to economic
product innovation. The sociology of technology was always closely connected to
the sociology of science. One of the junctures I would like to point out is the dis-
cussion concerning science and technology in the perspective of the “risk society”
(Beck 1986). Building on a recursive understanding of technical innovation, the
classic distinction between laboratory and society became blurred (Latour 1983;
Knorr Cetina 1988) and the co-evolution of technology, science and society gained
attention in numerous fields (Krohn and Weyer 1989). It became clear that exper-
imental technologies could hardly be contained within the walls of scientific labor-
atories and that the scientific knowledge of the associated risks was either limited
or disputed. This put the sociology of science and technology right at the centre of
the sociological discussion about modernity.
    As the relevance of science and technology studies was gradually accepted by
mainstream sociology, it was finally possible to establish a section for “science and
technology studies” within the German Sociological Association in the beginning
of the 1990s – something which was rejected throughout the 1980s. Within this
section, the different issues of science and technology studies have been clustered
and focussed over the last 20 years. On the one side, studies of technology and sci-
ence have been set into a mutual discussion, looking for overlapping areas of inter-
ests. On the other hand, there have been dedicated conceptual and empirical de-
velopments with regards to either science or technology.
    The broad spectrum of STS therefore taps into the German science and tech-
nology studies at many different intersections. Because innovation studies cover
such a wide range of topics (from technical and scientific innovation, to innova-
110   SCHUBERT



      tions in politics and social innovations in the broadest sense), there exist manifold
      approaches from STS and other fields which have not always been in direct ex-
      change.


      5. End
          The task of mapping the impact of STS in Germany has so far resulted in some
      sketchy lines drawn over a long period of time and across various domains. I am
      not sure if they suffice to say that there is a distinctly German approach to science
      and technology. I think rather not, mainly because the manifold variations within
      the German discourse itself. What is notable, however, is that STS has always en-
      joyed a – more or less – critical appraisal within the German community.
          Probably the most critically discussed issues are the questions regarding the
      agency of devices or materiality in general in the wake of ANT. For many German
      sociologists outside (and sometimes) inside STS, these ideas seem utterly weird.
      Nevertheless, the challenges from STS have been so keen as to provoke at least a
      re-consideration regarding if and how the ex-communication of things from social
      theory could or should be overcome (Rammert 1998).
          Among the German scholars of science and technology, STS is of course much
      more broadly discussed. Depending on the field of study (for instance gender,
      medicine, biotechnology, finance, politics or environmental issues) the interrela-
      tions with STS are close and fruitful. Many research questions draw directly and
      explicitly on STS approaches and seek to combine these lines of thought with on-
      going German discussions. Since 2005, the German open access online journal
      “Science, Technology & Innovation Studies” (http://www.sti-studies.de) offers an
      English language publication outlet specialising in STS topics. Furthermore, Ger-
      man speaking STS scholars from various fields link up through internet platforms
      (e.g. http://dests.de) and mailing lists (e.g. gwtf-talk@listserv.DFN.de).
          Let me finish with a personal note. It seems to me that STS in Germany today
      have proliferated into many areas outside their classical domains. From what I see
      at conferences, STS (and especially ANT) are sometimes treated as some kind of
      secret weapon with which to overthrow the established theories in the respective
      fields. I am very sympathetic to such endeavours, but there seems to be an asym-
      metry in engaging with the established theories. Typically, the critique is unilateral-
      ly directed at the established theories, and there is only little critique (if at all) con-
      cerning STS. This raises the problem that STS concepts are exempted from the
      need to be challenged themselves, which, in the end, leads to a rather orthodox
      application of proven recipes. This cannot be good. Rather, I would very much like
      to see a critical and productive discussion of STS with other fields, theories,
      frameworks, concepts or approaches, both historical and current.
                                                             TECNOSCIENZA – 2(2)       111



References
Abernathy, W.J. and Utterback, J.M. (1978) Patterns of Innovation in Technology,
   in "Technology Review", 80, pp. 40-47.
Barad, K. (2007) Meeting the Universe Halfway. Quantum Physics and the Entan-
   glement of Matter and Meaning, Durham, Duke University Press.
Bechmann, G., Nowotny, H., Rammert, W., Ullrich, O. and Vahrenkamp, R. (eds)
   (1982) Technik und Gesellschaft. Jahrbuch 1, Frankfurt/M., Campus.
Beck, U. (1986) Risikogesellschaft, Frankfurt/M., Suhrkamp.
Bennett, J. (2010) Vibrant Matter. A Political Ecology of Things, Durham, Duke
   University Press.
Bijker, W.E., Hughes, T.P. and Pinch, T.J. (eds) (1987) The Social Construction of
   Technological Systems, Cambridge, MIT Press.
Callon, M. (1986) Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the
   scallops and the fishermen of Saint Brieuc bay, in J. Law (ed), Power, Action and
   Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?, London, Routledge, pp. 196-233.
Cassirer, E. [1930] (1985) Symbol, Technik, Sprache. Aufsätze aus den Jahren 1927-
   1933, Hamburg, Felix Meiner.
Coole, D.H., Frost, S. (eds) (2010) New Materialisms. Ontology, Agency, and Poli-
   tics, Durham, Duke University Press.
Cronberg, T. and Sörensen, K.H. (eds) (1995) Similar Concerns, Different Styles?
   Technology Studies in Western Europe, Brussels, Office for Publications of the
   European Communities.
David, P.A. (1985) Clio and the economics of QWERTY, in American Economic
   Review 75, pp. 332-337.
Dierkes, M. (1987) Technikgenese als Gegenstand sozialwissenschaftlicher For-
   schung - erste Überlegungen, in “Verbund Sozialwissenschaftliche Techni-
   kforschung”, Mitteilungen/1, pp. 154-170.
Dierkes, M. and Hoffmann, U. (1992) New Technology at the Outset. Social Forces
   in the Shaping of Technological Innovations, Frankfurt/M., Campus.
Dosi, G. (1982) Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories, in “Re-
   search Policy”, 11, pp. 147-162.
Ellul, J. [1954] (1964) The Technological Society, New York, Knopf.
Freyer, H. (1929) Zur Philosophie der Technik, in "Blätter für deutsche Philoso-
   phie", 3, pp. 192-201.
Freyer, H. [1923] (1966) Theorie des objektiven Geistes. Eine Einleitung in die
   Kulturphilosophie, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Gehlen, A. (1957) Die Seele im technischen Zeitalter. Sozialpsychologische Probleme
   in der industriellen Gesellschaft, Hamburg, Rowohlt.
Grunwald, A. (2008) Technik und Politikberatung, Frankfurt/M., Suhrkamp.
Habermas, J. (1968) Technik und Wissenschaft als “Ideologie”, Frankfurt/M.,
   Suhrkamp.
Heidegger, M. [1927] (1967) Sein und Zeit, Tübingen, Niemeyer.
Heidegger, M. [1927] (1996) Being and Time, Albany, State University of New
   York Press.
112   SCHUBERT



      Hörning, K.H. (1989) Vom Umgang mit den Dingen. Eine techniksoziologische
         Zuspitzung, in P. Weingart, (ed), Technik als sozialer Prozeß, Frankfurt/M.,
         Suhrkamp, pp. 90-127.
      Hughes, T.P. (1987) The evolution of large technological systems, in W.E. Bijker,
         T.P. Hughes and T.J. Pinch (eds), The Social Construction of Technological Sys-
         tems, Cambridge, MIT Press, pp. 51-82.
      Joerges, B. (ed) (1988) Technik im Alltag, Frankfurt/M., Suhrkamp.
      Joerges, B. (1989) Soziologie und die Maschinerie. Vorschläge zu einer "realistischen"
         Techniksoziologie, in P. Weingart (ed), Technik als sozialer Prozeß, Frank-
         furt/M., Suhrkamp, pp. 44-89.
      Jokisch, R. (ed) (1982) Techniksoziologie, Frankfurt/M., Suhrkamp.
      Kapp, E. (1877) Grundlinien einer Philosophie der Technik. Zur Entstehungsges-
         chichte der Kultur aus neuen Gesichtspunkten, Braunschweig, George Wester-
         mann.
      Kneer, G., Schroer, M. and Schüttpelz, E. (eds) (2008) Bruno Latours Kollektive.
         Kontroversen zur Entgrenzung des Sozialen, Frankfurt/M., Suhrkamp.
      Knorr Cetina, K. (1988) Das naturwissenschaftliche Labor als Ort der "Verdichtung"
         von Gesellschaft, in “Zeitschrift für Soziologie”, 17, pp. 85-101.
      Krohn, W. and Weyer, J. (1989) Die Gesellschaft als Labor. Die Erzeugung sozialer
         Risiken durch experimentelle Forschung, in “Soziale Welt”, 40, pp. 349-373.
      Latour, B. (1983) Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world, in K. Knorr-
         Cetina and M. Mulkay (eds), Science Observed, London, Sage, pp. 141-170.
      Linde, H. (1972) Sachdominanz in Sozialstrukturen, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck.
      MacKenzie, D. and Wajcman, J. (eds) (1985) The Social Shaping of Technology.
         How the Refrigerator Got its Hum, Milton Keynes, Open University Press.
      MacKenzie, D. (2009) Material Markets. How Economic Agents are Constructed,
         Oxford, Oxford University Press.
      Mai, M. (2011) Technik, Wissenschaft und Politik. Studien zur Techniksoziologie
         und Technikgovernance, Wiesbaden, VS Verlag.
      Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic
         Change, Cambridge, Belknap Press.
      Pickering, A. (ed) (1992) Science as Practice and Culture, Chicago, Chicago Univer-
         sity Press.
      Pickering, A. and Guzik, K. (eds) (2008) The Mangle in Practice. Science, Society
         and Becoming, Durham, Duke University Press.
      Pinch, T.J. and Bijker, W.E. (1984) The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts.
         Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit
         Each Other, in "Social Studies of Science", 14, pp. 399-441.
      Pinch, T.J. and Swedberg, R. (eds) (2008) Living in a Material World. Economic
         Sociology Meets Science and Technology Studies, Boston, MIT Press.
      Rammert, W. (1988) Technikgenese. Stand und Perspektiven der Sozialforschung
         zum Entstehungszusammenhang neuer Techniken, in “Kölner Zeitschrift für
         Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie”, 40, pp. 747-761.
      Rammert, W. (1997) New rules of sociological method. Rethinking technology stud-
         ies, in “British Journal of Sociology”, 48, pp. 171-191.
                                                           TECNOSCIENZA – 2(2)       113



Rammert, W. (ed) (1998) Technik und Sozialtheorie, Frankfurt/M., Campus.
Rammert, W. and Schulz-Schaeffer, I. (eds) (2002) Können Maschinen handeln?
   Soziologische Beiträge zum Verhältnis von Mensch und Technik, Frankfurt/M.,
   Campus.
Schelsky, H. (1961) Der Mensch in der wissenschaftlichen Zivilisation, Köln,
   Westdeutscher Verlag.
Turkle, S. (ed) (2007) Evocative Objects. Things we Think with, Cambridge, MIT
   Press.
Tushman, M.L. and Rosenkopf, L. (1992) Organizational determinants of techno-
   logical change. Towards a sociology of technological evolution, in “Research in
   Organizational Behavior”, 14, pp. 311-347.
van den Belt, H. and Rip, A. (1987) The Nelson-Winter-Dosi model and synthetic
   dye chemisty, in W.E. Bijker, T.P. Hughes and T.J. Pinch (eds), The Social Con-
   struction of Technological Systems, Cambridge, MIT Press, pp. 135-158.
Weber, M. [1911] (1988) Diskussionsrede zu W. Sombarts Vortrag über Technik
   und Kultur, in M. Weber (ed), Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Soziologie und Sozialpo-
   litk, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, pp. 449-456.
Weingart, P. (ed) (1989) Technik als sozialer Prozeß, Frankfurt/M., Suhrkamp.
Weyer, J. (2008) Techniksoziologie. Genese, Gestaltung und Steuerung sozio-
   technischer Systeme, Weinheim, Juventa.




    Cornelius Schubert Technische Universität Berlin
    Institut für Soziologie
    Sekretariat FR 2-5
    Franklinstraße 28/29
    10587 Berlin
    Email: cornelius.schubert@tu-berlin.de
114   SCHUBERT
