Interpretation Established Sentiments, Alternative Agendas, and Politics of Concretization

This essay discusses some of the political and practical efficacies, which constructivist science and technology studies (STS) is imagined, intended, or presented as having. I refer to the ways in which authors make arguments and claims about such efficacies as the politics of concretization: the concretization of why, how, and in which
circumstances it matters to be a constructivist. It is important to consider which argumentative resources STS and SLS (science and literature studies) have access to and draw upon when defining their fields and their relationships to other social and political arenas; not least so, as social science and humanities research is increasingly
called upon to legitimate itself in broader societal terms—for instance, under the banner of mode 2 knowledge production.1
Under this rubric, such research is increasingly discussed in terms of the public relevance and usefulness it is capable of providing. However, the criteria of utility according to which such evaluations can or should be carried out is rarely opened up for scrutiny, and the definitions and notions guiding the determination of the useful and the
relevant are often narrow. This can have potential consequences on many levels: from the individual researcher struggling to do research on a “useless” topic, to the relative apportioning of funds among disciplines and institutions and the infrastructure of education more generally.