Fischer – Emergent Forms of Life

Emergent Forms of Life: Anthropologies of Late or Postmodernities

by Michael M.J. Fischer

[Fischer, Michael M. J. 1999. “Emergent Forms of Life: Anthropologies of Late or Postmodernities.” Annual Review of Anthropology 28 (1):455–78.]

Points

Really good overview of social theory and anthropology of the po-mo 1990s, and brief encapsulation of general social theory in the twentieth century

  • “Emergent forms of life’ acknowledges an ethnographic datum, a social theoretic heuristic, and a philosophical stance regarding ethics.
    • The ethnographic datum is the pervasive claim …  that traditional concepts and ways of doing things no longer work …
    • The social theoretic heuristic is that complex societies …  are always compromise formations among … emergent, dominant, and fading historical horizons.
    • The philosophical stance toward ethics is that “giving grounds” for belief comes to an end somewhere and that “the end is … a sociality of action, that always contains within it ethical dilemmas or … the face of the other.” (456)
  • Anthropologies of late modernity … provide challenges for all levels of social, cultural, and psychological theory, as well as for ethnographic field methods and genres of writing. There are three key overlapping arenas of attention.

    1. The continuing transformation of modernities by science and technology, 
    2. The reconfiguration of perception and understanding, of the human and social sensorium, by computer-mediated and visual technologies and prostheses. 
    3. The reconstruction of society in the wake of social trauma caused by world war and civil and ethnic wars; collapse of command economies; massive demographic migrations and diasporas; and postcolonial and globalizing restructurings of the world economy, including the production of toxics and new modalities of long-term risk.” (457-458)

     

  • “The general social theories of modernity in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries have to do with the dynamics of class society and industrial processes (Karl Marx); with bureaucratic, psychological, and cultural rationalization (Max Weber); with repression and redirection of psychic energy from gendered and familial conflicts (Sigmund Freud, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno); with abstraction of signs and tokens of exchange (CS Pierce, F Saussure, Georg Simmel, Thorstein Veblen); and with the complexification of the conscience collective with the division of labor (Emile Durkheim, Marcel Mauss).
  • In contrast, general theories of the postmodern or late modern era stress the processes and effects of the “third industrial revolution” (electronic media, silicon chip, molecular biology), as well as of decolonization, massive demographic shifts, and the cross-temporal and cross-cultural referentiality of cultural forms.” (458)
  • “computer-mediated communication provides also a design studio for social theory. It provides materials for thinking about a conjuncture of two kinds of science that can no longer do without one another: (a) explanatory structures that are breaks with normal experience, that can only be arrived at through the prostheses of instruments, experiments, models, and simulations, and (b) experiential, embodied, sensorial knowledge that acts as situated feedback.” (469)
  • “No longer is it possible to speak of modernity in the singular. … 
    • “The rubric “alternative modernities” acknowledges the multiple different configurations that modernities have taken and the recognition that modernization and globalization are not homogenizing processes.” (470)
    • “Among the important makers of these alternative modernities are the tremendous disruptions of the second half of the twentieth century: World War II, the struggles for decolonization, the collapse of the Soviet empire and its command economies, civil wars in Africa and Cambodia, and the “disappeared” in Argentina.” (471)
  • Composing ethnographically rich texts on emergent forms of life generated under late- and postmodernities that can explore connections between changing subjectivities, social organization, modes of production, and symbolic or cultural forms, is a challenge that the anthropological archive is increasingly addressing. … The new is never without historical genealogies, but these often require reassessment and excavation of their multiplicity. 

Abstract

Anthropologies of late modernity (also called postmodernity, postindustrial society, knowledge society, or information society) provide a number of stimulating challenges for all levels of social, cultural, and psycho- logical theory, as well as for ethnographic and other genres of anthropological writing. Three key overlapping arenas of attention are the centrality of science and technology; decolonization, postcolonialism, and the reconstruction of societies after social trauma; and the role of the new electronic and visual media. The most important challenges of contemporary ethnographic practice include more than merely (a) the techniques of multilocale or multisited ethnography for strategically accessing different points in broadly spread processes, (b) the techniques of multivocal or multiaudience-addressed texts for mapping and acknowledging with greater precision the situatedness of knowledge, (c) the re- working of traditional notions of comparative work for a world that is increasingly aware of difference, and (d) acknowledging that anthropological representations are interventions within a stream of representations, mediations, and unequally inflected discourses competing for hegemonic control. Of equal importance are the challenges of juxtaposing, complementing, or supplementing other genres of writing, working with historians, literary theorists, media critics, novelists, investigative or in-depth journalists, writers of insider accounts (e.g. autobiographers, scientists writing for the public), photographers and filmmakers, and others.”

Page 1, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1999. 28:455–78”
Comment: Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1999.
28:455–78

Page 1, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “EMERGENT FORMS OF LIFE: Anthropologies of Late or Postmodernities Michael M.J. Fischer Abstract Anthropologies of late modernity (also called postmodernity, postindustrial society, knowledge society, or information society) provide a number of stimulating challenges for all levels of social, cultural, and psycho- logical theory, as well as for ethnographic and other genres of anthropological writing. Three key overlapping arenas of attention are the centrality of science and technology; decolonization, postcolonialism, and the reconstruction of so- cieties after social trauma; and the role of the new electronic and visual media. The most important challenges of contemporary ethnographic practice include more than merely (a) the techniques of multilocale or multisited ethnography for strategically accessing different points in broadly spread processes, (b) the techniques of multivocal or multiaudience-addressed texts for mapping and ac- knowledging with greater precision the situatedness of knowledge, (c) the re- working of traditional notions of comparative work for a world that is increas- ingly aware of difference, and (d) acknowledging that anthropological repre- sentations are interventions within a streamof representations, mediations, and unequally inflected discourses competing for hegemonic control. Of equal im- portance are the challenges of juxtaposing, complementing, or supplementing other genres of writing, working with historians, literary theorists, media critics, novelists, investigative or in-depth journalists, writers of insider accounts (e.g. autobiographers, scientists writing for the public), photographers and filmmak- ers, and others.”
Comment: EMERGENT FORMS OF LIFE: Anthropologies
of Late or Postmodernities
Michael M.J. Fischer
Abstract
Anthropologies of late modernity (also called postmodernity,
postindustrial society, knowledge society, or information society) provide a
number of stimulating challenges for all levels of social, cultural, and psycho-
logical theory, as well as for ethnographic and other genres of anthropological
writing. Three key overlapping arenas of attention are the centrality of science
and technology; decolonization, postcolonialism, and the reconstruction of so-
cieties after social trauma; and the role of the new electronic and visual media.
The most important challenges of contemporary ethnographic practice include
more than merely (a) the techniques of multilocale or multisited ethnography
for strategically accessing different points in broadly spread processes, (b) the
techniques of multivocal or multiaudience-addressed texts for mapping and ac-
knowledging with greater precision the situatedness of knowledge, (c) the re-
working of traditional notions of comparative work for a world that is increas-
ingly aware of difference, and (d) acknowledging that anthropological repre-
sentations are interventions within a streamof representations, mediations, and
unequally inflected discourses competing for hegemonic control. Of equal im-
portance are the challenges of juxtaposing, complementing, or supplementing
other genres of writing, working with historians, literary theorists, media critics,
novelists, investigative or in-depth journalists, writers of insider accounts (e.g.
autobiographers, scientists writing for the public), photographers and filmmak-
ers, and others.

Page 1, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “CONTENTS Introduction: Challenges for Theory and Practice ………………… 456 Three Arenas of Focus in Late or Post-Modern Socio-Cultural Formations …. 457 Ethnographic Challenges Posed by These Three Arenas ………………. 458 Metanarratives: Social Theory for Late or Postmodernities…………….. 458 Three Arenas in Late or Postmodern Socio-Cultural Formations ……… 459”

Page 2, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Working in Technoscientific Infrastructures and Imaginaries …………… 459 Beyond Perception, Filmic Judgment, and Worlding Cyberspace ………… 468 Starting Over: Beyond Social Control and Social Conflict ……………… 470 Conclusions…………………………………………… 472”

Page 2, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “INTRODUCTION: CHALLENGES FOR THEORY AND PRACTICE”

Page 2, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: ““Emergent forms of life” acknowledges an ethnographic datum, a social theoreticheuristic, and a philosophical stance regarding ethics. The ethnographic datumisthe pervasive claim thattraditional concepts and ways of doing things no longer work, that life is outrun-ning the pedagogies in which we have been trained. “

Page 2, Underline (Blue):
Content: ““Emergent forms of life” acknowledges an ethnographic datum, a social theoreticheuristic, and a philosophical stance regarding ethics. The ethnographic datumisthe pervasive clai are- technologies, etc) that traditional concepts and ways of doing things no longer work,”

Page 2, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: ” The social theoretic heuristicis that complex societies, including the globalized regimes under which late andpost-modernities operate, are always compromise formations among—in Ray-mond Williams’ salutary formulation—emergent, dominant, and fading histori-cal horizons.”

Page 2, Underline (Blue):
Content: ” The social theoretic heuristicis that complex societies, “

Page 2, Underline (Blue):
Content: “are always compromise formations among”

Page 2, Underline (Blue):
Content: “emergent, dominant, and fading histori-cal horizons. “

Page 2, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “The philosophical stance toward ethics is that “giving grounds” for belief comes to an end somewhere and that “the end is not an ungrounded pre- supposition; it is an ungrounded way of acting” (Wittgenstein 1969:17e) or a “form of life,” a sociality of action, that always contains within it ethical dilem- mas or, in the idiomof Emmanuel Levinas, the face of the other.”

Page 2, Underline (Blue):
Content: “The philosophical stance toward ethics is that “giving grounds” forbelief comes to an end somewhere and that “the end”

Page 2, Underline (Blue):
Content: “end is”

Page 2, Underline (Blue):
Content: ” a sociality of action, that always contains within it ethical dilem-mas or, the face of the other.”

Page 2, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Take, for example, the university. being set adrift from theirpast modernist moorings in cultural projects of maintaining their respectivenation-states. Instead, it is argued they are becoming transnational bureaucraticcorporations re”

Page 2, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “feminism and race/ethnic scholarship, symptomatically, are targets of so much rancor and moral fervor precisely because they remind so forcefully, through the fact that bodies are differentially marked, that it is no longer possible for universities to create unmarked, universalistic, subjects of reason, culture, and republican politics”

Page 2, Underline (Red):
Content: “(Readings 1996:19).”

Page 3, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “If universities are undergoing structural change of the sort Readings suggests,so too are almost every other social institution and cultural form. With its empiri-cal ethnographic methods, anthropology remains, arguably, among the most use-ful of checks on theorizing becoming parochial, ethnocentric, generallyuncomparative, uncosmopolitan, and sociologically ungrounde”

Page 3, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Three Arenas of Focus in Late or Post-Modern Socio- Cultural Formations”

Page 3, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Anthropologies of late modernity provide challenges for all levelsof social, cultural, and psychological theory, as well as for ethnographic field meth-ods and genres of writing. There are three key overlapping arenas of attention.”

Page 3, Underline (Blue):
Content: “1. The continuing transformation of modernities by science and technology, Anthropologies of late modernity (also provide challenges for all levels of social, cultural, and psychological theory, as well as for ethnographic field meth- ods and genres of writing.”

Page 3, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “1. The continuing transformation of modernities by science and technology, themselves understood to be mutating social and cultural institutions rather than eternal Platonic “invisible colleges” of reason (Galison 1997; Haraway 1997; Marcus 1995; Martin 1987, 1994; Rabinow 1995; Traweek 1988).”

Page 3, Underline (Red):
Content: “(Galison 1997; Haraway 1997; Marcus 1995; Martin 1987, 1994; Rabinow 1995; Traweek 1988).”

Page 3, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “2. The reconfiguration of perception and understanding, of the human and so- cial sensorium, by computer-mediated and visual technologies and prosthe- ses. This is often called the third industrial revolution, with implications as profound as those of the first two industrial revolutions for interaction at all levels, fromthe personal-psychological to the global political economy, ecology, and human rights (Dumit 1995; Fischer 1995b, 1998; Marcus 1996,1997; Turkle 1995; Turner 1992). “

Page 3, Underline (Blue):
Content: “2. The reconfiguration of perception and understanding, of the human and so- cial ses.”

Page 3, Underline (Red):
Content: “(Dumit 1995; Fischer 1995b, 1998; Marcus 1996, 1997; Turkle 1995; Turner 1992).”

Page 3, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “3. The reconstruction of society in the wake of social trauma caused by world war and civil and ethnic wars; collapse of command economies; massive”

Page 3, Underline (Blue):
Content: “3. The reconstruction of society in the wake of social trauma caused by worldwar and civil and ethnic wars; collapse of command economies; massive”

Page 4, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “demographic migrations and diasporas; and postcolonial and globalizing re- structurings of the world economy, including the production of toxics and new modalities of long-termrisk.”

Page 4, Underline (Blue):
Content: “demographic migrations and diasporas; and postcolonial and globalizing re-structurings of the world economy, including the production of toxics and new modalities of long-termrisk”

Page 4, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “All of these call into question the premises of social theory earlier in the century, based on a more simple dialectic of social control versus social conflict (Cohen 1968; Parsons 1937, 1951), and they refocus social theory on questions of heterogeneities, differences, in- equalities, competing discursive logics and public memories, complex ethics of advocacy and complicity, and multiple interdigitated temporalities (Beck 1986/1992, 1991/1995; Daniel 1996; Daniel &Knudsen 1995; Fabian 1996; Fischer 1943; Fischer &Abedi 1990; Fortun 1999; Geertz 1995; Marcus 1993; Nordstrom&Robben 1995; Taussig 1987; Werbner 1991, 1998).”

Page 4, Underline (Red):
Content: “(Beck 1986/1992, 1991/1995; Daniel 1996; Daniel &Knudsen 1995; Fabian 1996; Fischer 1943; Fischer &Abedi 1990; Fortun 1999; Geertz 1995; Marcus 1993; Nordstrom&Robben 1995; Taussig 1987; Werbner 1991, 1998).”

Page 4, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Ethnographic Challenges Posed by These Three Arenas”

Page 4, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “The most important challenges for contemporary ethnographic practices includenot merely (a) the techniques of multilocale or multisited ethnography for strate-gically accessing different points in geographically spread complex processes,(b) the techniques of multivocal or multiaudience-addressed texts for mappingand acknowledging the situatedness of knowledges, (c) the reworking of tradi-tional notions of comparative work for a world that is increasingly aware of dif-ference and interconnections, or (d) acknowledging that anthropologicalrepresentations are interventions within a stream of representations, mediations,and unequal discourses (Fischer & Marcus 1999)”

Page 4, Underline (Red):
Content: “(Fischer & Marcus 1999).”

Page 4, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Of equal importance are the challenges of juxtaposing, complementing, or supplementing other genres of writing:”

Page 4, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Metanarratives: Social Theory for Late or Postmodernities”

Page 4, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “The general social theories of modernity in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries have to do with the dynamics of class society and industrial processes (Karl Marx); with bureaucratic, psychological, and cultural rationalization (Max Weber); with repression and redirection of psychic energy from gendered and familial conflicts (Sigmund Freud, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno); with abstraction of signs and tokens of exchange (CS Pierce, F Saussure, Georg Sim- mel, Thorstein Veblen); and with the complexification of the conscience collec- tive with the division of labor (Emile Durkheim, Marcel Mauss).”

Page 4, Underline (Magenta):
Content: “The general social theories of modernity in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries have to do with the dynamics of class society and industrial processes (Karl Marx); with bureaucratic, psychological, and cultural rationalization (Max Weber); with repression and redirection of psychic energy from gendered and familial conflicts (Sigmund Freud, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno); with abstraction of signs and tokens of exchange (CS Pierce, F Saussure, Georg Sim- mel, Thorstein Veblen); and with the complexification of the tive with the division of labor (Emile Durkheim, Marcel Mauss).”

Page 4, Stamp (exclamationPointred)

Page 4, Underline (Red):
Content: “(Karl Marx); (Max Weber); (Sigmund Freud, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno); CS Pierce, F Saussure, Georg Sim-mel, Thorstein Veblen); “

Page 4, Underline (Red):
Content: ” (Emile Durkheim, Marcel Mauss)”

Page 4, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “In contrast,general theories of the postmodern or late modern era stress the processes andeffects of the “third industrial revolution” (electronic media, silicon chip, molecu-lar biology), as well as of decolonization, massive demographic shifts, and thecross-temporal and cross-cultural referentiality of cultural forms. “

Page 5, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Simulations and modeling replace direct experiential modes of knowing, a process with deep roots in the modernist experimental sciences (Ben- jamin 1968; Deleuze 1983, 1985; Deleuze &Guattari 1987; Poster 1990; Baudril- lard 1994; Ronell 1994; Emmeche 1994; MacKenzie 1996; Galison 1997).”

Page 5, Underline (Red):
Content: “(Ben- jamin 1968; Deleuze 1983, 1985; Deleuze &Guattari 1987; Poster 1990; Baudril- lard 1994; Ronell 1994; Emmeche 1994; MacKenzie 1996; Galison 1997).”

Page 5, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Moreover, modernity can no longer be spoken of as a singular (see below).”

Page 5, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “THREE ARENAS INLATE OR POSTMODERNSOCIO- CULTURAL FORMATIONS Working in Technoscientific Infrastructures and Imaginaries”

Page 5, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Although science and tech-nology have been central to social theory in a general way from the industrialrevolution on (viz. Smith 1776; Malthus 1803; Marx 1928, 1971; Weber 1968;Merton 1938, 1973), it is only within the past two decades that ethnographic at-tention has been turned to th”

Page 5, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “The Sciences as Social and Cultural Institutions”

Page 5, Underline (Red):
Content: “(viz. Smith 1776; Malthus 1803; Marx 1928, 1971; Weber 1968; Merton 1938, 1973),”

Page 5, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Precursors”

Page 5, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “The one arena that anthropology has long paid attention to is that of medical settings, Asecond precursor to recent science studies is the concerns about comparative ra- tionalities and the ways in which systems of belief, including science, can be pro- tected fromfalsification (Fleck 1935, Evans-Pritchard 1937, Kuhn 1962).”

Page 5, Underline (Red):
Content: “(Fleck 1935, Evans-Pritchard 1937, Kuhn 1962).”

Page 5, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Athird precursor is the “sociology of science” studies of the 1980s (e.g. Latour &Wool-“

Page 5, Underline (Red):
Content: “(e.g. Latour &Wool-“

Page 6, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “gar 1979, Barnes et al 1996),”

Page 6, Underline (Red):
Content: “gar 1979, Barnes et al 1996),”

Page 6, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “The current anthropologies and ethnographies of science, technology, andsociety might be grouped loosely under three rubrics: (a) the comparative work ofanalyzing the different forms of social organization of science research settingsfromthe beginning of the “scientific revolution” to the present, (b) the historical structural transformations ofthe sciences, technosciences, and biosciences from small-scale to big science inthe postwar period, and (c) the hermeneutic,literary, and cultural accounting work of the wider cultural groundings, implica-tions, and deployments of technologies and science-derived theories, specula-tions, and models”

Page 6, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “The notion of a “modest witness” has been taken up in a counterpoint fashion in essays by Haraway (1997)”

Page 6, Underline (Red):
Content: ” (1997) “

Page 6, Underline (Red):
Content: “(Biagioli 1993), Latour 1988, Gieson 1995), “

Page 6, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Galileo’s “courtier science” (Biagioli 1993), Boyle’s seventeenth century“gentlemanly science” (Shapin & Schaffer 1985), Pasteur’s late nineteenth cen-tury “public scientist” (Latour 1988, Gieson 1995), and today’s big science con-sisting of hundreds of scientists on a project (Galison 1997) are distinct social andcultural formations.”

Page 6, Underline (Red):
Content: “(Shapin & Schaffer 1985),”

Page 6, Underline (Red):
Content: “(Galison 1997)”

Page 7, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: ” Latour’s Science in Action (1987) dissects howscien-tists construct their various literary accounts (e.g. scientific papers) and howrhetoric and citational strategies are used”

Page 7, Underline (Red):
Content: “(1987)”

Page 7, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “The account by Biagioli (1993) of Galileo’s climb fromlow-status mathemati- cian to high-status court philosopher under three different political regimes (Venetian republic, Florentine princely court, and Roman academies) builds explicitly upon the logics of gift exchange and the economy of honor as an exer- cise in power (classically articulated by Mauss 1925), as well as upon Elias’s (1982) excavation of the “civilizing process” of changing etiquette systems.”

Page 7, Underline (Red):
Content: “(1993)”

Page 7, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Ethnographers and historians have been working on physics (Traweek 1988, Galison 1997, Knorr-Cetina 1999), on the biological sciences (Cambrosio & Keating 1995; Fleck 1935; Fujimura 1996; Kay 1993; Keller 1995; Kohler 1994; Knorr-Cetina 1999; Loewy 1996; Martin 1987, 1994; Rabinow 1995; Rheinberger 1997; Rapp 1993, 1997), on material sciences (Nowotny & Felt 1997), on engineering (Bucciarelli 1994, Downey 1998, Henderson 1998, Kidder 1981, Latour 1996), on nuclear weapons designers (Broad 1985, 1992; Gusterson 1996), on imaging instruments (Cart-“

Page 7, Underline (Red):
Content: “(Traweek 1988, Galison 1997, Knorr-Cetina 1999),”

Page 7, Underline (Red):
Content: “(Cambrosio & Keating 1995; Fleck 1935; Fujimura 1996; Kay 1993; Keller 1995; Kohler 1994; Knorr-Cetina 1999; Loewy 1996; Martin 1987, 1994; Rabinow 1995; Rheinberger 1997; Rapp 1993, 1997),”

Page 7, Underline (Red):
Content: “(Nowotny & Felt 1997),”

Page 7, Underline (Red):
Content: ” (Bucciarelli 1994,Downey 1998, Henderson 1998, Kidder 1981, Latour 1996),”

Page 7, Underline (Red):
Content: ” (Broad 1985, 1992; Gusterson 1996″

Page 7, Underline (Red):
Content: “(Cart-“

Page 8, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “wright 1995, Dumit 1995, Rasmussen 1997), and on simulation technologies (Emmeche 1994, Helmreich 1998, Galison 1997, MacKenzie 1996, Kelly 1994).”

Page 8, Underline (Red):
Content: “wright 1995, Dumit 1995, Rasmussen 1997),”

Page 8, Underline (Red):
Content: “(Emmeche 1994, Helmreich 1998, Galison 1997, MacKenzie 1996, Kelly 1994).”

Page 8, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: ” Galison (1997) describes the transition between “craft physics” of indi-vidual investigators before World War II and “big science,” with particle accel-erators in which hundreds of scientists are teamed into complex organizationalforms.”

Page 8, Underline (Red):
Content: “Galison (1997)”

Page 8, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Knorr-Cetina (1999) describes howthe world viewgenerated in the large high- energy physics organizational forms contrasts sharply with that of molecular biol- ogy.”

Page 8, Underline (Red):
Content: “Knorr-Cetina (1999)”

Page 9, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Rabinow’s (1995) work on Cetus Corporation and the making of polymerase chain reaction (PCR), a now-ubiquitous tool in molecular biology, is a historically and strategically placed ethnography allowing a perspective on a number of dimensions of the changing social organization of biological research:”

Page 9, Underline (Red):
Content: “Rabinow’s (1995) Dumit (1995)”

Page 9, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: ” The study by Dumit (1995) of thedevelopment of PET scan technology similarly shows how courtroom, patient-family interest groups, research interpretation, and engineering are mutuallyimplicated. “

Page 10, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “After the changes in society and our cultural conceptions of ourselves wrought by physics and biology a third key arena that figuresin contemporary metanarratives of late modernity and postmodernities are theenvironmental sciences.”

Page 10, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Risk society—and the various models of how risk is dealt with in industries from the airlines to medicine to environmental and health epidemiology—has become one of the more fruitful innovations in both ethnographic-empirical and theoretical work.”

Page 10, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “more fruitful innovations in both ethnographic-empirical and theoretical work. This is particularly true where the actuarial statistics of indus- trial accident calculation from the nineteenth century mechanical industries no”

Page 11, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “longer work (Beck 1986/1992), and where governments and corporations, there- fore, take on new, not always salutary, modes of behavior (Reich 1991, Fortun 1999, Wildavsky 1995, Graham&Hartwell 1997).”

Page 11, Underline (Red):
Content: “(Beck 1986/1992), (Reich 1991, Fortun 1999, Wildavsky 1995, Graham&Hartwell 1997).”

Page 11, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Cultural Readings of Technology”

Page 11, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Arguably one of the most important transformations over the course of the twentieth cen- tury in cultural thought about technology has been from class-inflected politics over technological determinism (Karl Marx, Martin Heidegger, Theodor Adorno), to the mid-century technocratic systems-theoretic framework for con- textualizing technology (Macey Conferences), to the more recent dynamically generative and often quasi-psychoanalytically figured analysis of the place of ma- chines and technologies in the cultural imaginary.”

Page 11, Underline (Red):
Content: “Karl Marx, Martin Heidegger, TheodorAdorno), “

Page 11, Underline (Red):
Content: “(Macey Conferences),”

Page 11, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “1. In the first moment, mainly with historians (fromLynn White in the UnitedStates to the Annales school in France: Marc Bloch, Emmanuel LeRoy Ladurie) and a few philosophers [e.g. Heidegger’s interpretation of moder- nity as nature transformed into quantified standing resources, in which he sees little difference between industrial agriculture and genocide; or more sensibly, Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, and others of the Frankfurt School extending Karl Marx’s challenge to view the products of industry and commodification as hieroglyphic texts to be read or decoded, texts that contain the secret of human alienation and suffering—lodged more in the (social) relations of production than in the forces of production (technol- ogy)—social relations that can be exposed] (Taussig 1980, 1987; Tsing 1993; Ong 1987; Ferguson 1990; Escobar 1994; Gupta 1998). “

Page 11, Underline (Red):
Content: “Heidegger’s Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin,”

Page 11, Underline (Red):
Content: “(Taussig 1980, 1987; Tsing 1993; Ong 1987; Ferguson 1990; Escobar 1994; Gupta 1998).”

Page 11, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “The more interesting legacy of the sec- ond moment is the tracing out of the recent social implications and cultural effects of cyberspace, informatics, modeling, and simulation. There is a sense in which Foucault’s revisions (1963, 1966, 1975, 1980) of Weberian accounts of modes of legitimate domination”

Page 11, Underline (Red):
Content: “Foucault’s (1963, 1966, 1975, 1980) Weberian”

Page 11, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “and of Gramscian analyses for Italy of hegemonic compromise formations also fit here, via computers, microprac- tices, and new social movements, focused on the transformation of everyday social relations and extending far more diffuse, pervasive, and powerful ciplinary regimes than were conceivable in the early twentieth century.”

Page 11, Underline (Red):
Content: “Gramscian”

Page 11, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “These new forms of power, as they have developed in the late twentieth cen-tury, are in part dependent on new threshholds of computer-mediated infra- structures, with all their attendant vulnerabilities for disruption (Fischer “

Page 11, Underline (Red):
Content: “(Fischer”

Page 12, Underline (Red):
Content: “1999c),”

Page 12, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “1999c), and on new informatic databases that allow the deployment of bio- power regulating both individual biologies and the social regulation of popu-lations. This last has become a rich field of ethnographic investigations, under the rubrics both of the new reproductive technologies (Strathern 1992, Frank- lin 1997, Clarke 1998, Davis-Floyd &Dumit 1998) and of the anthropology of biotechnology and molecular sciences (Rabinow 1995, Fujimura 1996).”

Page 12, Underline (Red):
Content: “(Strathern 1992, Frank- lin 1997, Clarke 1998, Davis-Floyd &Dumit 1998)”

Page 12, Underline (Red):
Content: “(Rabinow 1995, Fujimura 1996).”

Page 12, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “3. In the third moment, with literary critics and philosophers (Taussig 1992, 1993; Ivy 1995; Turkle 1984, 1995; Ronell 1989, 1994; Kittler 1990; De- leuze &Guattari 1987; Guattari 1995; Weber 1996). Cultural readings of technology in the third modality or moment are among the most innovative of new work, drawing on a rich appreciation of changes in the media that disseminate cultural forms and on a renewed cultural-hermeneutic (nonre- ductive) and psychodynamic exploration of the desires and anxieties in- vested in technologies.”

Page 12, Underline (Red):
Content: “(Taussig 1992, 1993; Ivy 1995; Turkle 1984, 1995; Ronell 1989, 1994; Kittler 1990; De- leuze &Guattari 1987; Guattari 1995; Weber 1996).”

Page 12, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: ” what seems to be emerging is a renewed attention to the ways in which cultural analysis depends on chains of metaphor, semiosis/ecriture, and even new forms of “automatic” writing via machines, discursive forma- tions, and “machinic assemblages” of literary, material, and social technolo- gies. In science studies, Latour’s (1987, 1988, 1990, 1996, 1999) notion of instrumentation as machines that write inscriptions, which serve as “immu- table mobiles” (transferring information across space, language, and subcul- tures of scientists), and which can reverse or change ratios of power betweencenters of calculation (laboratories in the metropole) and fieldsites (where information is collected, tested, or produced), contests the older notion of in-dividual scientists and gentlemanly colleges of science acting as “modest witnesses.””

Page 12, Underline (Red):
Content: “Latour’s (1987, 1988, 1990, 1996, 1999)”

Page 12, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Kittler does a brilliant reading of Bram Stoker’s Dracula as being about the machine worlds of typewriters in the early twentieth century, analogous to various appreciations of Nietzche and Kafka as embedded similarly in telegraphic, postal, and rail networks.”

Page 12, Underline (Red):
Content: “Kittler”

Page 12, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Galison (1997), by showing the multiple genealogies of scientific instruments, is able to weave together arenas of cultural concern that are normally marginal-“

Page 13, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “ized or even written out of histories of science For instance, the Victorian fas-cination with volcanoes, thunderstorms, and other dramas of nature is puttogether with the beginnings of modern instrumentation for modern particle phys-ics, a story that involves as well the role of photographic filmcompanies.”

Page 13, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Ronell (1989) reinscribes into the histories of the telephone (a) fantasies anddesires invested in newtechnologies, in this case desires to speak to the dead andthe spiritualist circles in which Alexander GrahamBell and Thomas Watson, hisassistant, participated;”

Page 13, Underline (Red):
Content: “Ronell (1989)”

Page 13, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “(b) anxieties and pedagogies surrounding prostheses, stemming fromwork by Bell’s father with the deaf and dumb,”

Page 13, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: ” (c) differencesbetween what entrepreneurs envisioned for newtechnologies (business use only)and their actual uses (everyday communication); and (d) differences between therationality we retrospectively attribute to inventors and scientists and the actualneuroticisms they often exhibited in life, “

Page 13, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “What makes Ronell’s work truly engaging, however, is her philosphical rebut-tal of the banalities of Heidegger’s “philosophy of technology,” which havebecome so mindlessly faddish among American students. Ronell rebuts in par-ticular Heidegger’s refusal to take responsibility [“to answer the call,” or rather toonly answer the call (of the Nazi Party) in blind obedience, as if technology weredeterministic]. arguingthat we can neither blindly become cogs in whatever technological developmentsoccur nor withdraw from any engagement. We are embedded, ethically, as wellexistentially and materially, in technologies and technological prostheses.”

Page 13, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Haraway (1991, 1997) espouses a similar philosophy, one that further draws upon multiple—feminist, socialist, scientific—commitments, facing up to the contradictions that can occur among them.”

Page 13, Underline (Red):
Content: “Haraway (1991, 1997)”

Page 14, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Beyond Perception, Filmic Judgment, and Worlding Cyberspace”

Page 14, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “The late twentieth century is arguably undergoing a third industrial revolution (based on the silicon chip and computers) as profound as the first industrial revo- lution of textiles in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries or the science-based second industrial revolution of electricity, steel, and chemicals in the nineteenth century.”

Page 14, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “In part this is merely acatching-up by everyday experience and common sense to the movement of thesciences since the late nineteenth century, where direct experience has long beenunderstood to be either misleading or at best a partial and supplementary access tothe complexity of reality. But the world mediated by computers and simulationhas taken us a step further yet, one that requires at least two kinds of knowledgesimultaneously: the indirect structural precision of the sciences supplemented bythe experiential, relational world of social relations and cultural mapping.”

Page 14, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Filmic technologies preceded and prepared the ground for computer-mediatedcommunication. Earlier in this century, Benjamin (1968) argued that filmwas thegymnasium of the senses, teaching us to scan fragments in multiple channels ofinput. “

Page 14, Underline (Red):
Content: “Benjamin (1968)”

Page 14, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “And Deleuze (1983, 1985) argued that after World War II, the shock of the cin-ema was in the making of time-space increasingly virtual, i.e. multiplying thenumber of dimensions of signifying systems to which “realism” pays attention”

Page 14, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “If filmtaught us to deal with speed, fragmentation, and distrac- tion early in the century, cyberspace has raised the bar on all these processes, add-“

Page 15, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “ing to them information processing, mining and accessing information with a speed and analytic ability unimaginable only a few years ago.”

Page 15, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: ” Worlds are beingprovided for psychologically learning to deal with ourselves as multiple and flexi-ble (Turkle 1995). “

Page 15, Underline (Red):
Content: “(Turkle 1995).”

Page 15, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “computer-mediated communication provides also a design studio forsocial theory. It provides materials for thinking about a conjuncture of two kindsof science that can no longer do without one another: (a) explanatory structuresthat are breaks with normal experience, that can only be arrived at through theprostheses of instruments, experiments, models, and simulations, and (b) experi-ential, embodied, sensorial knowledge that acts as situated feedback.”

Page 15, Underline (Blue):
Content: “computer-mediated communication provides also a design studio for social theory. It provides materials for thinking about a conjuncture of two kinds of science that can no longer do without one another: (a) explanatory structures that are breaks with normal experience, that can only be arrived at through the prostheses of instruments, experiments, models, and simulations, and (b) experi- ential, embodied, sensorial knowledge that acts as situated feedback.”

Page 15, Stamp (openStarred)

Page 15, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “There is much hype about cyberspace, but cyberspace continues to work behind the scenes when we space out: compiling our credit ratings, positioning”

Page 16, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “our financial futures, restructuring our work lives and stratification systems, building new decentralized bureaucratic surveillance and security systems, pro- viding scientific and pragmatic knowledge beyond ordinary perception, and keeping us distracted and suspended in complex temporal loops of partial knowl- edge, interactions, and circulating debts that merge and interact beyond individ- ual responsibilities and control.”

Page 16, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: ” Says Derrida: “For philosophical or political reasons,this problem of communicating and receivability, in its new techno-economicgivens is more serious than ever for everyone; one can live it only with malaise,contradiction, and compromise” (Derrida 1992/1995:116). “

Page 16, Underline (Red):
Content: “(Derrida 1992/1995:116).”

Page 16, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Starting Over: Beyond Social Control and Social Conflict”

Page 16, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “No longer is it possible to speak of modernity in the singular.”

Page 16, Underline (Blue):
Content: “No longer is it possible to speak of modernity in the singular. The rubric “alternative mod-ernities” acknowledges the multiple different configurations that modernitieshave taken and the recognition that modernization and globalization are nothomogenizing processes. I”

Page 16, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: ” German social theory in theearly twentieth century was concerned with the defense of civil society against therise of markets and mass politics, and was profoundly marked in the 1930s by thegenerational experience of the failures of struggles against fascism”

Page 16, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: ” French socialtheory in the post–World War II period was marked by a different generationalexperience: (a) of the Algerian War of Independence and the migration intoFrance of North Africans who did not necessarily wish to become French (b) of the expansion of computer-mediated-communication in the 1970s; and (c) of the spread of American popular culturemediated especially by Hollywood films.”

Page 16, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “The rubric “alternative mod- ernities” acknowledges the multiple different configurations that modernities have taken and the recognition that modernization and globalization are not homogenizing processes.”

Page 17, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Among the important makers of these alternative modernities are the tremen- dous disruptions of the second half of the twentieth century: World War II, the struggles for decolonization, the collapse of the Soviet empire and its command economies, civil wars in Africa and Cambodia, and the “disappeared” in Argen- tina.”

Page 17, Underline (Blue):
Content: “Among the important makers of these alternative modernities are the tremen- dous disruptions of the second half of the twentieth century: World War II, the struggles for decolonization, the collapse of the Soviet empire and its command economies, civil wars in Africa and Cambodia, and the “disappeared” in Argen- tina.”

Page 17, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: ” One can see in the writings of anthropologists working in socie-ties like Zimbabwe, Congo, Argentina, Ireland, and Cambodia a recent break inthe ability to write about such traditional topics as religion as if they were a stablesource of values and social integration. Werbner’s (1991) and Honwana’s (1996)accounts of the attempt to reshape the social integrative uses of witchcraft insouthern Africa in the aftermath of civil war are poignant examples.”

Page 17, Underline (Red):
Content: “Werbner’s (1991) Honwana’s (1996)”

Page 17, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Indeed, one might argue that the struggles over toxics and environmental issues—nowindelibly symbolized by such names as Love Canal, Bhopal, Cherno- byl, Minamata—are among the sites where the issues of long-termsocial reorgani- zation are most exposed:”

Page 17, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: ” The chemical industriesare a focus of attention that raises the issues of doing multi-sited ethnographies inan industry that is worldwide and thinks nothing of shifting production or import-ing workers or recalculating risks fromplace to place; The biotechnology industries—with genetically engi-neered crops and livestock—are a second such focus, not merely for panics overmad-cowdisease”

Page 17, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “The broad arena of reconstruction of society after social trauma seems to be among the most important of challenges for anthropology and social science gen-“

Page 18, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “erally.”

Page 18, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “CONCLUSIONS”

Page 18, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “Composing ethnographically rich texts on emergent forms of life generated underlate- and postmodernities that can explore connections between changing subjec-tivities, social organization, modes of production, and symbolic or cultural forms,is a challenge that the anthropological archive is increasingly addressing.”

Page 18, Highlight (Cyan):
Content: “The new is never without historical genealogies, but these often require reassessment and excava- tion of their multiplicity.”

Page 19, Underline (Red):
Content: “Baudrillard J. 1994. Simulation and Simula- cra. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press Beck U. 1986/1992. Risk Society: Towards a NewModernity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Benjamin W. 1968. The work of art in the me- chanical age of reproduction. In Illumina- tions, ed. H Zohn. New York: Schocken”

Page 19, Underline (Red):
Content: “Deleuze G. 1983. Cinema, Vol. 1. Minneapo- lis: Univ. Minn. Press Deleuze G. 1985. Cinema, Vol. 2. Minneapo- lis: Univ. Minn. Press”

Page 20, Underline (Red):
Content: “Deleuze G, Guattari F. 1987. A Thousand Pla- teaux. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press Derrida J. 1992/1995. Points… Interviews, 1974–1994. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press”

Page 20, Underline (Red):
Content: “Dumit J. 1995. Mindful images: brains and personhood in biomedical America. PhD thesis. Univ. Calif, Santa Cruz. 356 pp. Escobar A. 1994. Encountering Development:The Making and Unmaking of the ThirdWorld. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ.Press Evans-Pritchard EE. 1937. Witchcraft, Ora-cles and Magic among the Azande. Oxford,UK: Clarendon “

Page 20, Underline (Red):
Content: “Fortun K. 1999. Advocating Bhopal: Environ-“

Page 21, Underline (Red):
Content: “mentalism, Disaster, New Global Orders.Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Fortun M, Bernstein H. 1998. MuddlingThrough: Pursuing Science and Truths inthe 21st Century. Washington, DC: Coun-terpoint “

Page 21, Underline (Red):
Content: “Foucault M. 1963/1973. The Birth of the Clinic. New York: Vintage Foucault M. 1966/1970. The Order of Things. New York: RandomHouse Foucault M. 1975/1977. Discipline and Pun- ish. New York: Pantheon Foucault M. 1980. York: Pantheon”

Page 21, Underline (Red):
Content: “Guattari F. 1995. Chaosmosis, An Ethico- Aesthetic Univ. Press”

Page 21, Underline (Red):
Content: “Gusterson H. 1996. Nuclear Rites. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press”

Page 21, Underline (Red):
Content: “Fujimura JH. 1996. Crafting Science: ASocio- history of the Quest for the Genetics of Cancer. Press”

Page 21, Underline (Red):
Content: “Galison P. 1997. Image and Logic: the Mate- rial Culture of Microphysics. Univ. Chicago Press”

Page 21, Underline (Red):
Content: “Geertz C. 1963a. Agricultural Involution. Ber-keley: Univ. Calif. Press Geetz C, ed. 1963b. Old Societies and NewStates: The Quest for Modernity in Asiaand Africa. Glencoe, IL: Free Press Geertz C. 1995. After the Fact. Cambridge,MA: Harvard Univ. Press “

Page 21, Underline (Red):
Content: “Haraway D. 1991. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women. New York: Routledge Haraway D. 1997. Modest_Witness@Sec- ond_Millenium.FemaleMan©_meets_On- coMouse™. New York: Routledge”

Page 21, Underline (Red):
Content: “Gibson W. 1984. Neuromancer. New York: Ace”

Page 21, Underline (Red):
Content: “Giddens A. 1990. The Consequences of Mod- ernity. London: Cambridge Univ. Press Giddens A. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press”

Page 21, Underline (Red):
Content: “Harvey D. 1989. The Condition of Postmoder-nity. London: Blackwell Hayles NK. 1990. Chaos Bound. Ithaca, NY:Cornell Univ. Press Helmreich S. 1998. Silicon Second Nature:Culturing Artificial Life in a Digital World.Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press “

Page 22, Underline (Red):
Content: “Honwana A. 1996. Spiritual agency and self- renewal in southern Mozambique. PhD thesis. Sch. Oriental African London, London. 320 pp.

Latour B. 1987. Science in Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press Latour B. 1988. The Pasteurization of France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press Latour B. 1990. Postmodern? No, simply amodern: steps towards an anthropology of science. An essay review. Stud. Hist. Phi- los. Sci. 21:145–71 Latour B. 1996. Aramis or the Love of Tech- nology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press Latour B. 1999. Pandora’s Hope. Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press Latour B, Woolgar S. 1979. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Knorr-Cetina K. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How Science Makes Sense. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press

Kuhn T. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

Lyotard J-F. 1979/1984. The Postmodern Condition. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press Lyotard J-F. 1983/1988. The Differend. Min- neapolis: Univ. Minn. Press Marcus GE, ed. 1995. Technoscientific Imagi- naries: Conversations, Profiles, and Mem- oirs. Late Editions 2. Chicago: Univ. Chi- cago Press”

Page 23, Underline (Red):
Content: “Martin E. 1987. The Woman in the Body. Bos-ton: Beacon Martin E. 1994. Flexible Bodies: Tracking Im-munity in American Culture from the Daysof Polio to the Age of AIDS. Boston: Bea-con Rapp R. 1993. Accounting for amniocentesis. In Knowledge, Power and Practice: The Anthropology of Medicine and Everyday Life, ed. S Lindenbaum, M Locke. Ber- keley: Univ. Calif. Press Rapp R. 1997. Real time fetus: the role of the sonogram in the age of monitored repro- duction. In Cyborgs and Citadels: Anthro- pological Interventions in Emerging Sci- ences and Technologies, ed. GLDowney, J Dumit, pp. Res.

Marx K. 1928. Capital. London: Allen & Un- win Marx K. 1971. Harper &Row

Mauss M. 1925/1954. The Gift. Glencoe, IL:Free Press Merton RK. 1938. Science, Technology andSociety in Seventeenth Century England.Bruges, Belgium: Saint Catherine

Merton RK. 1973. The Sociology of Science.Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Parsons T. 1937. The Structure of Social Ac- tion. New York: McGraw-Hill Parsons T. 1951. The IL: Free Press

Sahlins M. 1972. Stone Age Economics. Chi- cago: Aldine”

Page 24, Underline (Red):
Content: “Shapin S, Schaffer S. 1985. Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experi- mental Life. Press

Turkle S. 1984. The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit. NewYork: Simon & Schuster Turkle S. 1995. Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York: Simon &Schuster

Turner T. 1992. Representing, resisting, re- thinking: historical transformations of Kayapo culture and anthropological con- sciousness. In Colonial Situations, ed. GW Stocking. Madison: Univ. Wisc. Press Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press Weber M. 1968. Economy and Society. NewYork: Bedminster

Strathern M. 1992. Reproducing the Future. New York: Routledge Taussig M. 1980. The Devil and Commodity Fetishism in South America. Chapel Hill: Univ. NC Press

Taussig M. 1987. Shamanism, Colonialism and the Wild Man: A Study in Terror and Healing. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Taussig M. 1992. The Nervous System. New York: Routledge Taussig M. 1993. Mimesis and Alterity. New York: Routledge

Wittgenstein L. 1969. On Certainty, ed. GEM Anscombe, GH Harper &Row”

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s