Anthropology of/for science

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.34024/prometeica.2026.33.22149

Keywords:

anthropology of/for science, social studies of science, epistemological principles, conceptual repertoires

Abstract

O artigo propõe uma revisão crítica dos estudos sociais da ciência e das etnografias de laboratório, a fim de situar os aportes teórico-metodológicos da antropologia na compreensão da ciência. Desenvolve-se a noção de uma antropologia da/para a ciência, que integra os princípios do holismo, da reflexividade e da comparação, juntamente com categorias clássicas (mito, ritual, parentesco, território e troca) e conceitos como escuta epistêmica, transdução e estranhamento. A partir dessa perspectiva, a ciência é entendida como um sistema simbólico, material e socialmente situado. Esta proposta busca, por um lado, dialogar com a ciência e repensar suas condições de legitimação social e ontológica; e, por outro, reorientar a antropologia para além de seu confinamento histórico ao “nicho do selvagem”, recuperando suas ferramentas clássicas para a construção de novos objetos de conhecimento.

Author Biographies

  • Luciano Aroca Molina, Temuco Catholic University

    Antropólogo de la Universidad del Magdalena (Colombia), Magíster en Lógica y Filosofía de la Ciencia por las Universidades de Salamanca, Granada y Valladolid (España), y Candidato a Doctor en Antropología en la Universidad Católica de Temuco (Chile).

  • Héctor Mora Nawrath, Temuco Catholic University

    Antropólogo de la Universidad Católica de Temuco (Chile), Magíster en Ciencias Sociales de la Universidad de la Frontera (Chile) y Doctor en Ciencias Sociales Universidad Nacional de La Plata (Argentina). Actualmente es profesor asociado y director del Doctorado en Antropología de la Universidad Católica de Temuco.

References

Barnes, B. (1974). Scientific knowledge and sociological theory. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison, USA: The University of Wisconsin Press.

Ben-David, J. (1971). The scientist’s role in society: A comparative study. Englewood Cliffs, USA: Prentice Hall.

Boas, F. (1911). Introduction. In F. Boas (Ed.), Handbook of American Indian languages (pp. 1–83). Washington, DC, USA: Government Printing Office.

Boas, F. (1940). Race, language and culture. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press.

Boas, F. (2004). Os objetivos de pesquisa antropológica. In C. Castro (Org.), Franz Boas: Antropologia cultural (pp. 87-109). Rio de Janeiro: Zahar.

Bloor, D. (1976). Knowledge and social imagery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1999). Intelectuales, política y poder. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Eudeba.

Broca, P. (1871). Mémoires d’Anthropologie. Tome Premier. Paris: C. Reniwald.

Chateauraynaud, F. (1991). Forces et faiblesses de la nouvelle anthropologie des sciences. Critique, 47(529-530), 459-478.

Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press.

Callon, M. (1984). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. The Sociological Review, 32(1), 196-233. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1984.tb00113.x

Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., & Penan, H. (1995). Cienciometría: El estudio cuantitativo de la actividad científica: De la bibliometría a la vigilancia tecnológica. Gijón, España: Trea.

Cardoso de Oliveira, R. (1996). O trabalho do antropólogo: Olhar, ouvir, escrever. Revista de Antropologia, 39, 13-37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11606/2179-0892.ra.1996.111579

Collins, H. (1983). The sociology of scientific knowledge: Studies of contemporary science. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 265-285. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.09.080183.001405

Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. (Eds.). (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley, USA: University of California Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520946286

Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press.

Cushing, F. H. (1879). Carta escrita al profesor Baird el 29 de octubre de 1879. In J. Green (Ed.), Zuni: Selected writings of Frank Hamilton Cushing (pp. 135–152). Lincoln, NE, USA: University of Nebraska Press.

De Solla Price, D. J. (1963). Little science, big science. New York, USA: Columbia University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7312/pric91844

De Gérando, J. M. (1800). Considérations sur les diverses méthodes à suivre dans l'observation des peuples sauvages. París, France: Société des observateurs de l’homme.

Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Escobar, A. (1999). El final del salvaje: Naturaleza, cultura y política en la antropología contemporánea. Bogotá, Colombia: Cerec.

Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1940). The Nuer: A description of the modes of livelihood and political institutions of a Nilotic people. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1937/1976). Witchcraft, oracles and magic among the Azande. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Fortes, M., & Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (Eds.). (1940). African political systems. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Fortes, M. (1945). The dynamics of clanship among the Tallensi. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Franklin, S. (1995). Science as culture, cultures of science. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24(1), 163-184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.24.100195.001115

Franklin, S. (2012). Anthropology of biomedicine and bioscience. In R. Fardon, O. Harris, T. H. J. Marchand, M. Nuttall, C. Shore, V. Strang, & R. A. Wilson (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social anthropology (pp. 42–55). London, UK: SAGE. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446201077.n5

Frazer, J. G. (1890/1944). La rama dorada: Magia y religión. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Fischer, M. M. J. (2007). Four genealogies for a recombinant anthropology of science and technology. Cultural Anthropology, 22(4), 539-615. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/can.2007.22.4.539

Forsythe, D. (1993). The construction of work in artificial intelligence. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 18(4), 460-479. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399301800404

Forsythe, D. (1996). New bottles, old wine: Hidden cultural assumptions in a computerized explanation system for migraine sufferers. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 10(4), 551-574. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/maq.1996.10.4.02a00100

Fleck, L. (1935/1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York, USA: Basic Books.

Geertz, C. (1983). Desde el punto de vista del nativo: Sobre la naturaleza del conocimiento antropológico. In Conocimiento local: Ensayos sobre la interpretación de las culturas (pp. 73-93). Barcelona, España: Paidós.

Gilbert, G. N., & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora’s box: A sociological analysis of scientists’ discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Godelier, M. (1996). L’énigme du don. París, France: Fayard.

Gupta, A., & Ferguson, J. (1992). Beyond “culture”: Space, identity, and the politics of difference. Cultural Anthropology, 7(1), 6-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/can.1992.7.1.02a00020

Hess, D. J. (2007). Crosscurrents: Social movements and the anthropology of science and technology. American Anthropologist, 109(3), 463-472. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.2007.109.3.463

Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening: Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814563

Hagstrom, W. O. (1965). The scientific community. New York, USA: Basic Books.

Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, USA: Cornell University Press.

Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575-599. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066

Hymes, D. (Ed.). (1969). Reinventing anthropology. New York, USA: Pantheon Books.

Kreimer, P. (2005). Estudio preliminar: El conocimiento se fabrica. ¿Cuándo? ¿Dónde? ¿Cómo? In K. Knorr-Cetina, La fabricación del conocimiento (pp. 11-44). Buenos Aires, Argentina: Universidad Nacional de Quilmes. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48160/18517072re22.455

Keller, E. F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven, USA: Yale University Press.

Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.

Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, USA: Harvard University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674039681

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press.

Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. London, UK: Sage.

Latour, B. (1985). Les vues de l’esprit: Une introduction à l’anthropologie des sciences et des techniques. París, France: CRTC.

Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, USA: Harvard University Press.

Latour, B. (1990). Postmodern? No, simply amodern! Steps towards an anthropology of science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 21(1), 145-171. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(90)90018-4

Lévi-Strauss, C. (1962/1964). El pensamiento salvaje. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Lévi-Strauss, C. (1949/1969). Las estructuras elementales del parentesco. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Paidós.

Lévi-Strauss, C. (1955/1988). Tristes trópicos. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Paidós.

Lynch, M. (1985). Art and artifact in laboratory science. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), 317-323.

Mauss, M. (1925/1966). The gift: The form and reason for exchange in archaic societies. London, UK: Cohen & West.

Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London, UK: Routledge.

Malinowski, B. (1932). Crime and custom in savage society. London, UK: Kegan Paul.

Malinowski, B. (1948). Magia, ciencia y religión. Barcelona, España: Planeta-Agostini.

Martin, E. (1998). Anthropology and the cultural study of science. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 23(1), 24-44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399802300102

Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press.

Morgan, L. H. (1871). Systems of consanguinity and affinity of the human family. Washington, DC, USA: Smithsonian Institution. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.29577

Mulkay, M. (1979). Science and the sociology of knowledge. London, UK: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007087400017362

Mullins, N. C. (1968). The distribution of social and cultural properties in informal communication networks among biological scientists. American Sociological Review, 33(5), 786-797. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2092888

Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1952). Structure and function in primitive society. London, UK: Cohen & West.

Ravetz, J. R. (1973). Scientific knowledge and its social problems. London, UK: Penguin.

Rabinow, P. (2003). Anthropos today: Reflections on modern equipment. Princeton, USA: Princeton University Press.

Ribeiro, G. L. (1989). Descotidianizar: Extrañamiento y conciencia práctica. Cuadernos de Antropología Social, 3, 65-69.

Rochberg, F. (2019). Anthropology of science: The cuneiform world. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 78(2), 253-271. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/705165

Scheffler, I. (1967). Science and subjectivity. Indianapolis, USA: Bobbs-Merrill.

Shapin, S. (1994). A social history of truth: Civility and science in seventeenth-century England. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226148847.001.0001

Sapir, E. (1929). The status of linguistics as a science. Language, 5(4), 207-214. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/409588

Strathern, M. (1980). No nature, no culture: The Hagen case. In M. Strathern (Ed.), Nature, culture and gender (pp. 174-222). Cambridge, USA: Cambridge University Press.

Storer, N. W. (1966). The social system of science. New York, USA: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high energy physicists. Cambridge, USA: Harvard University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674044449

Tylor, E. B. (1871). Primitive culture. London, UK: John Murray.

Turner, V. (1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Chicago, USA: Aldine.

Turner, V. (1967/1980). La selva de los símbolos: Aspectos del ritual ndembu. México: Siglo XXI.

Trouillot, M.-R. (2003). Global transformations: Anthropology and the modern world. New York, USA: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-04144-9

Van Gennep, A. (1909/1961). The rites of passage. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226027180.001.0001

Viveiros de Castro, E. (2008). Encontros. Rio de Janeiro, Brasil: Azougue.

Viveiros de Castro, E. (2016). El nativo relativo. Avá, 29, 29-69.

Vinck, D. (2015). Ciencias y sociedad: Sociología del trabajo científico. Barcelona, España: Gedisa.

Wade, P. (1997). Cultural studies will be the death of anthropology. Manchester, UK: Group for Debates in Anthropological Theory.

Wolf, E. R. (1982). Europa y la gente sin historia. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Downloads

Published

2026-05-27

Issue

Vol. 33 (2026): Prometeica - v 33 (01/2026- 12/2026)

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Luciano Aroca Molina, Héctor Mora Nawrath

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Copyright: Prometeica allows the author (s) to keep their copyrights unrestricted. Prometeica allows the author (s) to retain their publication rights without restriction. Authors should ensure that the article is an original work without fabrication, fraud or plagiarism; does not infringe any copyright or right of ownership of any third party. Authors should also ensure that each one complies with the authorship requirements as recommended by the ICMJE and understand that if the article or part of it is flawed or fraudulent, each author shares responsibility.

Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)

Prometeica - Journal of Philosophy and Sciences is governed by the licencse CC-By-NC

You are free to:

  • Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material

The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

Under the following terms:

No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

 

Copyright maintenance

Prometeica allows the author (s) to keep their copyright without restrictions.

Prometeica allows the author (s) to retain their publication rights without restriction.

Received 2026-04-03
Accepted 2026-05-16
Published 2026-05-27

How to Cite

Aroca Molina, L., & Mora Nawrath, H. (2026). Anthropology of/for science. Prometeica - Journal of Philosophy and Science, 33, e22149 (1-20). https://doi.org/10.34024/prometeica.2026.33.22149