Guest lecture presented to students of St John University (York, UK), on 27 October 2010.

1. |Datum 27.10.2010
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
pedagogy
and educational science
1
Posthuman classifications
Ernst D. Thoutenhoofd
27 oktober 2010
Lecture first presented to linguistics and communication students at York St John University (England).
To review this slideshow, go to www.slideshare.net/ernstt
New sociotechnical dynamics in the classification of objects and ideas

2. |Datum 27.10.2010
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
pedagogy
and educational science
2
Aims and content
Aim
To add ‘determinate kinds’ to Ian Hacking’s conceptualisation of scientific
classification, as a distinctive contribution that technologies make to the shaping
of social realities. It invites students to consider that ‘what they know’ is
technically mediated, and offers a theoretical framework for analysing posthuman
classifications.
Contents
background 1 two types of belief about the world | 2 deafness as hearing loss | 3
deafness as culture | 4 deafness as technology
analyse 5 Latour’s gathered objects | 6 Hacking’s kinds | 7 determinate kinds
conclusion 8 posthuman classifications

3. |Datum 27.10.2010
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
pedagogy
and educational science
Click to edit Master title style
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) causes some children to be
unruly, fidgetty and quickly distracted in classrooms.
—Is this true, or false?
3
Interlude A question:
—It is false.
ADHD is the outcome of a formal classificatory diagnosis using the DSM-IV/V.
This describes various diagnostic criteria of challenging behaviour, but it does not
detail their cause(s). It may however be true that ‘ADHD-children’ learn to exploit
their ADHD status to get their way or reinforce challenging behaviour.
In the Netherlands 5-10% of primary-school youth are classified with ADHD.

4. |Datum 27.10.2010
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
pedagogy
and educational science
Click to edit Master title style
4
1 Two types of belief about the world
Unimpeachable reality is associated with the natural sciences and object
categories; and with logical methods such as statistics, evidence-based practice
(EBP) and randomised control trials (RCTs). It supposes that there is a ‘really real’
world that exists independent of our participation in it; explanations of it are
deemed internal to scientific method.
Encoded reality is associated with the social sciences and humanities, and
derives much from work in linguistics and philosophy, e.g.
• knowledge is constrained by what can be stated formally | Wittgenstein
• many ways of worldmaking | Goodman
• constitution of reality reflects language evolution | Searle
• classifications of kinds are artefacts, not self-evident | Hacking

5. |Datum 27.10.2010
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
pedagogy
and educational science
Click to edit Master title style
5
Interlude Contrast in scientific belief
Sticking point The natural sciences The social sciences
Contingency Laws govern nature Meaning is artefact
Nominalism Structure is independent
of description:
facts are real
Structure is symbolic
representation:
facts are constructs
Explanations for
the stability of
scientific facts
The natural world pertains
regardless of the context of
discovery
explanation is empirically
confirmed, therefore
internal to science
All worlds are historically
contingent and therefore
dynamic
explanation is socially
coherent, therefore partly
external to science

6. |Datum 27.10.2010
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
pedagogy
and educational science
Click to edit Master title style
Suppose that deaf people’s experiences reflect the consideration of deafness under
the two different types of belief about the world:
“This conflict of impulses, to ‘repair’ on the one hand, and to acknowledge
diversity on the other, must be one of the deepest contradictions of the twenty-
first century. Deaf people, whether they like it or not, live their lives in the middle
of this contradiction.” (Padden and Humphries 2005:163)
“The problem for Deaf people is, as always, how to articulate their views of science
and knowledge in a world that finds it easier not to understand them.”
(ibid:179–180)
What might then be the status of technologies in these knowledge dynamics?
6
2 Deafness as hearing loss/as culture

7. |Datum 27.10.2010
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
pedagogy
and educational science
Click to edit Master title style
Technologies of deafness apply right across
the science-spectrum, e.g.
7
4 Deafness as technology
1 neonatal screening technologies
2 audiological instruments and tests
3 aids for hearing
4 implantation surgery
5 rehabilitation and monitoring systems
6 genetics and counselling techniques
7 educational attainment tracking systems
8 pedagogical and learning support systems
9 social (incidence) statistics and classifications
10 sign language corpora
11 neurolinguistic techniques and instruments

8. |Datum 27.10.2010
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
pedagogy
and educational science
Click to edit Master title styleinterlude Sign language corpora
8
The Dutch sign language NGT corpus
focuses on ‘native signers’ and makes
extensive use of technology. Data-
collection involved elicitation
techniques, e.g.
• introduction by signer
• tell an event
• discuss deaf issues
• retell a fable story
• retell a comic narrative
• retell a tv sketch
• narrate the content of a picture book
• ‘spot the difference’ picture task

9. |Datum 27.10.2010
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
pedagogy
and educational science
Click to edit Master title style
9
5 Latour’s gathered objects
Explosion of space-shuttle Challenger
28 January 1986

10. |Datum 27.10.2010
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
pedagogy
and educational science
Click to edit Master title style
10
Latour’s gathered objects
In ‘Has critique run out of steam?’ (2004) Bruno
Latour distinguishes between objects gathered from
things acting as matters of fact and things acting as
matters of concern.
Using the example of the shuttle accidents, Latour
argues that objects dynamically combine both types
of acting things. ‘Space-shuttle’ is therefore an
example of a gathered object.
Latour’s conclusion is that technologies (failing or
otherwise) are active participants in the world.

11. |Datum 27.10.2010
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
pedagogy
and educational science
Click to edit Master title style
In The social construction of what? (2000),
science philosopher Ian Hacking uses
examples from mental illness and child abuse
to note that,
• there is conflict between natural and social
approaches;
• lost in that debate are questions about how
objects and ideas feature in dynamic
classifications of ‘kinds’.
Hacking proposes to distinguish between
indifferent and interactive kinds.
11
6 Hacking’s kinds

12. |Datum 27.10.2010
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
pedagogy
and educational science
Click to edit Master title style
Indifferent kinds • unaware of being classified
• constantly (unchangingly) active
• e.g. a pathology of deafness
Interactive kinds • aware of being classified
• dynamically interactive
• e.g. deafness
12
6 Indifferent and interactive kinds
However, Hacking’s analysis centres human agency and underdetermines the active
participation of technological objects in social affairs, which seems substantively
different in character. I therefore propose to include a third determinate kind that
should be able to account for technical agency.

13. |Datum 27.10.2010
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
pedagogy
and educational science
Click to edit Master title style
13
interlude Interactive kinds & people
Interactive kinds do not equal kinds of people:
“Interactive is a new concept that applies not to people but to classifications, to
kinds, to the kinds that can influence what is being classified.
[…]
The classification hyperactive did not interact with children simply because the
individual children heard the word and changed accordingly. It interacted with
those who were so described in institutions and practices that were predicated
upon classifying children as hyperactive.”
Ian Hacking 1999:103

14. |Datum 27.10.2010
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
pedagogy
and educational science
Click to edit Master title style
Determinate kinds are kinds that stabilise or ‘fix’ meanings in order to create the
illusion of historical and synchronic, calculable equivalence.
Enumeration is at the heart of determinate kinds. Determinate kinds serve a
sociotechnical ecology aimed at furthering scientific and political (public) ends
through technical and methodical means.
14
7 Determinate kinds

15. |Datum 27.10.2010
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
pedagogy
and educational science
Click to edit Master title style
15
Determinate kinds continued
Example Indifferent kinds Interactive kinds Determinate kinds
unaware of being
classified
aware of being
classified
unaware of being
classified
active but constant active and dynamic active and
dynamically constant
passive/unengaged active/engaged active/unengaged
Deafness pathology (n)
gene x
Rubella
…
person (n)
hearing impaired
sign language user
…
technology (n)
cochlear implant
language test
…

16. |Datum 27.10.2010
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
pedagogy
and educational science
Click to edit Master title style
The linguistic meaning of ‘gathered objects’ and ideas can therefore be
approximated by considering the indifferent, interactive and determinate qualities
of their classification.
While the example here focussed on deafness, other contested kinds can
productively be analysed within this theoretical framework, including also many
kinds that are formally established by the DSM-IV/V classification, including
ADHD, autism and novelties such as hyper-sexuality.
A theory of posthuman classifications challenges linguistic thought, notably in
lexicography, semantics, and sociolinguistics.
16
8 Posthuman classifications

17. |Datum 27.10.2010
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
pedagogy
and educational science
Click to edit Master title style
17
Thank you
Ernst D. Thoutenhoofd
Department of pedagogy & educational science
Groningen University
Grote Rozenstraat 38
9712 TJ Groningen
e.d.thoutenhoofd@rug.nl
www.slideshare.net/ernstt