ABSTRACT
Social psychology traditionally dealt with social influence in relation to inter-subjective norms, our mutual expectations of belief, opinion and attitude towards the world, self and others; it deals with how we act and mind and the ‘dos and don'ts’ thereof. My motivation to explore artefacts, recognised as inter-objectivity, as the site of conflict stems from years of researching and teaching on techno-scientific controversies. Nuclear power, computer technology and genetic engineering, or in short atoms, bytes and genes, have been subject to controversy over the past 60 years (Bauer, forthcoming). In this context it appears that psychology in general and social psychology in particular, because neither has much to say about ‘objectification’ rather than ‘objectivity’, are relegated to the role of acceptance provider for the fait accompli. Psychology is expected to offer a ‘box of tricks’ to create needs, to influence reluctant publics to adopt novelty, and to counter-act ill-informed gut reactions against new technology. A fait accompli apparently can wait for its raison d'être. The inter-subjectivity of norms, i.e. our mutual expectations of beliefs, opinions and attitudes, their establishment, enforcement, and change in the face of dissent is relatively well understood (see Sammut and Bauer, 2011). By contrast, the inter-objectivity of artefacts in the sense of Latour (see editorial of this book) is largely seen as a matter of conformity and compliance to a fait accompli that has been put into place and is protected by a cultural bias for innovation. Innovation is the remit of scientists and engineers, and the role of social psychology is to market these positions and to manage its rationalisation in the political arena. Technocrats see in political interference a recipe for disaster; they fear like hell a ‘cow designed by committee’. The latest variation to this song line comes as ‘nudging’, i.e. designing choices for desirable outcomes, begging the question what is desirable for whom (see Thaler and Sunstein, 2009)? Diffusion research equally supports this technocratic fx by creating awareness and acceptance of novelty whatever its merits (Rogers, 1983, 95ff). This creates job opportunities for consultants and aspirational students, but it does not satisfy theoretical ambitions. I will explore in this paper avenues to render social psychology theoretically relevant for more than a good ride on the back of technocratic dreams. I will make my argument by mixing conceptual analysis with telling a story.
