![Sample our Communication Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, 2013 & 2014 volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5927/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Information-Science2.jpg"})
Abstract
This essay investigates the rhetorical practices of socio-technical deliberation about free and open source (F/OS) software, providing support for the idea that a public sphere is a socio-technical ensemble that is discursive and fluid, yet tangible and organized because it is enacted by both humans and non-humans. In keeping with the empirical shift manifest in recent public sphere scholarship and Bruno Latour's idea that socio-technical deliberation is characterized by the inscription of non-humans, I describe the rhetorical manners in which volunteer citizens define and mobilize a mundane artifact—a web site—in a deliberation over the value of F/OS technologies for their government-funded project. Through inscription of the web site as a rhetorical resource and as the embodiment of their disposition toward computer technologies, the volunteers formed and expressed competing understandings of the role of F/OS technologies in sustaining a public sphere. I argue that these competing views are consequential, for they link technical artifacts and political agents in practice, by way of aspirations, obligations, and forms of authority. Furthermore, by claiming a form of agency for technologies in the public sphere, the proponents of F/OS technologies are inviting scholars of the public sphere to question the status assigned to technical artifacts in their investigations and theories of the public sphere.
Acknowledgements
This research was made possible through financial support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). The author thanks Gerard A. Hauser, Boris H. J. M. Brummans, François Cooren, Dominique Meunier, Daniel Robichaud, the two anonymous reviewers, and editor David Henry for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article.
Notes
1. Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society (Boston, MA: MIT Press, 1989); Jürgen Habermas, “The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article,” New German Critique 3 (1971): 49–55.
2. See Seyla Benhabib, “Toward a Deliberative Model of Democratic Legitimacy,” in Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, ed. Seyla Benhabib (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996), 67–94; James Bohman, Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996); Joshua Cohen, “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy,” in The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State, ed. Alan Hamlin and Philip Petit (Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell, 1989), 17–34; Joshua Cohen, “Procedure and Substance in Deliberative Democracy,” in Democracy and Difference, 95–119; John Dryzek, Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and Political Science (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990); Cass Sunstein, The Partial Constitution (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993), 133–45; James Fishkin, Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reforms (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1991).
3. J. Bohman, Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996), 27.
4. See Walter R. Fisher, “Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm: The Case of Public Moral Argument,” Communication Monographs 51 (1984): 1–22; Walther R. Fisher, Human Communication as Narration: Toward a Philosophy of Reason (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1987); W. F. Lewis, “Telling America's Story: Narrative Form and the Reagan Presidency,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 73 (1987): 280–302; Iris Marion Young, “Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy,” in Democracy and Difference, 120–35.
5. See the growing literature on counterpublic(s) and counterpublicity, for instance: R Felski, Beyond Feminist Aesthetics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989); Robert Asen and Daniel C. Brouwer, Counterpublics and the State (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2001); C. R. Squires, “Rethinking the Black Public Sphere: An Alternative Vocabulary for Multiple Public Spheres,” Communication Theory (2002): 446–68; M. Warner, Publics and Counterpublics (New York: Zone Books, 2002). For an engaging discussion on the place of dissent in public life also see Phillips R. Kendall, “The Spaces of Public Dissension: Reconsidering the Public Sphere,” Communication Monographs 63 (1996): 231–48; Thomas G. Goodnight, “Opening Up ‘The Spaces of Public Dissension,’” Communication Monograph 64 (1997): 270–75; Gerard A. Hauser “On Publics and Public Spheres: A Response to Phillips,” Communication Monograph 64 (1997): 275–79.
6. See Thomas G. Goodnight, “Controversy,” in Argument in Controversy: Proceedings of the Seventh SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, ed. Donn W. Parson (Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association, 1991), 1–13; Kathryn M. Olson and Thomas G. Goodnight, “Entanglements of Consumption, Cruelty, Privacy, and Fashion: The Social Controversy Over Fur,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 80 (1994): 249–76; Thomas G. Goodnight, “Habermas, the Public Sphere, and Controversy,” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 4 (1992): 243–55. For a different reading of the link between controversy and public life, see Kent A. Ono and John M. Sloop, “Critical Rhetorics of Controversy,” Western Journal of Communication 63 (1999): 526–36; Kendall R. Phillips, “A Rhetoric of Controversy,” Western Journal of Communication 63 (1999): 488–510.
7. See, for instance, Cindy Griffin, “The Essentialist Roots of the Public Sphere: A Feminist Critique,” Western Journal of Communication 60 (1996): 21–39; L. A. Flores, “Creating Discursive Space Through a Rhetoric of Difference: Chicana Feminists Craft a Homeland,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 82 (1996): 142–56; Valeria Fabj, “Motherhood as Political Voice: The Rhetoric of the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo,” Communication Studies 44 (Spring 1993): 1–18.
8. K. D. DeLuca, Image Politics: The New Rhetoric of Environmental Activism (New York: Guilford Press, 1999); K. D. DeLuca and J. Peeples “From Public Sphere to Public Screen: Democracy, Activism, and the ‘Violence’ of Seattle,” Critical Studies in Media Communication 19 (2002): 125–51.
9. For instance, in Jihad vs. McWorld (New York: Times Books, 1995), Benjamin Barber argues that the centripetal forces of globalism (aka McWorld) and the centrifugal forces of tribalism (aka Jihad) are to blame for the impoverishment of twentieth-century public life. The author draws a bleak picture of a world colonized by two radically opposed yet interconnected ideologies—a world in which McDonald, Nike, and MTV dissolve borders from without while local communities are attempting to create new borders from within. In such a world, there is no room for alternatives and little hope for democracy. Such a bleak outlook is also manifest in R. D. Putnam, “Tuning in, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America,” Political Sciences and Politics 28 (1995): 664–83; R. D. Putnam, “The Strange Disappearance of Civic America,” Prospect 24 (1996); R. D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse of American Community (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000).
10. Gerard A. Hauser, Vernacular Voices: The Rhetoric of Publics and Public Spheres (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1999); Nancy Fraser, “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy,” in Habermas and the Public Sphere, ed. C. Calhoun (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992), 119–42; Nancy Fraser, “Politics, Culture, and the Public Sphere: Toward a Postmodern Conception,” in Social Postmodernism: Beyond Identity Politics, ed. L. Nicholson and S. Seidman (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 287–314; J. A. Hall, “In Search of Civil Society,” in Civil Society, ed. J. A. Hall (Cambridge, MA: Polity Press, 1995), 1–31; J. A. Hall “The Nature of Civil Society” Society 35 (1998): 32–42; Gerard A. Hauser and Chantal Benoit-Barné, “Reflections on Rhetoric, Deliberative Democracy, Civil Society, and Trust,” Journal of Rhetoric and Public Affairs 5 (2002): 261–75; Gerard A. Hauser, “Vernacular Dialogue and the Rhetoricality of Public Opinion,” Communication Monograph 65 (1998): 83–107; Nina Eliasoph, Avoiding Politics: How Americans Produce Apathy in Everyday Life (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998); Nina Eliasoph “Where Can Americans Talk Politics: Civil Society, Intimacy, and the Case for Deep Citizenship,” The Communication Review 4 (2000): 65–94.
11. Nancy Fraser, “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy,” in Habermas and the Public Sphere, 109.
12. Bruno Latour, Politiques de la Nature (Paris: Editions La Découverte, 1999); Bruno Latour, The Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences in Democracy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004); M. Callon, P. Lascoumes, and Y. Barthe, Agir dans un Monde Incertain: Essai sur la Démocratie Technique (Paris: Seuil, 2001).
13. W. E. Bijker, Of Bicycles, Bakelite, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995), note 1, chapter 1.
14. According to Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation and one of the key leaders of the movement, these principles date from the early development of computing. He explains:
When I started working at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab in 1971, I became part of a software-sharing community that had existed for many years. Sharing of software was not limited to our particular community; it is as old as computers, just as sharing of recipes is as old as cooking.In “The GNU Operating System and the Free Software Movement,” in Open Source: Voices from the Open Source Revolution, ed. C. DiBona, S. Ockman, and M. Stone (Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly, 1999), http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/stallman.html (accessed September 20, 2006). For more on the historical development of the free and open source software movement see the other essays in Open Source. See also G. Moody, Rebel Code: The Inside Story of Linux and the Open Source Revolution (Cambridge, MA: Perseus, 2001); Eric Raymond, The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionnary (Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly, 2000), http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral bazaar/cathedral bazaar/ (accessed September 25, 2006); P. Wayner, Free for All: How Linux and the Free Software Movement Undercut the High-Tech Titans (New York: HarperCollins, 2000).
15. The Free Software Foundation, http://gnu.intissite.com/philosophy/free-sw.html (accessed September 13, 2006).
16. The F/OS database of online papers hosted by the MIT Sloan Business School at http://opensource.mit.edu/ is a telling indication of this literature's dynamism and scope.
17. This is a dominant issue within the literature. On programmers’ motivations for contributing to the design of F/OS see, in particular: Rishad Aiyer Ghosh, “Understanding Free Software Developers: Findings from the FLOSS Study,” in Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software, ed. Joseph Feller, Brian Fitzgerald, Scott A. Hissam, and Karim R. Lakhani (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005); Karim R. Lakhani and Robert G. Wolf, “Why Hackers Do What They Do: Understanding Motivation and Effort in Free/Open Source Software Projects,” in Perspective on Free and Open Source Software; Tobias Escher, Political Motives of Developers for Collaboration in GNU/Linux (MA dissertation, University of Leiceister, 2004), http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/escher.pdf (accessed September 20, 2006).
18. See for instance Steven Weber, The Success of Open Source (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2004), chapter 3; Daniel German, “Software Engineering Practices in the GNOME Project,” in Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software; Audris Mockus, Roy T. Fielding, and James D. Herbsled, “Two Cases Studies of Open Source Software Development: Apache and Mozilla,” in Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software; T. Bollinger, R. Nelson, K. M. Self, and S. J. Turnbull, “Open Source Methods: Peering Through the Clutter,” IEEE Software (July 1999): 8–11; Paul Vixie, “Software Engineering,” in Open Source: Voices from the Open Source Revolution, ed. C. DiBona, S. Ockman, and M. Stone (Bebastopol, CA: O'Reilly, 1999), http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/vixie.html (accessed September 20, 2006).
19. Peter G. Neumann, “Attaining Robust Open Source Software,” in Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software; Brian Fitzgerald, “Has Open Source Software a Future,” in Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software; Michelle Levesque, “Fundamental Issues with Open Source Software Development,” First Monday 9 (2004), http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_4/levesque/index.html (accessed September 21, 2006).
20. On the legal implications of the F/OS movement, see the work of Lawrence Lessig, in particular Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (New York: Basic Books, 1999) and The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World (New York: Random House, 2001); see also David McGowan, “Legal Aspects of Free and Open Source Software,” in Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software. Concerning the economic repercussions of the F/OS movement, see John Lernet and Jean Tirole, “Some Simple Economics of Open Source,” Journal of Industrial Economics S2 (June 2002): 197–234.
21. Weber, The Success of Open Source, 1.
22. Weber, The Success of Open Source, chapter 7.
23. See Felix Stalder and Jessie Hirsh, “Open Source Intelligence,” First Monday 7 (2002), http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_6/stalder/ (accessed September 21, 2006); Clay Shirky, “Epilogue: Open Source Outside the Domain of Software,” in Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software.
24. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia written collaboratively by anonymous contributors. It was created in 2001 and currently includes millions of articles. It can be accessed at http://www.wikipedia.org.
25. Throughout the essay, I rely on the term public life to emphasize the processual and agent-oriented perspective manifest in recent public sphere scholarship. Vie publique is also the term favored by Bruno Latour in Politiques de la Nature.
26. See in particular Hauser, “Vernacular Dialogue” and Vernacular Voices; Robert Asen, “A Discourse Theory of Citizenship,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 90 (2004): 189–211; Nina Eliasoph, “Where Can Americans Talk Politics.”
27. Hauser, Vernacular Voices; Asen, “A Discourse Theory of Citizenship.”
28. In Vernacular Voices, 65, Hauser argues:
Quite apart from our interaction on a particular issue, our daily conversations with coworkers, neighbors, superiors, subordinates, community and church contacts, group members, friends, and family provide countless opportunities to exchange views on public matters. Each exchange opens a discursive space that exceeds the boundaries of entirely personal and private matters. Across time these multiple exchanges include us as participants in the social conversation by which we learn and also contribute to themes that inculcate shared motives.In sum, for Hauser, civic conversations are means of public enactments that hold significant political promises. They occur whenever citizens exchange views on issues whose consequences extend to those outside the group. They can potentially unfold anywhere and around any activities with civic contributions ranging from an exposure to alternative opinions to concerted actions.
29. Asen, “A Discourse Theory of Citizenship,” 191.
30. Chantal Benoit-Barné, “The Rhetorical Shaping of Public Space Online: Toward a Rhetoric-Based Framework to Investigate the Political Qualities of Technologies,” Ph.D. diss, University of Colorado, Boulder, 2003.
31. Thomas G. Goodnight, “The Personal, Technical, and Public Spheres of Argument: A Speculative Inquiry,” Journal of the American Forensic Association 18 (1982): 214–27.
32. See Thomas N. Peters, “On the Natural Development of Public Activity: A Critique of Goodnight's Theory of Argument,” in Spheres of Argument: Proceedings of the Sixth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, ed. Bruce E. Gronbeck (Annandale VA: Speech Communication Association, 1989).
33. Wiebe E. Bijker, Of Bicycles, Bakelite, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995).
34. Wiebe E. Bijker and John Law, eds, Shaping Technology / Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992); Bijker, Of Bicycles, Bakelite, and Bulbs.
35. Wiebe E. Bijker, “The Social Construction of Bakelite: Toward a Theory of Invention”, in The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, ed. Wiebe E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, and T. Pinch (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987), 159–87; Bijker, Of Bicycles, Bakelite, and Bulbs.
36. T. F. Misa, “Controversy and Closure in Technological Change: Constructing ‘Steel,’” in Shaping Technology/Building Society, 109–39.
37. Donald Mackensie, Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990).
38. P. E. Mack, Viewing the Earth: The Social Construction of the Landsat Satellite System (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990).
39. Janet Abbate, Inventing the Internet (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999).
40. Bijker, Of Bicycles, Bakelite, and Bulbs, 270.
41. For a more comprehensive overview of the SST perspective, see R. William and D. Edge, “The Social Shaping of Technology,” Research Policy 25 (1996): 856–99.
42. P. Flichy, L'Innovation Technique: Récents Développements en Sciences Sociales: Vers une Nouvelle Théorie de l'Innovation (Paris: La Découverte, 1995).
43. Susan Leigh Star and James R. Griesemer, “Institutional Ecology, Translations and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology (1907–1939),” Social Studies of Science 19 (1989): 387–420; Susan Leigh Star, “The Structure of Ill-Structured Solutions: Boundary Objects and Heterogeneous Distributed Problem Solving,” in Distributed Artificial Intelligence, ed. L. Gasser and M. N. Huhns, vol. 2 (London: Pitman, 1989): 37–54.
44. The notion is inspired by the work of Bruno Latour and Michel Callon, in particular Bruno Latour, Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987); Bruno Latour, Aramis or the Love of Technology (Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press, 1996); Bruno Latour and S. Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1979); Michel Callon, ed., La Science et ses Réseaux: Genèse et Circulation des Faits Scientifiques (Paris: La Découverte, 1989); Michel Callon, “Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for Sociological Analysis,” in The Social Construction of Technological Systems, ed. W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes and T. P. Pinch (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989), 83–106. For a larger view of Bruno Latour and Michel Callon's contributions to the sociology of sciences and technology, see Michel Callon, “Society in the Making”; Michel Callon, “Réseaux Technico-Économiques et Irréversibilité,” in Les Figures de l'Irréversibilité en Économie, ed. R. Boyer, B. Chavance and O. Godard (Paris: Éditions de l'École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, 1991), 195–230; Michel Callon and Bruno Latour, “Unscrewing the Big Leviathan: How Actors Macro-Structure Reality and How Sociologists Help Them to Do So,” in Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Towards an Integration of Micro- and Macro-Sociologies, ed. A. V. Cicourel and K. Knorr-Cetina (Boston, MA: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981), 277–303; Bruno Latour, Les Microbes: Guerre et Paix Suivi de Irréductions (Paris: A. M. Métailié, 1984); Bruno Latour, “On Interobjectivity,” Mind, Culture, and Activity 3 (1996): 228–45; Bruno Latour, “Pursuing the Discussion of Interobjectivity with a Few Friends,” Mind, Culture, and Activity: An International Journal 3 (1996): 266–69; Bruno Latour and F. Bastide, “Writing Science Fact and Fiction: The Analysis of the Process of Reality Construction Through the Application of Socio-Semiotic Methods to Scientific Texts,” in Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World, ed. M. Callon, J. Law and A. Rip (London: Macmillan Press Ltd, 1986), 51–66; Bruno Latour, Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999); Bruno Latour, “On Recalling ANT,” in Actor Network Theory and After, ed. J. Law and J. Hassard (Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers/The Sociological Review, 1999), 15–25.
45. Latour, Politiques de la Nature.
46. Latour, The Politics of Nature.
47. Bruno Latour, We Have Never Been Modern (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993).
48. Latour, The Politics of Nature, 53.
49. However, Latour does address explicitly the rhetorical features of innovation. See Latour and Woolgar, Laboratory Life; Latour, Science in Action; Bruno Latour and P. Fabbri, “La Rhétorique de la Science: Pouvoir et Devoir dans un Article de Science Exacte,” Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales 13 (1977): 81–95.
50. Latour, The Politics of Nature, 53.
51. Bruno Latour, Re-Assembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 79.
52. Latour has often relied on the image of an empty white screen to criticize perspectives that do not account for the artifact's agency. See "On Interobjectivity," Mind, Culture, and Activity 4 (1996): 228–44; “Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern,” Critical Inquiry 30 (2004): 225–48; Re-Assembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).
53. See “Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam?” and Re-Assembling the Social. In fact, Latour even appears to regret his early reliance on the label “social construction.” Referring to his 1979 book, Laboratory Life: the Social Construction of Scientific Facts, he says:
It first looked like a good idea: it was fun, it was original, it was enlightening to use the word “constructivism” to designate the work I was doing on science and technology: laboratories indeed looked infinitely more interesting when described as so many construction sites than when portrayed as dark mastabas protecting mummified laws of nature. And the adjective “social” seemed at first rather well chosen, since I and my colleagues were bathing the venerable work of science into a hot tub of culture and society that aimed at making them young and lively again. And yet everything has gone awry: I had to withdraw the word “social” with shame scrapping it in haste from the title of Laboratory Life like faces of Trotsky deleted from pictures of Red Square parades.The Promises of Constructivism, http://www.ensmp.fr/∼latour/articles/article/087.html (accessed September 26, 2006).
54. Latour, “Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam?”
55. Bruno Latour, “Is there a Non-Modern Style,” Domus (January 2004). http://www.ensmp.fr/∼latour/presse/presse_art/gb-01%20domus%2001%2004.html (accessed September 13, 2006).
56. Bruno Latour, “From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik or How to Make Things Public” in Making Things Public: Atmosphere of Democracy, ed. Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005), 18–19.
57. In the course of my fieldwork, I have collected data from a variety of sources. These data include: official documents produced by the team, messages posted by team members on several electronic forums and listserv, surveys and interviews with key team members, and personal notes written during important meetings. The listserv and forum were particularly valuable sources of data. The electronic messages posted on the forum and the list were closely monitored throughout the project. Monitoring these exchanges allowed me (as well as all team members) to follow the key conversations that unfolded at any given time about the design of the web site and database.
58. The names of the contributors have been altered to preserve anonymity. However, I chose not to edit the excerpts included in the essay for grammar and syntax to preserve the spontaneous and informal qualities of electronic mailing list deliberation.
59. The analytical tools of the rhetoric of science, a literature that informs us on the manner in which actors shape the meanings attributed to scientific artifacts through their rhetorical choices, were particularly relevant when investigating the artifact as a resource defined in discourse. See, in particular, A. G. Gross, The Rhetoric of Science (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996); Charles Bazerman, The Languages of Edison's Light (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999).
60. The Desk Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus: American Edition, ed. Frank R. Abate (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 247.
61. François Cooren, “Translation and Articulation in the Organization of Coalitions: The Great Whale River Case,” Communication Theory 11 (2001): 178–200; François Cooren, “Textual Agency: How Texts do Things in Organizational Settings,” Organization 11 (2004): 373–93; François Cooren and James R. Taylor, “Organization as an Effect of Mediation: Redefining the Link Between Organization and Communication,” Communication Theory 7 (1997): 219–60; François Cooren, Stephanie Fox, Daniel Robichaud, and Nayla Talih, “Arguments for a Plurified View of the Social World Spacing and Timing as Hybrid Achievements,” Time and Society 14 (2005): 263–80; François Cooren, James R. Taylor, and E. Van Every, eds, Communication as Organizing: Empirical Approaches to Research into the Dynamic of Text and Conversation (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2006).
62. Cooren et al., Communication as Organizing, 144.
63. Cooren et al., Communication as Organizing, 139.
64. Latour, “From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik,” 17.
65. Latour, Re-Assembling the Social, 39.