KAREN BARAD

G e t t in g R e a l:
T e c h n o s c ie n tific P r a c tic e s a n d th e M a te r ia liz a tio n o f R e a lity

m ite body is . . directlv involved in

u poltlwal field; po we.r relatums have
an immediate hold upon it; they
im'esl it, mark it, train it, torture ii,
force it to cany out tatks, to perform
ceremonies, h> emit sig/i.s • • power 1.1
nol e.remsed simply ai an obligation
or prohibition on tho.n ivho “do not
hare ii"; itmrests lltem. is transmit­
ted f>y them and through l/iem. a
erert.\ pressure upon them, /ust a
they themselves, 111 thetr struggle
agams/ it. resiM thf tl Itai on
t/tem (Foucault, Discipline 25-27)

i..er is I r a n s m ille d lh r o u g h the rep e a te d a p p lic a tio n o f

pre ssu re on the body. T h e bodv r e a d s lo th e fo r c e s , m a n ife s t as s h iftin g
m a t e r ia l a lig n m e n t s and c h a n g e s in p o te n tia l, and b e c o m e s not sim ply
the r e c e iv e r bul also the tra n s m itter o r lo c a l s o u r c e o f the signal or sign
lh a l o p e r a te s through it. It is lhis r e s p o n s iv e n e s s o f the body that m a k e s it
lli e effe ct and inst lu m e n l or v is u a liz in g le c h n o lo g ie s .
W h i l e F ou cault's c o m m e n t s r e f e r to the h u m a n body, my
subject m a tte r is a p i e z o e le c t r ic crystal. W h e n p r e ssu re is a p p lie d to
o p p o s ite fa ces o r a p ie z o e le c tr ic cryslal, it e m it s an e le c t r ic signal that
can he a m p lifie d and d ispla y ed visually (s e e F ig u re 1a ). C o n v e r s e ly ,
p i e z o e l e c l r i c e ry sla ls u n d e r g o d e fo r m a tio n in the p r e s e n c e o f an e le c t r ic
field. M o r e s p e c ific a lly , if an electric signal is applied to the crystal, it will
expand or contract d e p e n d in g upon th e po larity o f the signal (s e e F ig u r e
1h). H igh fr e q u e n c y o s c illa tin g s ig n a ls ca u se the crystal lo vib r a te , r e s u lt­
in g in the p r o p a g a tio n o f u ltra son ic w a v e s . T h e piezoelectric, e ffe c t
w a s first o b s e r v e d by P ie r re and .Jacques C u r ie ill 1880. T o d a y , the dual

d i f f r r I‘ n e (■ x• A Journal of Feminitt Cultural Studies 10.2 (1998)

88 Getting Real

F orce

P ie zo e le c tric

C rysta l

|porce

Fig. I a The p iezo elec tric effect. A fo rce

applied to the opposite faces of the crystal
(e.g., from an impinging ultrasonic wave)
results in an ele c trica l signal. The signal can
be displayed visually. In this capacity, the
crystal serves as a receiver.

P ie zo e le c tric contraction
battery
C rysta l

expansion

Fig. I b T he re v erse pie zo elec tric effect. A pplication

of an e le c tric signal causes the c rystal to co n trac t
or expand. High frequen cy oscillating signals cause
the c rystal to v ib rate at high fr e q u e n c ie s, resu ltin g in
the propagation of ultrasonic waves. In this capacity,
the c rystal se rv es as a tran sm itte r.
d i f f f r l' n (' r s 89

fu n c tion ality o f the p ie z o e le c t r ic crystal as both tra n s m itter and r e c e i v e r

m a k e it the key e l e m e n t fo r a parl ieiilarly poignant apparatus o f o b s e r v a -
lio n - t h a t o f l h e tra n s d u cer lo r n llr a s o n o g r a p h y .
In this essay, I w ill a r g u e that the p i e z o e l e c t r i c crystal is a
m a te r ia l instru m ent, the “ s o u l” of an o b s e r v in g apparatus, through w h ich ,
not simply signals, but discourse:' (in a Fou caultian se n se ) o p erate.
E x a m in in g the c o u p lin g o f this in s iru m en l lo an a rray o f apparatuses, \
use the p ie z o e le c lr ic transdu cer as a I o o l lo e x a m in e the q u e stion o f the
rela tio n s h ip b e t w e e n Ih e m a teria l and the dis cu rsive m o r e g e n e r a lly .
T h is rela tio n sh ip ii'> at the c e n t e r o f a fe m in ist f r a m e w o r k I call “ a ge n tial
r e a l i s m ” (B ara d “ M e e t i n g ” ). A g e n tia l realism is inspired by N ie ls B ohr’ s
e p i s t e m o lo g ic a l inn o va tion s, w h ich lie saw as d e r i v i n g fr o m his se m in al
co n trib u tion s to the d e v e lo p m e n t o f the fie ld o f iiu a n t u m physics. B o h r ’ s
e p is t e m o lo g y calls into question s e v e ra l fo u n d a tion a list assu m p tion s that
W e s t e r n e p is t e m o lo g y g e n e r a l ly takes as essential to its proje ct; a m o n g
these a re an in herent subjecl/ohjecl d is lin c tio n and the rep re se n ta tio n a l
status o f l a n g u a g e . A gential re a lis m is an e p is t e m o lo g ic a l and o n t o lo g ic a l
fr a m e w o r k that ex te n d s Bohr's n.sigh ls and takes as its central c o n c e rn s
the nature o f m ateria lity , the r tl.ilio n s h ip b e tw e e n the m a t e r ia l and the
discu rsive, the naliire of " n a l m e " and o f “ cu ltu re” and the rela tio n sh ip
b e lw e en th em , the nature o f .i g e n r y , and the effe c ts o f b o u n d a ry ,
in c lu d in g the nature o f e x c lu s io n s that a c c o m p a n y b ound ary p r o je c t s .1
A g e n lia l rea lism e iila ils a r e fo r m u la tio n o f b o t h o f its t e r m s - “ a g e n c y ” and
“ r e a lis n i"-a n d p rov id e s an u nd e rs ta n d in g o f the role o f human a n d
n o n h u m a n factors in the p rod u c tio n o f k n o w le d g e , t h ereb y m o v i n g c o n ­
sideration:-. o f e p is le m ic practices beyond the traditional r e a lis m versus
so cia l c o n s t r u c tiv is m debates. Sig n i l k a n l l ) , a m o r e robust u n d e rs ta n d in g
o f m a teria lity fo 11o\' s f r o m I his IV« rriew ork, o n e that e n a b le s fe m in is t s and
o t h e r l ib e r a lo r y theorists to take account o f the w a y s in w h ic h “ m atter
c o m e s lo m a tte r ,'’ in c lu d in g the a ctive ro le o f m a teria l constraints and
con dition s w ith in a th eo re tic a l fr a m e w o r k that a c k n o w l e d g e s p oststru c­
turalist and \ lar\isl insights e x p o s in g m a tter's m u ltip le m odes of
“ m e d ia t io n .” My a p p ro a ch in this p a per is to read Judith B u tler’ s th eory
o f perTorm ativity and the fr a m e w o r k o f a g e n tia l re a lis m through on e
a n o th e r to provide* an ex p a n d e d understanding. o f the rela tio n sh ip b e ­
t w e e n the m ateria l and the dih ciirsi\e and a r ic h e r account o f m ateria lity,
a g e n cy , and the natu re o f social practices. in clu d in g t e c h n o s c ie n t ific
on es.
90 Getting Real

T h e M a t e r i a l i z a t i o n o f B o d ie s

A t e x t that has b e c o m e ca n o n ic a l f o r its e n g a g e m e n t w ith

issues o f su bjectivity and the m a te r ia lity o f the bo dy is Judith B u tle r ’s
p r o v o c a t i v e book, B o d ies T h a t M a t t e r : O n the D is c u rs iv e L im its o f “S e x . ” In
this text, B u tler offers an a c c o u n t o f the s u b je ct that a c k n o w le d g e s the
im p o r ta n t co n stitu tin g e f fe c t s o f dis cou rse and p o w e r, w it h o u t fa llin g
p r e y to social d e te r m in is m . A n d she g iv e s an a cco u n t o f the m a te r ia l
n a tu re o f th e h u m a n body w ith o u t r e in s t a ll in g the b o d y ’ s m a te r ia lity as
fo u n d ation a l o r se lf-e vid e n t. T h e s e a cco u n ts o f th e su bject and o f th e
b o d y ’ s m a te r ia lity a re b rillia n tly lin k e d t o g e t h e r th ro u g h h e r n o tio n o f
g e n d e r p e r fo r m a t iv it y .
B u tler o p en s the b o ok w ith a cr itiq u e o f the n otion s o f
co n stru c tion that c irc u la te i n fe m in is t th eory a n d c h a lle n g e s fe m in ists
to “ retu rn to the n o tio n o f m atter, n o t as a site o r su rface, but as a
p r o c e s s ” (9 ):

T o c la im th a t s e x is a lre a d y gen d ered , a lre a d y con stru cted ,

is n o t y e t to e x p la in in w h ich w a y the “m a te r ia lity ” o f s e x is
f o r c ib ly p ro d u c e d . rVh%at a re the c o n s tra in ts by w h ich bod ies are
m a te ria liz e d as “sexed ,” a n d how a re we to u n d e rs ta n d the
“m a tte r ” o f sex, an d o f bodies m o r e g e n e ra lly , as the re p e a te d
a n d v io le n t c ir c u m s c r ip tio n o f c u ltu r a l in te llig ib ility ? W h ich
bod ies c o m e to m a tte r -a n d w hy? ( x i - x i i )

B u tler’s co n te n tio n that m a tte r sh ou ld be u nderstood as “a p r o c e s s o f

m a t e r ia liz a tio n that sta b ilizes o v e r t im e t o p r o d uce the e f fe c t o f b o u n d a r y ,
fixity, and s u r fa c e ” ( 9 ) is im p o r ta n t in its r e c o n s id e r a tio n o f w h a t it could
m e a n to cla im that b o d ie s are “ so cia lly co n stru c te d .” H o w e v e r , B u tle r ’s
n otion o f m a te r ia liz a tio n is lim it e d in s e v e r a l im p o r t a n t ways. In this
p a p e r , I e x a m in e s o m e o f these lim ita tio n s and su g g est an a lte rn a tiv e
u ndersta n d in g.
A q u e stio n that g o e s to the h e a r t o f the m a il e r is w h e t h e r
B utler’ s a c c o u n t o f m a t e r ia liz a tio n is su ffic ie n t lo take us beyond the
passive/active du a lism that h e r d is p la c e m e n I o f con stru ction is in pa rt
m e a n t to co u n ter. F o r as the subtitle “ On the U iscu rsiv e L i m i ls o f ‘ S e x ’ ”
a lre a d y hints, w h i l e B u tler’ s le m p o r a l a c c o u n t o f m a te r ia liz a tio n d is ­
p la ce s m a t t e r as a fix e d and p e r m a n e n t l y bounded entity, its tem p o ra lity
is a n a ly z ed only in lerm s o f h o w d iscourse c o m e s lo m a ile r . It fails lo
d i f f e r e n c e s 91

a n a ly z e h ow m a tte r c o m e s lo m a lle r . W h a t aboul the “ m a te r ia l lim its ” : the

m a t e r ia l constraints and ex clu sion s , the m a teria l d im e n s io n s o f agency,
and the m aterial d im e n s io n s o f reg u la to ry practices? D o e s n ’t an accou nt
o f m a te r ia liza tio n that is a tle n liv e only to d iscu rsive limits rein scribe this
very dualism by im p lic itly r ein s ta llin g m a teria lity in a passive r o le ?
S in c e tlie q u estion s I w ant l o raise co n c e rn Hit* w a)' m a tte r is
in c o r p o r a te d into Su tler's account of* m a teria liza tio n , I w a n t to ca refu lly
d istingu ish my c r itiq u e fr o m a host o f accu sations against B u lle r that
in c o r re c ll)' a c c u s e h e r o fi d c a lis in . lin g u istic rnon ism, or a n e g le c t o r e v e n
e ra s u r e ol' “ real flesh and blood h o d ir s .” It w o u ld be a g ross m is u n d e r ­
standing o f B uller's w o r k lo a c t m e her o f c o lla p s in g the c o m p le x issue o f
m ateriality to o n e o f m e r e d is cou rse , o f a rg u in g I hat b o d ie s are fo r m e d
from w ord s, o r o f a ssertin g that Ihe only w a y lo m ake the w o r ld a b e tte r
pla ce is th rough " " s ig n i fi c a t i o n On the co n tra ry, B utler does p rov id e us
w ilh an insigh tful ancl p o w e r fu l analysis o f the d iscu rsive d im e n s io n s
o f lhe m a te r ia liz a tio n o f real flesh and b lo o d bodies. My c h a r g e is that
the analysis o f m a t e r ia liz a tio n that B u tler o f f e r s l e a v e s out critica l
co m p on e n t s.
T h e f a d lhal H u tler’s analysis enacts its own e x c lu s io n s is not
in artd o f it s e lf a fatal flaw. O 11 lh e contrary, a c c o r d in g to B utler’ s o w n
t reatm en t o f th e n a tu re o f e x c lu s io n s , they a re not only n ecessary but
p rod u c tiv e, pa rticu la rly in th e ir m stab ilily and c o n s e q u e n t a v a ila b ility lo r
rearticulation. An o b viou s qu estion , thou gh . is w h e t h e r the r e d r a w in g o f
lines, the en a c tm en t o f n e w ciils. to c o u n le r the passivity o f m ateria lity,
(‘ iilails a necessarv ren u n ciation o f B u lle r’ s theory o f p e rfo r m a tivil)', or
w h e l h e r an e n l a r g e d a c r o u n l o l Materiality can be o ffe r e d that can enact
a prmluclix e approp riation and e la b o r a t io n o f h e r th eory . T h a t is, is the
e x clu sion o f p a rtic u la r fe a tu re s o f m ateria lity a co nstitu tive constraint o f
a n a ly z in g m a t e r i a l l y p e r f o r m a i i ; e l > ? It is far from o b vio u s h o w to take
account o f m ateria l co n slra in ls. for e x a m p le , if m a te r ia lity it s e lf is the
‘‘ d is sim u lated elTecI o f p o w e r . ” Imi'1 so m e f ix e d sense o f the substantive
c h a r a c t e r o f m a le r ia lily required to think aboiil how m a teria lity c o n -
slrains p roc e s s e s ? And, fu rlh ertn o rc, if ii has taken Ihis m uch w o r k to
w a k e us fro m ou r o n to lo g ic a l illusions, does an)' r e f e r e n c e lo m a te r ia l
constraints threaten to i i n d c m i l this a c h ie v e m e n t?
92 Getting Real

T e c h n o lo g ie s o f E m b o d im e n t

Consider the medical interpellation there; on the contrary, that founding

which (the recent emergence o f the
sonogram notwithstanding) shifts
an infant from an “it” to a “she" or a
“he," and in that naming, the girl is
“girled,” brought into the domain of
language and kinship through the
interpellation o f gender. But that
“girling ” o f the girl does not end
interpellation is reiterated by various
authorities and throughout various
intervals qf tune to reinforce or
contest this naturalized effect. The
naniing is at once the selling of a
boundary, and also the repeated
inculcation ofa norm ('/Jutler,
Bodies 7-8)

In the section o f B od ies T h a t M a tte r w h e r e B u tler e x p la in s h er

c o n c e p t io n o f m a t e r ia liz a tio n , sh e o f fe r s this e x a m p l e o f the m e d ic a l
in le rp e lla tio n o f an infant at b ir t h -o r p rio r to birth o f a fetus t h r o u g h the
use o f ultrasound t e c h n o l o g y - w h i c h initiates the r e it e r a t iv e p r o c e s s o f
b e c o m i n g a g e n d e r e d subject. But is the p a r e n t h e tic inclusion o f g e n d e r
in terp e lla tio n th rou g h ultrasound t e c h n o lo g ie s r e a lly so u n r e m a r k a b le ,
so in s ig n ific a n t lo co n s id e r a tio n s o f (in le r p e lla t io n and u ltim a te ly o l)
m a t e r ia liz a tio n , that it r e q u ir e s no fu rth er analysis? Can this po ten tia l
ov e r s ig h t, this off-handed dismissal o f sig n ifica n t d if fe r e n c e s sig n a le d by
th e p h ra s e “ n o tw ith s ta n d in g ,” s im p ly be r e c tifie d by a d d in g the a p p r o p r i­
ate m a t e r ia l constraints, o r is it p o s s ib le that the very a c c o u n t in g o f
dis cursive constraints m ay r e q u ir e re v is io n on c e m a teria l constraints are
b r o u g h t into the a n aly s is, that is, on ce there is a r e w o r k in g o f w h a t is here
ex clu d ed ?
As fe m in is t analyses h a ve m a d e cle a r, ultrasound t e c h n o lo g y
is a h is to ric a lly and c u ltu r a lly s p e c ific p r a c tic e , in v o lv in g d is cu rsive and
m a t e r ia l e le m e n t s , that has d iffe r e n t ia l e ffe c t s on d iffe re n t bodies and
lives. As A lic e A dam s notes: “ R e p r e s e n ta tio n s o f the m o th e r -fe tu s r e l a ­
tionsh ip in m e d ic a l illustrations m ust be r ea d as ch a n n e ls o f e c o n o m i c
as w e l l as in fo r m a t io n a l and id e o lo g ic a l e x c h a n g e ” (A d a m s 128). F o r
e x a m p le , b e y o n d the o b v io u s e c o n o m i c lim ita tio n s o f d if fe r e n t ia l access
to such t e c h n o lo g ie s , is the q u e stio n o f d iffe re n t ia l im p a c t fo r those w h o
do h a v e access, and u ltim a tely fo r those w h o d o not. D ion F a r q u h a r
w rites:

R ecen t y e a rs have w itnessed e x p a n d e d attem pts by som e p h y s i­

cians, ethicists, a n d le g a l s ch o la rs to h o ld p r e g n a n t w om e n
lia b le f o r c a u s in g p r e n a ta l h a rm , to im p o s e c t'im in a l o r c iv il
s a n ction s on them a fte r the b irth o f a sick o r d isa b led in fa n t,
d i f f e r e n c e s 93

to re s tric t the b e h a v io rs o f p r e g n a n t w om en, a n d to im p o s e

m ed ica l o r s u r g ic a l p ro ce d u re s . . . f o r c i b ly on them , osten sib ly
in o rd e r to p re v e n t f e t a l h a rm . These in te rv e n tio n s tr e a t the
m o th e r us a m e re m a te r n a l e n v iro n m e n t re la tiv e to a rig h ts -
bea rin g fetu s th a t is a n a lo g ic a lly c o m p a re d to a p e d ia tr ic case.
The ta rg e tin g o fp o o r , rela tively d isetrfranchised p regn an t w om en
q f c o lo t' w ho u re d r u g abusers is c le a r ly a w ed ge f o r m o r a lis t
state re g u la tio n o f a ll w o m e n 's bodies in a s y m p to m a tic
d is p la ce m e n t o f s o c ia l a m e lio r a tio n f r o m one o f its p r in c ip a l
sources ■e x a c e rb a te d c o n d itio n s t>f ra c iu liz e d p o v e rty . ( 1700)

The m a te r ia l and d is c u r s iv e d im e n s io n s o f u llra s o n o g r a p h y va ry in

li m e and i 11 space. T h e s o ilo g r a m does nol sim p ly m ap lh e le r r a in o f the
body; it m aps g e o p o lit ic a l. e c o n o m i c , and historical factors as well. F or
e x a m p Ie, T e r e s a K herl w arns t hat g e n d e r in t e r p e lla lio n m ust be u n d e r­
stood in term s o f llit* rele v a n t rela tio n s o f prod uction:

This tru th is p a in fu lly c fe a r i f w e m ove beyond the p r iv ile g e d

b o u n d a rie s o f t h e u p p e r-m id d le class in the in d u s tria liz e d n e s t
. . . a n d see iv h a l is h a p p e n in g to “g i r l i n g “ in the in te r n a tio n a l
d iv is io n (\f la b o r -e s p e c ia lty a m o n g the im p o v e r is h e d classes
in In d ia . H ere tile “m e d ica l in t e r p e lla t io n ” . . . o f . . . f e t u s e s ,
p a r tic u la r ly th l'o u g h the use f the so n og ra m , im m edia tely places
“g ir le d " fetuses not o n ly in d iscou rse but also in the g e n d e r
d iv is io n o f l a b o r and u n e q u a l access to s o c ia l resources. A b o u t
tW p e rc e n t f th e “g irle d ,.fe tu s e s a r e b e in g im m e d ia te ly a b o rte d
o r m u rd e re d u p o n b i r t h . .. because th e fa m ilie s c a n n o t a ffo r d to
keep them . T h e t it a lio n a t a d s , ritu a ls , a n d “p e r f o r m a t iv e s b y
w h ich in d iv id u a ls a rt re p e a te d ly “g i r le d ” . . . a re not s im p ly acts
o f d iscou rse but e c m w m h ' p ra ctice s . (3 rtfl)

F em inist a n a ly s e s o f sc ie n tific and te c h n o lo g ic a l d e v e lo p m e n ts

h a v e m a d e eviden l thal Ih e r e an* m a le r ia l as w e l I as dis cu rsive fa ctors
thal are im p o r la n l lo lh e p ro c es s o f m a te r ia liza tio n , and w h ile B utler
w o u ld su rely not deny this, h e r analysis d o e s not g i v e us any insights into
h o w lo Lake accouut o f lhe m a teria l c o n slra in ls, the m a l e r ia l d im e n s io n s
ol' a g e n c y , and the m a t e r ia l d im e n s io n s or r e g u la to r y p r a c tic e s that m a k e
the g e n d e r in te r p e lla tio n o f lh e fetu s th rou gh u llra so u n d t e c h n o lo g y
d iffe re n t fr o m a siliiation in w h ic h “ g i r l i n g ” b e g in s at birth.
94 Getting Real

B o h r ’s E p is t e m o l o g ic a l F r a m e w o r k

R e p r e s e n ta tio n a lis m a n d N e w t o n ia n ph ysics h a v e r o o ls in the

s e v e n te e n t h ce n tu ry . Th e assu m p tion that la n g u a g e is a t r a n s p a re n l
m e d iu m that t r a n s m ils a h o m o lo g o u s p ictu re o f r e a lity to the k n o w in g
m in d finds its p a r a lle l in a sc ie n tific t h e o r y lh a l takes o b s e r v a t io n lo
be the b e n ig n fa c ilita to r o f d is c o v e r y , a tra n s p a re n t and u n distortin g
lens p a s s iv e ly g a z in g at the w o r ld . Just as w o r d s p ro v id e d e s c r ip tio n s -
r e p r e s e n ta t io n s o f r e a lit y - o b s e r v a t io n s r e v e a l p r e e x is t in g p r o p e r t ie s o f
a n o b s e r v a t io n - in d e p e n d e n t rea lity . In the lw e n t ie t h cen tu ry , both the
r e p r e s e n ta t io n a l or m i m e t ic stalus o f la n g u a g e and lhe in c o n s e q u e n tia l-
ity o f l h e o b s e r v a t io n a l p r o c e s s h a v e b e e n c a ll e d into question.
I lu rn to the w o r k o f ph ysicist N ie l s B o h r as a p la c e to begin
a rtic u la tin g m y n o tio n o f a g e n tia l r e a lis m . B o h r ’s se a r c h f o r a c o h e r e n t
in te r p r e ta tio n o f q u a n lu m p h ys ics l e d h i m to m o r e g e n e r a l e p is t e m o lo g i-
cal co n s id e r a tio n s that c h a lle n g e d r e p r e s e n ta t io n a lis l assu m ptions about
the n a tu r e o f sc ien tific in q u ir y . His e a r ly - tw e n t ie t h - c e n lu r y e p is le m o lo g i -
c a l in v e s t ig a t io n s fo c u s e d o n issues o f c o n te m p o r a r y s ig n ific a n c e : 1 ) lh e
c o n n e c tio n s b e t w e e n d e s c rip tiv e co n c e p ts a n d m a teria l a pparatu ses, 2 )
the in s e p a r a b ility o f the “ ob jects o f o b s e r v a t io n ” and the “ a g e n c ie s o f
o b s e r v a t io n ,” 3) the e m e r g e n c e a n d c o -con s titu tion o f t h e “ ob je c ts o f
o b s e r v a t io n ” a n d the “ a g e n c ie s o f o b s e r v a t io n ” w ith in p a r tic u la r m a t e r ia l
and c o n c e p t u a l e p is t e m ic p ra ctice s, 4 ) the in t e r d e p e n d e n c e o f m a te r ia l
and co n c e p tu a l constraints a n d e x clu sio n s , 5 ) lhe m a t e r ia l co n d itio n s lo r
o b je c t iv e k n o w l e d g e , and 6 ) the r e f o r m u la t io n o f the n o lio n o f causality.
R e a d in g B o h r ’ s e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l f r a m e w o r k th rou g h a f e m i n i s l Iens
p r o v id e s u s e fu l insigh ts into the q u e stio n s at h a n d.2
B o h r ’s ca refu l a n a ly s is o f the p r o c e s s o f o b s e r v a t io n led h im lo
c o n c lu d e that t w o i m p l i c i l a ssu m ption s n e e d e d to su pport th e N e w t o n ia n
f r a m e w o r k and its n o li o n o f the lr a n s p a r e n c y o f o b s e r v a t i o n s w e r e fla w ed:
1 ) the assum ption lhat o b s e r v a tio n - in d e p e n d e n t objects h a ve w e ll- d e fin e d
in tr in s ic p r o p e r t ie s t h a t a r e r e p r e s e n ta b le as a b slra ct u n iv e r s a l co n cepts,
and 2 ) l h e assu m ption l h a l lhe m e a s u r e m e n t in tera ctio n s b e lw e e n lhe
o b je c ls a n d the a g e n c ie s o f o b s e r v a t io n a r e co n tin u ou s and d e te r m in a b le ,
e n s u r in g that the v a lu e s o f l h e p r o p e r t ie s o b ta in e d r e f l e c l those o f th e
o b s e r v a t io n - in d e p e n d e n t ob jects, as s e p a ra te f r o m the a g e n c ie s o f o b s e r ­
vation. I n c o n tr a s l lo these N e w l o n i a n a ssu m ptions, B o h r a r g u e d that
th e o re tic a l concepts are d efin ed by the circu m s ta n ce s re q u ire d f o r th e ir
m ea su rem en t. I t f o l lo w s fr o m this fact, and the fact th at th ere is an c m p ir i-
d i r r I' r e n c i' s 95

cally v e r ifia b le d is c o n lin u ily iii m e a s u r e m e n t in tera ctio n s, that th ere

is no u n a m b ig u o u s w a y to d iffe re n t ia t e b e t w e e n the " o b j e c t ” and the
“ a g e n c ie s o f o b s e r v a U o n .” As no in h eren t cut ex ists b e t w e e n “ o b j e c t ” and
“ a g e n c ie s o f o b s e r v a lio n ,” m e a s u r e d v a lu es c a n n o t b e attribu ted to
o b s e r v a t io n - in d e p e n d e n t ob jects. In fact, B o h r c o n c lu d e d that o b s e r v a ­
tion -in d ep e n d e n t objects do not possess w e ll - d e f i n e d in h e r e n t p rop erties.’
Bohr constructs his p o s t - N e w t o n ia n f r a m e w o r k on the basis o f
“ q u a n tu m w h o l e n e s s , ” that is, the la ck o f an in h e r e n t d istin ction b e tw e e n
the “ o b j e c t ” and lhe “ a g e n c ie s o f o b s e r v a t i o n .” H r uses the t e r m “ p h e ­
n o m e n o n , ” in a very sp ec ific sense, lo d e s ig n a te p a rtic u la r instances o f
w h o le n e s s : “ W h ile . w ithin t h e scope o f classical physics, lhe in te r a c tio n
b e tw e e n ob ject and a ppa ratu s c a n be n e g l e c t e d o r . i f n e c e s s a r y , c o m p e n ­
sated f o r , in q u a n tu m physics //ml in te r a c tio n thus f o r m s an in s e p a ra b le
p a r t o fth e p h e n o m e n o n . A cco rd ingly, t h e u n a m b igu o u s acco u nt o f p r o p e r
quantum p h e n o m e n a must, in p r in c ip le , in c lu d e a d e sc rip tio n o f all
r e le v a n t f e a l u r e s o f t h e e x p e r i r n enta l a r r a n g e m e n t ” (B o h r , P h ilo s o p h ic a l
W ritin g s 111, 4, e m p h a s is a d d e d ).
Bohr’ s insight c o n c e r n in g the in t e r t w in in g o f the c o n c e p tu a l
and physical d im e n s io n s o f m e a s u r e m e n t p rocesses is ce n tra l to his e p is -
t e m o lo g ic a l fr a m e w o r k . T h e physical apparatu s m a r k s the c o n c e p lu a l
s u b je ct-o b je ct distinction: the p h ysica l and c o n c e p t u a l a pp a ra tu ses fo r m
a n o n -d u a lis tic w h o l e . T h a i is, d e sc rip tiv e co n c e p ts o b ta in t h e ir m e a n in g
by r e f e r e n c e to a p a rtic u la r physical apparatus w h ic h in turn m a r k s the
pla ce m en t o f a constructed cut b e tw e e n the " o b j e c t ” and the. “ a g e n c ie s o f
o b s e r v a tio n .” F o r e x a m p le , in s tm m e n ls w ilh fix e d parts a re r e q u ir e d to
understand w hat w e m ig h t m e a n t)y the c o n c e p t “ po sition .’ * H o w e v e r , any
such apparatus n e ces sa rily e x c lu d e s o t h e r co n ce p ts, such as “ m o m e n ­
tu m ,” fro m h a v in g m e a n in g du ring this set o f m e a s u r e m e n ts , sin ce
th es e o t h e r v a r ia b le s r e q u i r e an instrum ent w it h m o v a b l e parts f o r
their definition. Phvsical and c o n c e p lu a l constraints and e x clu sio n s are
co-constitu tive.
Since t h e r e is no in h e ren t cut d e lin e a t in g the “ o b je c t ” fr o m the
“ a g e n c ie s o f o b s e r v a lio n ,” the f o l l o w i n g question e m e r g e s : w h a t sense, i f
any. sh o u ld w e a llr ib u le to the u o lio n o f o b serv a tio n ? B o h r s u g g ests I hat
“ by an e x p e r im e n t w e simply understand an e v e n t about w h ic h w e are.
able in an u n a m b igu ou s w a y lo state the co nditions n e c e s s a r y f o r the
re p ro d u c tio n o f th e p h e n o m e n a ! 4 T h is is p o s s ib le on the c o n d itio n that
the e x p e r i m e n t e r in t r o d u c e s a co n stru c led cut b e t w e e n an “ o b j e c t ” and
the “ a g e n c ie s o f o b s e r v a t i o n . " 'T h a t is, in contrast to the N e w to n ia n w o r ld
96 Getting Real

v i e w , B o h r a rg u e s that no in h e r e n t distin ction p r e e x is ts the m e a s u r e m e n t

proc es s, that e v e r y m e a s u r e m e n t i n v o l v e s a p a r tic u la r c h o ic e o f a p p a r a ­
tus, p r o v id in g the co n d itio n s n e c e s s a r y to g iv e d e fin itio n to a p a r tic u la r
set o f c la ss ica l v a r ia b le s , at the e x c lu s io n o f o t h e r e q u a lly e s se n tia l v a r i ­
ables, and thereby e m b o d y in g a p a r tic u la r c o n stru c te d cut d e lin e a t in g the
“ o b je c t ” fr o m the “ a g e n c i e s o f o b s e r v a t io n .” T h is p a r tic u la r co n stru c te d
cu t r e s o l v e s the a m b ig u it ie s only f o r a g iv e n context; it m a r k s o f f and is
pa rt o f a p a r tic u la r instance o f w h o le n e s s (i.e., the p h e n o m e n o n ).*
E s p e c ia lly in his la t e r w r it in g s , Bohr insists that quantum
m e c h a n ic a l m e a s u r e m e n t s are “ o b je c t iv e . ” Since he also e m p h a s iz e s the
in s e p a r a b ility o f ob je c ts and a g e n c ie s o f o b s e r v a tio n , he c a n n o t possibly
m ea n by “ o b je c t iv e ” that m e a s u r e m e n t s r e v e a l in h e r e n t p r o p e r t ie s o f
in d e p e n d e n t ob jects. But B o h r does not r e je c t o b je c tiv ity out o f hand; he
r e f o r m u la t e s it. F o r Bohr, “ o b je c t iv it y ” is a m a t t e r o f “ p e r m a n e n t m a r k s -
such as a spot on a p h o to g r a p h ic plate, caused by the im p a c t o f an
e l e c t r o n - l e f t on the b o d ie s w h ic h d e fin e the e x p e r im e n t a l c o n d it io n s ”
(B o h r , P h ilo s o p h ic a l W ritin g s III, 3). O b je c t iv it y is d e fin e d in r e f e r e n c e to
b o d ie s and, as w e h a v e seen, r e f e r e n c e m u s t be m a d e to b o d ie s i n o r d e r
f o r co n ce p ts to h a v e m e a n in g . C lea rly , B o h r ’s n o t io n o f “ o b je c t iv it y ,”
w h ich is n o t p r e d ic a t e d o n a n in h e r e n t distin ction b e t w e e n “ o b je c t s ” and
“ a g e n c ie s o f o b s e r v a tio n ,” stands in sta rk co n tra st to a N e w t o n ia n sense o f
“ o b je c t iv it y ” as d e n o t in g o b s e r v e r - in d e p e n d e n c e .
T h e q u e stio n r e m a in s : w h a t is the r e f e r e n t o f any p a rtic u la r
“ o b j e c t i v e ” p rop erty? Since th ere is no in h e r e n t d is tin c tio n b e t w e e n
o b je c t and apparatus, the p ro p erty i n q u estion c a n n o t be m e a n in g fu lly
attributed to e it h e r an a b stracted o b j e c t o r an abstracted m e a s u r in g
in s tru m e n t. T h a t is, the m e a s u r e d q u a n tities i n a g i v e n e x p e r im e n t are
not v a lu e s o f p r o p e r t ie s that b e lo n g to an o b s e r v a t io n - in d e p e n d e n t object,
n or a re they p u r e ly a rtifactu al valu es c r e a t e d by the a c t o f m e a s u r e m e n t
(w h i c h w o u ld b e l ie a n y se n s ib le m e a n in g o f th e w o r d “ m e a s u r e m e n t ” ).
M y r e a d in g is that the m e a s u r e d p r o p e r t ie s r e f e r to p h e n o m e n a , r e m e m ­
b e r i n g th a t p h e n o m e n a a r e p h y s ic a l-c o n c e p tu a l “ in tr a -a c tio n s ” w h o s e
u n a m b ig u o u s a c c o u n t r e q u ir e s “ a d e sc rip tio n o f a ll r e le v a n t fe a tu re s o f
t h e e x p e r im e n t a l a r r a n g e m e n t .” I in t r o d u c e t h e n e o l o g i s m “in tr a -a c tio n ”
to signify the in s e p a ra b ility o f “o b je cts ” a n d “agencies o f o b s e r v a tio n ” (in
c o n tra st to “ in t e r a c t io n ,” w h ic h r e in s c r ib e s the co n te sted d ic h o t o m y ).
W h i l e N e w t o n i a n p h ysics is w e l l - k n o w n fo r its strict d e t e r m in ­
ism, it s w i d e l y a c c la im e d ability to p r e d ic t and r e t r o d ic t the fu ll set o f
d i f f e r e n c e s 97

ph ysica l states o f a system fo r alJ tim e s, based upon lh e s im u lta n e ou s

sp e c ific a tio n o f t w o pa rticu la r va r ia b le s al any o n e instant, B o h r ’ s g e n e r a l
e p is l e in o lo g i c a l f r a m e w o r k p rop ose s a rad ica l r e v is io n o f such an under-
sla n d in g o f ca u sa lity .7 He ex p la in s that lh e in s ep a ra b ilily o f lh e o b je c t
from lhe apparalus "entails . . . the* n ecessity o f a final re n u n c ia tio n o f the
cla ss ica l ideal o f ca u sa lily and a rad ica l rev is io n o f o u r altitude tow a rds
lh e problem o f physical r e a l i l y ” (B oh r. P h ilo s o p h ic a l W ritin g s II, 59-60).
W h ile c l a im in g thal his analysis fort es him lo issue a final r en u n c iation
o f the classical ideal o f causality. that is, o f s t r k l d e le r m in is m , B o h r d o es
n o l p re su m e that I his entails o v e r a r c h in g d isorder, law lessn ess, o r an
o u lr ig h l r e je c lio n o l'lh e cause and effe ct re la tio n s h ip . RathPr, he s u g g esls
that ou r u n d e rs ta n d in g o f the term s o f that rela tio n sh ip m usl be
r e w o r k e d : “ the fe e lin g o f v o l i t i o n and lhe d e m a n d fo r causal ily are e q u a lly
in d isp e n sa b le e le r n e n ls in lhe r e la lio n b e tw e e n su bject and o b je c t w h ic h
fo rm s the c o r e o f lhe p r o b le m o f k n o w l e d g e ” ( Bohr, P h ilo s o p h ic a l
H r itin g s f, 117). in sh ort, he reje cts both p o le s o f lh e usual dualist
th in k in g ab o u l e a u s a lity - fr e e d o m and d e t e r m in i s m - a n d p r o p o s e s a lhird
possibility.
Bohr’ s e p is t e m o lo g ic d l f r a m e w o r k d e v ia le s in an im p o r la n t
fash ion f r o m c la ss ica l c o r r e s p o n d e n c e o r m ir r o r i n g t h e o r ie s o f scientific'
k n o w l e d g e . F or e x a m p le , c o n s id e r the w a v e - p a r t i d e du ality p a ra d ox
o r ig in a tin g fr o m e a r ly - t w e n t ie ih - c e n lu r y o b serv a tio n s c o n d u cted by
e x p e r im e n t e r s w h o r e p o r t e d see m in g l y c o n lr a d ic lo r y e v i d e n c e about
lhe nature o f light: u n d e r certain e x p e r im e n t a l d r c u m s l a n c e s , light
m a n ife s ts p a r t i d e - l i k e p r o p e r t ie s and u n d e r an e x p e r im e n t a lly i n c o m ­
pa tib le sel o f c irc u m sta n ce s, lig h t m an ifests w a v e - l i k e p rop e r tie s . T h is
silu ation is paradoxical to the classical realist m in d-set b e ca u s e lh e lrue
o n to lo g ic a l nature o f light is in (|uestion: e i t h e r light is a w a v e or il
is particle, il cannot be holh. Bohr re s o lv e d the w a v e - p a r l i d e dualily
pa rad ox as fo llo w s : “ w a v e '’ aml " p a r t i c l e ” are classical d e s c r ip t iv e
c o n c e p t s lhat r e f e r lo d if fe r e n t m u tu ally e x c lu s i v e p h e n o m e n a , and n o t to
in d e p e n d e n t p h ysica l ob jects. He e m p h a s iz e d that th is saved q u a n tu m
t h e o r y from in c on sis te n cie s sinet it as im p os sib le to o b s e r v e p a rticle
and w a v e behavior... sim u lta n e o u s ly b e ca u s e mu t ually e x d usive e x p e r i ­
m en ta l a r r a n g e m e n ts are r e q u ir e d . T o put the p o in l in a m o r e m o d e r n
co n te xt, acc o rd in g lo B o h r ’ s g e n e r a l e p is le m o lo g ic a l f r a m e w o r k , r e f e r -
en tiality m usl be r e c o n c e p t u a liz t it: the r e fe r e n t is not an o b s e r v a tio n -
in d e p e n d e n l ob ject. but a p h e n o m e n o n . T h is shirt in referentia lity is a
98 Getting Real

c o n d it io n fo r the po ssib ility o f o b je c t iv e k n o w l e d g e . T h a t is, a co n d itio n

f o r o b je c t iv e k n o w l e d g e is that the r e f e r e n t is a p h e n o m e n o n (a n d not an
o b s e r v a t io n - in d e p e n d e n t obj ect).

O n A p p a r a tu s e s

Discipline "makes’' individuals; it is the techniques that make it possible

the specific technique qfa power that
regards individuals both as objects
and as instruments o f its exercise. . . .
The exercise o f discipline presupposes
a mechanism that coerces by means
of observation; an apparatus in which
to see induce eJ:fects o f power, and
in which, conversely, the means of
coercion make those on whom they
are applied clearly visible. (Foucault,
Discipline 170-71)

Apparatu ses, in B o h r ’s sense, are n o t p a s s iv e o b s e r v in g instru ­

m en ts. On the c o n tra ry, they a re p r o d u c tiv e o f (a n d pa rt o f) p h e n o m e n a .
H o w e v e r , B o h r l e a v e s the m e a n in g o f “ a p p a ratu s” s o m e w h a t a m b ig u o u s.
He do es in s is t t h a t w h a t constitutes an “ apparatus” e m e r g e s w ith in specific
o b s e r v a tio n a l p ra ctice s. But w h ile fo c u s in g on the lack o f an in h e r e n t
distin ction b e t w e e n the apparatus and the o b je c t, B o h r does n o t d ire ctly
a d d re ss the q u e stion o f w h e r e the apparatus “ en ds.'’ In a sense, he only
es ta b lis h es the “ in s id e ” b o u n d a ry and not the “ o u ts id e ” one. F or e x a m p le ,
i f a c o m p u t e r in te r fa c e is h o o k e d up to a g i v e n in s tr u m e n t, is the
c o m p u t e r p a rt o f the apparatus? Is the prin ter a tta c h ed to the c o m p u t e r
p a rt o f t h e apparatus? Is the p a p e r that is f e d into the p r in ter? Is the p e r s o n
w h o fe e d s in the pa p e r? H o w about the p erson w h o reads the m a rk s on the
p a p e r? H o w about the c o m m u n it y o f s c ie n t is t s w h o ju d g e the s ig n ific a n c e
o f the e x p e r im e n t and in d ica te th e ir support or la c k o f su pp ort f o r future
fu n d in g ? W h a t p r e c is e ly c o n s lilu le s the lim its o f the apparatus lh a l g iv e s
m e a n in g to c e rta in c o n c e p ts at the e x c lu s io n o f others?
A ce n tra l fo cu s in B o h r ’ s discu ssion o f o b je c t iv it y is the
p o ssib ility o f “ u n a m b ig u o u s c o m m u n ic a t io n ,” w h ic h can only take p la c e
in r e f e r e n c e to “ b o d ie s w h i c h d e fin e th e e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d it io n s ” and
w h i c h e m b o d y p a r tic u la r c o n ce p ts, to the e x c lu s io n o f others. T h is s e e m s
to in d ica te B o h r ’s r e c o g n it i o n o f th e so cia l natu re o f sc ien tific practices:
m a k in g m e a n i n g s in v o l v e s the in te r r e la tio n s h ip o f c o m p l e x d is cu rsive
and m a t e r ia l p ra ctice s. W h a t is n e e d e d is a n a rticu la tion o f the n otion o f
a p pa ratu ses that a c k n o w le d g e s this c o m p le x it y .
T h e o r i z i n g the so cia l and p o litic a l aspects o f p ra ctice s is a
c h a ll e n g e that is tak en up by M ic h e l F oucault. L ik e B ohr, Fou ca u lt is
in t e r e s te d in the conditions f o r in t e llig ib ilit y and the p r o d u c tiv e and
d i f f e r e n c e s 99

c o n s tr a in in g d im e n s io n o f practices e m b o d i e d in “ a ppa ratu ses.” R e a d in g

F ou ca u lt’ s and B ohr’ s an aly s es of appa ratu ses t h r o u g h o n e a n o th e r
p r o v id e s a r ic h e r o\ er a ll acco u nt o f apparatuses; it e x te n d s the d o m a in o f
Bohr's analysis fr o m th e p h ys ica l-co n cep tu a l to the m a t e r ia l-d is c u rs iv e
m o r e g e n e rail y ; pro v ide s a fu rth er articu la tion o f F ou ca u lt’ s th eory,
e x te n d in g its d o m a in to i n d u d e the natural s c ie n c e s and an a cco u n t o f
the m a t e r ia liz a tio n o f n on hu m an b o d ies; and o ffe r s an ex plicil analysis o f
the insepa rab ility o f the a ppa ralu s fro m the objec-ls and the subjec-ls o f
k n o w l e d g e p ra clie es, and o f t h e c o -con s titu tion o f m a t e r i a l a n d dis cu rsive
co n strain ts and exclu sions.*
In D is c ip lin e an d Punish, F oucault exp la ins that the p r o l i f e r a ­
tion o f w h a t h e va riou sly calls “ appa ratu ses o f o b s e r v a t io n ,” "a p p a ra tu s e s
of produc-tion,” and “ t1i s d p l i 1 i;iry a p p a ra tu ses '’ a re r e la te d to the
e ig h t e e n lh -c -e n t u n d e v e lo p m e n t o f new t e c h n o lo g ie s ; o f p a r tic u la r
note\o\orthiness is lhe p a n o p tii■on as an o b s e r v in g in s tr u m e n t for the
n e w human sc ie n c e s and its r o le in the d is p e rs ion o f p o w e r th rou g h the
sh ap in g and d is c ip lin in g o f d o c ile b o d ie s .” T h r o u g h this tec-hnology o f
e x a m in a tio n and in d iv id u a liz a tio a , this “ political t e c h n o lo g y o f the b o d y ,"
a n e w “ m ic r o p h y s ic s o f p o w e r ” e m e r g e s : p o w e r e v olvt's h istorically fr o m
acting as an e x te rn a l fo r c e upon 1lie in d iv id u a l l o its m o r e c o n te m p o r a ry
fo rm , in w h ic h po\'\ o r is e x e r c is e d th ro u g h in d ivid u a l bodies. D isc ip lin a ry
p o w e r o r d e r s the body, fix es and ( ' o ns trains m o v e m e n t . Fou ca u lt ex p la in s
that ''this tec-hnology is diffu se, rarely fo rm u la te d in c o n tin u ou s, s y s te m ­
atic disc-ourse: it is often m a d e up o f bits and p ie c e s ; it im p le m e n t s a
dispa rate set o f tools o r m ethod s. I 11 spite o f the c-oherenc-e o f its results,
it is g e n e r a lly n o m o r e than a m u ltifo rm in s tr u m e n ta tio n ” (F ou ca u lt,
D is c ip lin e 26). l>isd p lin a ry pow t r is e x e r c is e d th ro u g h va riou s a p p a r a ­
tuses. It “ link|s] them to g e th e r , e x t e n d in g them a n d a b o v e all m a k in g it
p o s s ib le to b r in g th e effe c ts o f p o w e r to lh e m o st m in u te and distant
e l e m c n l s ” (21 6).
F ou ca u lt’s insigh ts c-oncerning d is c ip lin a r y p ra ctices and the
“ m icro p h y sics o f p o w e r ” h a ve p r o fo u n d ly a lte re d the w a y s in w h ic h p o w e r
and k n o w le d g e are c-urrcntly 1IworiJ'.ed. H o w e v e r , a c-rudal fe a tu re o f
o b s e r v i n g p ra ctices that s e e m s not to h a w b e e n a p p r e c ia te d by F ou ca u ll
is Lhe d y n a m ic s o f intra-action anti t he in s e p a r a b ilily o f ob se r v in g a p p a r a ­
tus a n d o b s e r v e d . T h a t is, alth o u g h F ou cault insists that th e ob jects
(s u b je c t s ) o f k n o w l e d g e d o not p r e e x is t but only e m e r g e w it h in d is cu rsive
pra ctices, he does n ot explic-itly a n a ly z e the in s ep a ra b ility o f apparatu ses
and the obiec-ts (s u b je c ts ). In oth er w ords, F ou cault d o e s n ot p r o p o s e an
100 Getting Real

a n a lo g to B o h r ’ s n o tio n o f p h e n o m e n o n or a n a ly z e its im p o r t a n t c o n s e ­
q u e n c e s . D o e s th is in s ig h t o f B o h r ’ s co n trib u te a n y th in g im p o r t a n t to ou r
u n d e rs ta n d in g o f m a t e r ia l-d is c u r s iv e p ra ctice s and the “ m ic r o p h y s ic s
o f p o w e r? ” W h ile the p a n o p tic o n m ay be e x e m p l a r y o f o b s e r v in g
t e c h n o lo g i e s in the e ig h t e e n t h ce n tu ry , u ltrasou nd te c h n o lo g y m akes fo r
a pa rtic u la r ly p o ig n a n t c o n te m p o r a r y apparatu s o f o b s e r v a tio n , and it is
f r o m this v a n t a g e p o in t that I w a n t to e x a m in e s o m e o f these issues.
S ig n ifica n tly , in o b stetric u ltra so n o g ra p h y , the p i e z o e l e c t r i c tra n s d u c e r is
a p r o s th e tic d e v ic e f o r m a k in g a n d b r id g in g b o u n d a rie s. A nd i t s e r v e s
h e r e as w e l l as the in t e r fa c e fo r the r e a d in g o f B o h r ’s and F o u c a u lt’s
insights th rou g h on e another. 10
U ltr a s o n ic w a v e s w e r e o r ig in a lly u s e d f o r sound n a v ig a tio n
and ra n g in g (s o n a r ) in the d e te ction o f s u b m a r in e s d u r in g W o r l d W a r I.
F u r th e r d e v e lo p m e n t s o f s o n a r t e c h n o lo g ie s d u r in g W o r l d W a r II led
to im p o r t a n t p r o g r e s s that fa c ilit a t e d its use in the fie ld o f m e d ic in e .
O bs te tric a p p lic a tion s o f u ltrasou nd t e c h n o lo g y o c c u r r e d in the late-
1950s. By the m id-1960s, ob s te tric u ltra sou n d g a in e d w id e a c ce p ta n ce
by the m e d ic a l co m m u n ity . A deca de la te r u ltra sou n d w a s r e g a r d e d as
in t e g r a l to the p r a c tic e o f obstetrics.
It is n o w c o m m o n to fin d feta l u ltra sou n d im a g e s im m e d ia t e ly
p r e c e d in g p ic tu res o f n e w b o r n s in f a m il y p h o t o album s. But n e it h e r
the p r o d u c tio n n o r the in te r p r e ta tio n o f u ltra sou n d i m a g e s a re sim p le
m atters: b oth i n v o l v e h ig h ly s p e c ia liz e d f o r m s o f k n o w le d g e . In fact, the
fr e q u e n c y o f m is d i a g n o s is using u ltra sou n d t e c h n o lo g y is sig n ific a n t e v e n
w it h ph ysicia n use, and the m e d ic a l c o m m u n it y is c u rren tly d e b a tin g the
possib ility o f m a n d a to r y ce r tific a tio n for those using the t e c h n o lo g y . A
te x t b o o k in u ltr a s o n o g r a p h y states:

In d iv id u a ls a d m ille d f o r t r a in in g . . . s h o u ld h a v e p o s t-s e co n d a ry
e d u c a tio n in the f o ll o w i n g area s: m e d ic a l ethics, m e d ic a l te r m i­
n o lo g y , c lin ic a l a n a to m y a n d p h y s io lo g y , m e d ic a l o rie n ta tio n s
and ad m in istration , n u rs in g procedures, g e n e ra l h u m a n anatom y,
a n d e le m e n ta ry p h y s ic s .. . . A n a b ility to im p r o v is e the s ta n d a rd
p ro c e d u re w hen n ecessa ry is essential. . . . T h e a b ility to d e v ia te
f r o m n o r m a l tech niques w hen necessa ry a n d to d e ve lo p new
a n d b e tte r tech n iqu es to keep the d e p a rtm e n t u p to d a te is a ls o
the re s p o n s ib ility o f the s o n o g r u p h e r a n d the p h y s icia n . (H a g e n -
A n s e rt 618)
l i i f f e r e n r r s

T h e p i e z o e l e c l r i c Ira n s d u ce r is, on o n e account, the m a c h in e

in t e r fa c e lo the body. T h e tra n s d u c e r is both the s o u r c e and the r e c e i v e r
o f ultrasound w aves. W h e n so u n d w a v e s r eflected fro m d iffe r e n t body
parts im p in g e on lhe transdu cer, they a r e con v e r te d into e le c t r ic signals
that are v is u a lly displayed. A mult itude o f fa ctors in flu e n c e the i m a g e
p r o d u c e d on tilt' screen. D ifferen t kinds o f tissue have d iffe re n t acou stic
im p e d a n c e s ; th e reflection o f l l w b e a m v a r ie s w ith the i n t e r fa c e g e o m ­
etry, and the d if fe r e n c e s in im p e d a n c e s b e tw e e n the m a t e r ia ls m a k in g
up an in terfa ce . F u r t h e r m o r e , the b e a m res olu tion is a fu n ction o f the
fr e q u e n c y and d iffe r e n t a p p lic a tion s r e q u i r e d iffe r e n t transdu cers. Each
p ie z o e l e c t r ic t ra n s d u c e r has a natural resonant f r e q u e n c y w h ic h d e p e n d s
upon the sa m p le thickness and the m o u n tin g o f the tra n s d u cer e le m e n t in
lh e asse m b ly , a m o n g o t h e r factors. Prod ucing a • g o o d ” u ltra sou n d i m a g e
is nol as s im p le as s n a p p in g a pictu re; n e it h e r is r e a d in g one.
E m p l o } i n g a Hohriau •*,p is le m o l o g y m a k es the lim ita tio n s o f a
co n ce p lio n o f the p ie z o e l e c t r i c Iran s d u ce r as a c o m p on e n t of an id e a li z e d
o b s e r v in g i nstru m ent e v id e n l: 1he tra n s d u c e r does not a l l o w us to p e e r
in n o cen tly a I th e fetus, n o r dot s i t sim p ly o f fe r constraints o n w h a t w e
ca n see; rather, it helps p rod u c e a n d is “ part o f ” th e body it im a g e s . T h a t
is, the m arks o n 1lie c o m p u t e r screen (tile s o n o g r a m im a g e s ) r e f e r lo a
p h e n o m e n o n that i.., co n s tit u ted 111 the in tra-action o f the apparatus and
l h e o b ject (c o m m o n ly r e fe r r e d Lo as the “ fetus” ). T h e o b je c t iv e r e f e r e n t
fo r the p r o p e r tie s I hat a re o b s e r v e d is tilt' p h e n o m e n o n , n o t the o b je c t
o f this k n o w le d g e practice. (It c o u ld p r o v e quite useful to co n te s t and
in t e r r o g a t e the c o m m o n u s a g e o f the t e r m “ fe tu s ” lo r e f e r to the o b je c t
being im a g e d sin ce this is not the o b je c tiv e r e fe r e n t . W h ic h r e fe r e n t is
a s s ig n e d pa rticu la r attributes m a ile r s for politic a l and s c ie n tific reasons,
fo r e p is t e m o l o g v as w e ll as o n to lo g y . M ista kin g the o b je c t o f o b s e r v a t io n
fo r the o b je c t iv e r e f e r e n t can be used to c e rta in p o litk al a d va n ta g e s
w h ic h may then h a v e c o n s e q u e n c e s fo r how sc ie n tific p ra ctices, a m o n g
others, are r e ile r a le d . W h a l if I he term “ fe tu s” is r e s ig n ifie d to r e f e r to the
p h e n o m e n o n in qu estion ?)
l l o w e v e r , to u nderstand the c o m p le x nature o f the p h e n o m ­
en o n in q uestion ii is n e ces sa ry t o u nderstand the nature o f apparatu ses
and the p r o c e s s e s by w hich t h e} a re p ro d u c e d . It w o u ld be w r o n g , f o r
e x a m p le , to eq u a te the apparatus w ilh the tra n s d u cer and to c o n c e iv e
o f the tra ilsd u c er as so m e p r e fo r m e d o b j e c t that sits atop a s h e l f and
is a v a ila b le to wh o m e v e r w h e n e v e r it is n e e d e d . A pparatu ses arc not
p r e e x is t in g or f i x e d entities; t h e y a r e t h e m s e lv e s constituted th rou g h
102 Getting Real

p a r tic u la r p r a c tic e s that are p e r p e t u a lly o p e n to r e a r r a n g e m e n t s , r e a r t i c ­

u lation s, and oth e r r e w o r k i n g s . T h i s is pa rt o f t h e cr e a tiv ity and difficu lty
o f d oing sc ie n c e : gettin g t h e in s tru m e n ta tio n to w o r k in a p a r tic u la r w a y
f o r a p a r tic u la r p u r p o s e ( w h ic h is a lw a y s open to the possibility o f b e in g
c h a n g e d d u r in g the e x p e r i m e n t as d if fe r e n t in sigh ts a re g a i n e d ) . 11 F u r ­
t h e r m o r e , any pa rticu la r apparatus is a lw a y s in the p r o c e s s o f in t r a - a c t in g
w i t h o t h e r a pparatu ses, a n d the e n fo ld in g o f p h e n o m e n a ( w h i c h m a y
be tra d e d a cross space, t im e , and su bcu ltu res only to fin d th e m s e lv e s
d iffe r e n t ly m a t e r i a l i z i n g ) into s u b s e q u e n t it e r a t io n s o f p a r t ic u la r situated
p r a c t ic e s constitute im p o r t a n t shifts in the p a r tic u la r apparatu s in
q u estion and t h e r e f o r e in the n a tu re o f the in tra-a ction s that res u lt in
t h e p r o d u c tio n o f n e w p h e n o m e n a , and so o n . u W h ic h shifts actually
o c cu r m a t t e r fo r e p is t e m o l o g ic a l as w e l l as o n t o lo g ic a l reasons. W e are
r e s p o n s ib le f o r the w o r l d w ith in w h ic h w e liv e n ot because it is an
arb itra ry co n stru c tion o f our c h o o s in g , but b e ca u s e it is s e d im e n te d out o f
p a r tic u la r p r a c t ic e s that w e have a r o le in sh a p in g (s e e “ On A g e n c y and
C au sa lity ” b e l o w ) . ” T h e m a t e r ia liz a tio n o f an apparatus is an op en (b u t
n o n - a r b it r a r y ) te m p o r a l p rocess: apparatu ses do n o t sim p ly c h a n g e in
t i m e , t h e y m a t e r ia liz e th ro u g h tim e. A p p a ra tu ses a r e them selves m a te ria l-
d is cu rs ive p h e n o m e n a , m a t e r ia liz in g in in tra -a c tio n w ith o th e r m a te ria l-
d is cu rs ive a p p a ra tu s e s .1*
F o r e x a m p l e , p i e z o e l e c t r i c tra n sdu cers m a t e r ia liz e (a n d are
it e r a t iv e ly r e m a t e r i a l i z e d ) in in tra -a ction w i t h a m u ltitu d e o f p ra ctice s,
in c lu d in g th o s e th a t in v o lv e : m e d ic a l needs; d e s ig n constraints (in c l u d ­
i n g le g a l , e c o n o m ic , b io m e d ic a l, physics a n d e n g i n e e r i n g o n e s ); m a r k e t
factors; p o litic a l issues; o t h e r R&u p r o je c t s u sin g s i m i l a r m a t e r ia ls ; the
e d u c a t io n a l b a c k g r o u n d o f the e n g in e e r s and scientists d e s ig n in g the
crystals and the w o r k p la c e e n v ir o n m e n t o f the e n g in e e r in g firm or lab;
p a r tic u la r h o s p ita l o r c lin ic e n v ir o n m e n ts w h e r e t h e t e c h n o lo g y is used;
r e c e p t iv it y o f the m e d ic a l c o m m u n it y a n d the patient c o m m u n it y to the
t e c h n o lo g y ; le g a l, e c o n o m i c , cu ltural, r e lig io u s , p o litic a l, and spatial c o n ­
straints on its uses; p o s it io n in g o f patients d u r in g e x a m in a tio n ; a n d the
nature o f tra in in g o f te c h n ic ia n s and p h ysicia n s w h o use the t e c h n o l o g y . 15
H e n c e , the p r o d u c tio n and r e p r o d u c t io n o f the t e c h n o l o g y in v o lv e s
p a r tic u la r d is c ip lin a r y p ra ctice s that F o u ca u lt s p e c ific a lly m e n t io n s such
as those i n v o l v i n g le g a l, ed u c a tion a l, hospital, m e d ic a l , arc h itectu ra l,
m ilita r y , ind u stria l, and state apparatuses. T h e s u r v e illa n c e o f te c h n i­
cians, physicians, e n g in e e r s , and scientists in th e ir fo rm a tio n as pa rticu la r
kinds o f su bjects is im p lic a t e d in the s u r v e illa n c e o f the fetu s and vic e
d i f f e r e n c e . 1! 103

ve rsa . In ob s te tric u ltra so n o g ra p h y , the p i e z o e l e c t r i c tra n s d u cer is the

in t e r fa c e b e t w e e n the o b je c t ific a t io n o f t h e fetu s and s u b je c tiv a tio n o f the
techn icia n /p h y sicia n / e n g in ee r/s oien tis t."’
O bstetric ultrasonography is not a sin gu la r practice, but a r a n g e
o f d iffe re n t lo c a l p ra c tic e s in v o lv in g a m y r ia d o f m a t e r ia l co n fig u ra tion s
and discu rsive fo rm ations. For Foucault, apparatuses o f ob serv ation are
m a te r ia l a r r a n g e m e n t s that instantiate p a r tic u la r discou rses, w h e r e
“ d is co u rse s” art" not m e r e l y “ grou p s o f s ig n s ” but “ p ra ctices t h a t sy s­
tem a tica lly f i r m the ob je c ts o f w h k h they sp ea k ” {A rc h e o lo g y 49). As w e
h a ve se en , B oh r’ s in sistence on t he ind issocia bility o f m a te r ia lity and
in t e llig ib ilit y is c e n tra l t o his e p is i e m o lo g ic a l a n alvsis.17U sin g F o u ca u lt’ s
theoretically sophisi icat ed notion o f discursivily to fu rth er articulate B o h r’ s
f r a m e w o r k s e e m s pa rticu la rly apt.
O n the other hand, l o u c a u l t ’ s notion o f m a t e r ia lity is not
sufficiently d e v e l o p e d lo carry th rou g h this e la b o ra tio n . W h i l e F oucault
a n a ly z e s the mater ia liza tio n o f I n m a n b o d ie s , h e s e e m s t o take n o n h u ­
m an bo d ies as naturally g iv e n o b je c t s .'8 T h a t is, F ou cault does n o t treat
lh e m ateriality o f hu m an bodies o n an eq u a l par w ith the m a te r ia lity o f
n o n h u m a n bo d ies p w r d o es l w co n c e rn h i m s e l f 'v\<ilh bo u n d a ry d r a w in g
p ra ctice s th rou gh w h ic h the d iv is io n b e tw e e n “ h u m a n ” and “ n o n h u m a n ”
is c o n s t it u t e d ). T h e m e c h a n is m o f m a te r ia liz a tio n o f fe r e d by F ou ca u lt
o p e r a te s th ro u g h the “ soul,'' w h ic h he then rea d s as a “ certain t e c h n o lo g y
o f pow e r o v e r I he b o d y ” (l)i.s d p ltn e 20). In the n e x t section , I w i ll o f fe r
a m o r e g e n e r a l account o f m a t e r ia lity and m a t e r ia liz a t io n , r o u n d in g
out the e x te n sio n o f B ohr’ s analysis from the p h y s ic a l-c o n c e p tu a l to the
m a te r i al-discursiv c.

O n M a te r ia lit y a n d O n to lo g y

W h i l e talk about the “ r e a l” on the p r e c ip ic e o f the tw en ty-first

century m a y be t h e so u rce o f such d is c o m fo r t that it a lw a y s n e e d s to be
t o n e d - d o w n , so ften e d by the r e q u is ite quota tion m a r k s , I b e lie v e that
“ w p " cannot a ffo r d to not talk about ‘‘it.” P o s itiv is m ’ s death w a rra n t has
m a n y sig n a to r ie s , but its a n ti-m c ta p h y s ics leg a cy liv e s o n e v e n in the
heart o f its detractors. H o w e v e i i t r o n g o n e ’ s d is lik e o f m etap h ysics, it
cannot b e banished. and so it is i g n o r e d at o n e ’ s p e r il. H o w r e a lity is
u nderstood matters. T h e r e art" risks en ta ile d in putting fo r w a r d an o n t o l­
ogy: m a k in g m e t a p h y s ic a l a ssu m ption s e x p li c it e x p o s e s the e x clu sio n s
upon w hich any g h en c o n c e p tio n o f r e a lity is based. Yet, the p o litic al
104 Getting Real

p o te n tia l o f d e c o n s tru c tiv e analysis lies n ot in the s im p le r e c o g n it io n o f

th e in e v it a b ilit y o f e x c lu s io n s , b u t in in s istin g u p o n a cco u n ta b ility f o r the
p a r tic u la r e x c lu s io n s that are e n a c te d and in taking up the r e s p o n s ib ility
to p e r p e t u a lly co n te st and r e w o r k the b o u n d a rie s . In this section, I p r o ­
p o s e an u n d e rs ta n d in g o f r e a l i t y t h a t t a k e s a c c o u n t o f b o t h th e ex c lu s io n s
u p on w h i c h it d epen ds a n d its o p e n n e s s to future r e w o r k in g s . I call this
o n t o lo g y a g e n tia l re a lity .
B o h r ’ s attitude t o w a r d s the r e la tio n s h ip b e t w e e n la n g u a g e and
r e a lity is e x e m p l i f ie d by the f o l l o w i n g r e m a r k :

T r a d itio n a l p h ilo s o p h y h a s a c c u s to m e d us t o r e g a r d la n g u a g e
as s o m e th in g second a ry, a n d re a lity as s o m e th in g p rim a ry .
B o h r c o n s id e re d this a ttitu d e to w a r d the r e la tio n betw een
la n g u a g e a n d re a lity in a p p r o p r ia te . W hen one s a id to h im th a t
it c a n n o t be la n g u a g e w h ich is fu n d a m e n ta l, but th a t it m ust be
re a lity w h ich , so to speak, lie s beneath la n g u a g e , a n d o f w h ich
la n g u a g e is a p ic tu re , he w o u ld r e p ly "We a re suspended in
la n g u a g e in such a w a y th a t w e c a n n o t say w h a t is u p a n d w h a t
is d o w n . T h e w o r d ‘r e a lity ' is a ls o a w o rd , a w o r d w h ic h we
m ust le a rn to use c o r r e c tly .” (P ete rs e n 3 0 2 )IV

U n fortu n a tely , B o h r is n o t e x p lic it a bou t h o w h e thinks w e sh ould use

the w o r d “ r e a lity .” I have a r g u e d e l s e w h e r e that a consistent B ohrian
o n t o lo g y takes p h e n o m e n a to be co nstitu tive o f r e a l i t y (B a r a d “ M e e t i n g ” ) .
R eality is not com posed o f t h in g s -in -t h e m s e lv e s or th in g s-b eh in d -
p h e n o m e n a , bu t t h in g s -in -p h e n o m e n a . B ec a u se p h e n o m e n a constitute a
n o n -d u a lis tic w h o l e , it m a k e s no sen se to talk a bou t in d e p e n d e n t ly
e x is t in g th in g s as s o m e h o w b e h in d or as the ca u s e s o f p h e n o m e n a .
T h e o n t o lo g y I p rop ose does n o t p o s it s o m e f i x e d n o t io n
o f b e in g that is p r i o r to sig n ific a tio n (as the classical r ea list a s s u m e s ),
but n e it h e r is b e in g c o m p le t e ly in a cc ess ib le to la n g u a g e ( as in Kantian
t r a n s c e n d e n ta lis m ), n or co m p le t e ly o f l a n g u a g e ( as in lingu istic m o n i s m ) .
T h a t r e a lity w i t h in w h i c h w e in t r a - a c t - w h a t I t e r m a g e n tia l r e a lit y -
is m a d e up o f m a t e r ia l-d is c u r s iv e p h e n o m e n a . A g e n tia l r e a lity is n o t a
f i x e d o n t o lo g y that is in d e p e n d e n t o f h u m a n p ra ctice s, but is co n tin u a lly
re c o n s t it u t e d th rou g h o u r m a t e r ia l-d is c u r s iv e intra-actions.
Sh iftin g ou r u n dersta n d in g o f t h e o n t o lo g ic a lly r e a l f r o m that
“ w h ic h stands ou tside the s p h e r e o f cu ltu ra l in flu e n c e and h is toric a l
c h a n g e ” ( Fuss 3) to a g e n tia l r e a lity a llo w s a n e w fo rm u la t io n o f r e a lis m
( and truth) that is n o t p r e m i s e d on t h e r e p r e s e n ta t io n a l n a tu re o f k n o w l -
d i f f e r e n c e s 105

e d g e . I f o u r d e s c rip tiv e c h a r a c t e r iz a t io n s d o n o t r e f e r to p r o p e r t ie s o f
abstract o b je c ls or o b s e r v a t io n - in d e p e n d e n t b e in g s , but ra th e r th rou gh
th eir m a t e r ia l instantiation in p a r tic u la r p ra ctice s co n trib u te to the
p ro d u c tio n o f a g e n tia l re a lity , lh e n w h a t is b e in g d e s c r ib e d by o u r
t h e o r ie s is iiot nature itself, but o u r p a rtic ip a tio n w ith in na tu re. T h a t is,
rea lism is r e fo r m u la te d in te r m s o f the g o a l o f p r o v id in g accu rate d e s c r ip ­
tions nl' a g e n lia l r e a lit )'- lh a l r e a h l ) w ith in w h ic h w e intra-act a n d have
ou r b e in g - r a t h e r than som e im a g in e d and id e a liz e d h u m a n - in d e p e n d e n t
rea lity . I use the label a g e n tia l re a lis m f o r both the n e w fo r m o f r e a lis m
and lhe la r g e r e p is t e m o lo g ic a l and on to lo g ic a l fr a m e w o r k that I p ro p o se .20
\ c c o r d i 1 1 g to a g e n tia l r e a lis m , r e a lity is s e d im e n te d out o f the
p ro c es s o f m a k i n g the ” o ild i ntell ig ib lc through c e rta in p r a c t ic e s and not
others. Th erefor**, w e are not o n l j re s p o n s ib le f o r t he k n o w l e d g e that w e
seek , hut, in part, fo r w hat exists. P h e n o m e n a are p r o d u c e d th rou gh
c o m p le x intra-actions ol'm u ltiple m ateria l-discu rsive apparatuses o fb o d ily
p ro d u c tio n .^ M aterial-discursive* apparatu ses a r e t h e m s e lv e s p h e n o m ­
ena m a d e up o f sp ec ific in t r a -a d ions o f hu m an s and n on h u m a n s , w h e r e
the d if fe r e n t ia l constitu tion o f “ h u m a n ” ( o r “ n o n h u m a n ” ) i t s e l f d e s ig ­
nates a p a rtic u la r p h e n o m e n o n , and what g e ts d e fin e d as a “ su b je c t”
( o r “ o b j e c T ) and w hat gets d e fin e d as an “ a pparatu s” is in tr a -a c tiv e ly
constituted w ith in s p e c ific practices.
II' t e c h n o s c ie n lific p ra c tic e s play a r o le in p r o d u c in g the v e ry
p h e n o m e n a they set out to d e s c rib e , rnighl not this process be u n d e rs to o d
in a p e r fo r m a t iv e sense? D o e s lhe f r a m e w o r k o f a g e n lia l r e a lis m p r o v id e
a w ay fo r us to u nderstand the m a t e r ia liz a tio n o f bodies in t e r m s o f the
in t r a - a r tiv e p ro d u c tio n o f p h e n o m e n a ? And if so. d o e s n ’ t this im p ly I hat
m a t e r ia l constraint/'! and e x c lu s io n s and the m a t e r ia l d im e n s io n o f
r e g u la t o r y p r a c lic e s a re im p o rta n t to the p r o c e s s o f m a t e r ia liz a tio n ,
that |)erform ativity m ust be undt- rstood as not sim ply an issue o f h o w
d is co u rse c o m e s to m atter but also o f h ow m a tte r c o m e s lo m atter?
Several c h a lle n g e s arise in ex p lo rin g the p o s s ib ility of
u n d e rs ta n d in g t e c h n o s c ie n lif ic pra ctices in term s o f B u t le r ’s t h e o r y o f
p e r fo r m a t iv it y . Perhap s the most i m rnediate q u e stio n is w h e t h e r B u tle r ’s
n o lio n o f m a t e r ia liz a tio n is robust en ough to ex te n d h e r th e o r y t o c o n s id ­
era tio n s beyond the r e a lm o f tlie h u m an b o d y . Q u estion s h a v e a lre a d y
b e en raised by fe m in is ts as t o w h e t h e r B u tle r ’s n otion o f m a te r ia liz a tio n
is robust e n o u g h lo r its own purposes: D o e s it a d e q u a t e ly ac c o u n t fo r the
p r o c e s s e s bv w h ich human bodtes m a t e r ia liz e a s s e x e d ? W h a t insights
m ight be g a in e d from s c ie n c e and s c ie n c e studies that c o u ld be p r o d u c ­
106 Getting Real

t iv e ly a p p r o p r ia t e d in the fu r th e r a rticu la tion o f fe m in is t th eories? C o u ld

a p h y s icis t’s u n d e rs ta n d in g o f m a t t e r a n d s c ie n tific p ra ctice s u sefully
in t e r v e n e in fe m in is t r e c o n c e p t u a liz a t io n s o f m a t e r ia lity so that it
b e c o m e s p o ssib le to u n d e rs ta n d not o n ly h o w b o d ily c o n to u rs a re co n sti­
tuted th rou gh p s y c h ic p r o c e s s e s , but h o w e v e n the v e r y atom s that m ak e
up the b i o l o g i c a l b o d y co m e lo m atter, a n d m o r e g e n e r a ll y h o w m a t t e r
m a k es i t s e lffe lt ? Is it possib le that such a r e v is e d a cco u n t o f p e r f o r m a t iv it y
c o u ld le a d us lo a rea lis t u n d e rs ta n d in g o f the m a t e r ia liz a t io n o f b o d ies,
o n e t h a t ta k e s f u l l a c c o u n t o f m a te r ia lity and y e t does n o t r ein s ta ll it as a
site, or a su rfa ce , or a n a tu ra l u n c o n te s t e d g r o u n d or b e d r o c k f o r fe m in is t
theory?
R e a d in g a g e n t ia l r e a lis m a n d B u tle r ’s th e o r y o f p e r fo r m a t iv it y
t h r o u g h on e a n o th e r is not about s o m e p r o c la im e d s y m m e t r y b e t w e e n
s u b je ct a n d o b ject, o r so c ia l a n d sc ie n tific p ra ctice s, but r a t h e r about
the p r o d u c tio n o f m u tu a lly in f o r m a t iv e in sigh ts that m i g h t be u s e fu l in
p r o d u c in g an e n r i c h e d u n d e rs ta n d in g o f m a te r ia lity , a g e n c y , and the
nature o f t e c h n o s c ie n t ific and oth er social p roc es ses .22 U ltim a t e ly , 1
a r g u e that the a g e n tia l r e a lis t r e c o n c e p t u a liz a t io n s o f a g e n c y , causality,
and m a teria lity that I o f f e r su g g est a r e w o r k i n g o f B u t le r ’s n o tio n o f
p e r fo r m a t iv it y f r o m it e r a t iv e c ita tion ality l o ite r a tiv e in tra-a ctivity. I
b e g in w ith a b r i e f r e v i e w o f s o m e k e y cla im s o f a ge n tial r e a lis m .
In the p r e v io u s section, I a rg u ed that a p p a r a tu s e s a r e t e m p o ­
rally ( r e )p r o d u c e d in intra-action w ith oth er apparatuses-that apparatuses
a r e t h e m s e lv e s m a t e r ia l-d is c u r s iv e p h e n o m e n a . Sin ce m a t e r ia l-d is c u r ­
siv e a p pa ratu ses in t r a - a c t iv e ly p r o d u c e m a t e r ia l-d is c u rs iv e p h e n o m e n a ,
t h e t e m p o r a lily o f appa ratu ses is i m p lic a t e d (w it h ) i n a n e v e r c h a n g in g
a g e n tia l rea lity . P h e n o m e n a are the e f fe c ts o f p o w e r - k n o w l e d g e system s,
o f b o u n d a ry d ra w in g p r o je c t s that m a k e so m e identities/attributes
in t e llig ib le , to the e x c lu s io n o f others. T h e id e n titie s o r attributes that
a re m e a s u r e d as p a rt o f k n o w l e d g e p r o je c t s do n ot r e p r e s e n t in h e r e n t
p r o p e r t ie s o f su bjects o r ob jects. “ S u bjects” and “ o b je c t s ” d o n ot p r e e x is t
as such, but are constitu ted th rou g h and w ith in p a r tic u la r practices.
T h e o b je c t iv e r e f e r e n t s l o r id e n titie s o r attribu tes a re the p h e n o m e n a
constitu ted th rou g h th e intra-acti on o f m u ltip le r e g u la t o r y apparatuses.
P h e n o m e n a a r e i n sepa rab le f r o m their appa ratu ses o f b o d ily p rod u c tio n .
H e n c e , a c c o r d in g to a g e n t ia l r e a lis m , m a t e r ia liz a tio n is u n d e rs to o d in
t e r m s o f th e d y n a m ic s o f intra-a ctivily.
B u tle r ’ s sta te m e n t that at stake in h e r r e f o r m u la t io n o f the
m a te r ia lity o f b o d i e s is “ the re c a s tin g o f t h e m a t t e r o f b o d i e s as t h e e f fe c t
d i f f e r e n c e . ? 107

o f a d y n a m ic of po\'\<er, such that lhe m atter of b o d ie s w i l l be in d isso cia b le

fro m the r e g u la to r y n o rm s that g o v e r n th e ir m a t e r ia liz a tio n and the
s ig n ific a lio ii of' lhose m a teria l e f fe c t s ” ( B od ies 2) m ig h t be read as a
sta lem en t I hat bodies a re m a te r ia l-d is c u rs iv e p h e n o m e n a that m a t e r ia l­
iz e in intra-action \\ith, and are in s ep a ra b le fr o m , pa rtic u la r apparatuses
o f bodily p rod u c tio n , that is, p a rtic u la r p ra ctice s through w h ic h they
be com e intelligible. How ever, although hoth Butler’s iheory o fp erform a livity
and the fr a m e w o r k o f a g e n lia l re a lis m r e l h e o r i z e m a t e r ia lily as a process
o f m a le r ia li/ a lio n , liu tier's a cco u n l i)f m a teria lity is lim ite d in sig n ifica n t
ways, rais in g a se ries o f pressing q uestions. G ran ting, fo r the m om en t,
an a cco u n l o f I he nature ol‘ the h u m a n b o d y such that, th rou g h the
m e c h a n is m o f psychic id e n tifica tio n , ii r e m a in s p e r p e tu a lly v u ln e r a b le
to lhe w o r k in g s o f social n orm s, h o w can w e a cco u n l f o r I he ability o f
th ese n o rm s to m a t e r ia liz e the h u m an body? T h a t is, w h a t is it about
the m a le r ia l n a lu r r o f r e g u la t o r ) p ra ctices, and o f h u m an bodies, that
e n a b le s d iscou rse lo w o r k its p rod u c tiv e m ateria l e f f e c ls on bodies? I f
r e g u la lo r y pra ctices are u nderstood lo have a m a te r ia l d im e n s io n , h o w is
that m a teria lity lheorizecl? Is lhe m a teria lity o f re g u la to r y apparatuses
d iffe r e n t s o m e h o w lrom t lw m ateriality o f the h u m an body? W h a t is
the relationship b e l w e e n m ateria lity and dis cou rse such t h a t reg u latory
appara luses are s u sc ep tib le to b e in g r e w o r k e d th rou gh res ign ifica tio n s
as w e ll as lh r o u g h m a te r ia l r e a r r a n g e m e n ts ? Can the fr a m e w o r k o f
a g e n tia l rea lism h elp to r e s o lv e som e o f these issues?21
Perhaps lhe most cru ri.il lim ita lio n o f B u tler’s th eo ry o f m a t e ­
riality is that il is lin iiled to an a ccou nl o f the m a le r ia liz a t io n o f hum an
b o d ies, or m o r e a ccu rately , to the con stru ction o f the su rfa ce o f the
h u m an b o d y (w h ic h most ce rta in ly is not all th ere is to hu m an b o d ie s ).
The im p o r t a n c e o f this c o n trib u tion should nol be u n d e re s tim a te d .
U n d e rs ta n d in g the psychic d im e n s io n o f r e g u la t o r y pra ctices is a cru cial
c o m p o n e n t ol‘ u n d e rs ta n d in g hovv bodies c o m e to m a tter and h o w lhe
p ro c e s s o f th eir m a le r ia liz a t io n e n a b le s c r it ic a l in terve n tio n s into that
v e ry p rocess w h i c h r e w o r k s the te r m s o f e x c lu s io n and prod u c tio n .
In contrast to B u tle r ’s m o r e s in g u la r focu s on the hu m an body,
th e f r a m e w o r k o f a g e n tia l re a lis m does n ot I imit its re a s s e s s m e n t o f the
m a tte r o f bo d ies Lo the realm ol‘ the human. In fact, it calls f o r a critica l
e x a m in a tio n o f the practices by w h ich the d iffe r e n t ia l b o u n d a rie s o f the
h u m an and the non h u m a n are <Ira wn, for th es e v e r y sam e pra ctices
a re a lw a y s already im p lic a t e d in p a rtic u la r m a t e r ia liz a tio n s .24 I f the
rC 'Iheorelizalion ol'm atter as a p rocess o f m a t e r ia l iz a t io n applies to bodies
108 Getting Real

in g e n e r a l (w h i c h in p ra ctice [s] are often co n stitu ted th ro u g h a set o f

m u t u a lly e x c l u s i v e c a t e g o r i e s as h u m a n b o d ies, n o n h u m a n a n im a te
b o d ies , and in a n im a te m a te r ia l b o d ie s [ob jects], sig n ifica n tly e x c lu d in g
c y b o r g b o d ie s ), then it b e c o m e s possible to p r o v id e a r ic h e r , m o r e
c o m p le t e , and m o r e c o m p l e x u n d e rs ta n d in g o f the n a tu r e o f r e g u la to r y
( p o w e r / k n o w l e d g e ) p r a c tic e s and th e ir p a r tic ip a to ry r o le in the p r o d u c ­
tion o f b o d ies . T o put it bluntly, i f not crudely, the m a t e r ia l d im e n s io n
o f r e g u la t o r y a pparatu ses, w h i c h is in d is s o c ia b le f r o m its d is cu rsive
d im e n s io n , is to be u n d e rs to o d in t e r m s o f t h e m a t e r ia lity o f p h e n o m e n a .
A p pa ratu ses h a v e a p h ysica l p r e s e n c e o r an o n t o lo g ic a l t h ere-n ess as
p h e n o m e n a in the p r o c e s s o f b e c o m in g ; t h e r e is n o fi x e d m eta p h y sic a l
outside. T h is fr a m e w o r k p r o v id e s a w a y to u n d e rs ta n d b oth the t e m p o r a l ­
ity o f r e g u la t o r y p ra c tic e s a n d th eir e f fe c t iv e n e s s (a n d lack t h e r e o f )
in in t r a -a c t iv e ly p r o d u c in g p a r tic u la r bodies, that also h a v e a p h ysica l
p r e s e n c e . In e s se n ce , a g e n t ia l re a lis m t h e o r iz e s the m a t e r ia l d im e n s io n
o f r e g u la t o r y apparatu ses in t e r m s o f the m a t e r ia lity o f p h e n o m e n a ; it
t h e r e b y p r o v i d e s a n a cco u n t o f r e g u la t o r y p r a c tic e s and th e ir c a u s a l (but
n o n d e t e r m in is t ic ) m a t e r ia li z in g effe c ts in the in tra -a ctive p r o d u c tio n o f
m a t e r ia l-d is c u rs iv e bodies. H e n c e , m a te ria liza tio n is n o t only a m a t t e r o f
h o w d i s c o u r s e c o m e s t o m a tte r b u t h o w m a t t e r c o m e s l o m atter. O r t o put
it m o r e p r e c is e ly , m a te r ia liz a tio n is a n ite ra tiv e ly in tr a -a c tiv e p rocess
w hereby m a te ria l-d is c u rs iv e bodies a re sedim ented o u t o f the in tr a -a c tio n
o f m u ltip le m a te ria l-d is c u rs iv e a p p a ra tu s e s th r o u g h w h ich these p h e n o m ­
ena (b o d ie s ) b ecom e in te llig ib le .
S p e e c h acts can be u n d e rs to o d as a s p e c ia l case o f this m o r e
g e n e r a l account. T h e r e is a d iffe r e n c e b e t w e e n the m a t e r ia l instantiation
o f l a n g u a g e in b o d ily gestu res, o r in s o u n d w a v e s p r o p a g a tin g th r o u g h the
air, o r in m e a s u r in g d e vic es: m a t t e r m atters a n d so the n a tu re o f the
s p e c ific e m b o d im e n t m atters. But w h a t is tr u e in any case, as a r e s u lt o f
the in d e t e r m in a n t nature o f in tra-a ction s , is that, the e ffic a c io u s n e s s o f
p a r tic u la r actions, w h e t h e r s p e e c h acts o r acts o f a n o th e r kind, is not
g u a r a n te e d . Sa y in g s o m e th in g is so does n ot m a k e it so.25 M a k in g and
u sin g pa rtic u la r in stru m en ts in a la b d o es not p r o d u c e w h a t e v e r results
a re d e s ir e d . A g e n t ia l r e a li s m c ir c u m v e n t s the p r o b le m o f d iffe re n t
m a t e r ia litie s : t h ere is n o n e e d t o p ostulate d i f fe r e n t m a t e r ia litie s (i.e.,
m a t e r ia litie s that a r e in h e r e n t ly o f d if fe r e n t kin ds), and so th ere is
no m y s te r y about h o w th e m a te r ia lity o f la n g u a g e c o u ld possib ly
a f f e c t (t h r o u g h w h a t e v e r m e c h a n is m and to any d e g r e e w h a t s o e v e r ) the
m a te r ia lity o f the body. A c c o r d in g to a g e n t ia l r e a lis m , the causal lin k a g e
d i f f c r e n r c s 109

b e tw e e n the m ateria lity o f la n g u a g e and the rn ateriality o f the bo dy is

t h e o r iz e d in term s o f the intra-a ction o f s p e c ific m a t e r ia l-d is c u r s iv e
apparatuses.
The power ol‘ r e f ig u r in g m ateri alily as m a te r ia liz a tio n is
dil uted if w e I imi I its role to he m e r e l y an e f f e c l o f t h e r e it e r a tiv e p o w e r o f
discou rses or as a m e r e su p p orl lo r la n g u a g e . T h e n e w o n to lo g y o f fe r e d
h e re a ls o m a k e s it possib le to take accou nt o f lh e m a teria l d im e n s io n s o f
constraints and e x d usions w ithou t p r e s u m in g m atter lo he a fix ed g r o u n d
e x is li n g ou tside o f Lime, history, o r culture. For e x a m p le , t h e o r iz in g
m a teria lity in a way Lhal dot's not p r e s u m e a fix ed a p r i o r i o n to lo g ic a l
d if fe r e n c e b e tw e e n a n im a te and !n a n im a te m a ile r p r o v id e s a f r a m e w o r k
for u n d e rs la n d in g the c o -c o n s lilu t io n and in lr a -a c lio n o f h u m a n s within
their hu m an and n on hu m an e n v i m n m e n l , and the m a t e r ia liz a tio n o f the
v o lu m e o f the body in rela tio n lo its su rfa ce .28 R eferen ce lo t h e m a te r ia l
co n s tra in ts a n d e xclu sion s a n d the m a te r ia l d im en sion s o f p o w e r is
po s sib le w ith in t h e ,fra m e w o rk o f a g e n tia l re a lis m because m a te r ia lity "
refers to a g e n lia l rea lily , w h ich if e x p H cilly not n a tu r e -o u ts id e -o fc u ltu r e .
Any attem pt io rein s la le m ateria lity as natural w o u ld be ex p o s e d as b e in g
quite b iza rre, since this w ould he to assign m ateria lity lo a p la c e outside
o f the real (i.e., it w ou ld be to lose track o f the objecti ve r e f e r e n t ) .
Vgential rea lism o ffe r s an e x p a n d e d u n d e rs ta n d in g o f the
matter o f bodies, show in g how 1 1 is p o ssib le to in c o r p o r a te m ateria l c o n ­
straints and ex clu sion s in a way that s im u lta n e ou s ly r e c o g n iz e s m a t t e r as
a p ro c es s o f m a t e r ia liz a tio n . T a k in g lull accou.nl o f the nature o f c o n ­
straints and e x clu sio n s is im portant for u n d e rs ta n d in g the m a te r ia liza tio n
of b o d ie s as w e l l as the n a lu re o f a b jec tio n . Since the m a te r ia l and lh e
d is cu rsive are in le rt w in c d in appa ratu ses o f b o d ily prod u ctio n , m ateria l
and dis cu rsive co n sira in ls o p e r a te t h ro u g h o n e a n o th er (th e sa m e is true
for e x d usions ). and h e n ee a fu II c r n siclera lion ol‘ the lim ils Io m a ie r ia liz a -
t ion needs to in c lu d e an analysis of holh d im e n s io n s in th e ir rela tio n sh ip
io o n e a n oth er, that is, as m a te r ia l-d is c u rs iv e C'onslraints (e x c lu s io n s ).
For e x a m p le , according. lo a ge n tia l realism , in spite ol‘ its
o rig in s in sonar t e c h n o lo g y d e v e lo p e d du ring \l\wi, u llr a s o n o g r a p h y is not
an id e a liz e d s u r v e illa n c e t e c h n o lo g y , a m e r e ly physical in s lru m en t that
p ro v id e s a v i e w ol the IVlus as il e v is ls in d e p e n d e n tly o f o b serv a tio n a l
apparatuses. Rather, ullrasound t e c h n o lo g y d e sig n a te s sp e c ific m a te r ia l-
dis cu rsive prailiceo;, lim itin g what is seen and p ro d u c ed in a c c o rd a n c e
w ith iis o w n iterative ly in tra -a ctive l e e h n o s c ie n lific , m e d ic a l, e c o n o m ic ,
p o litic a l, b io lo g ic a l, and cultural, etc. d e v e l o p m e n l as an e v e r c h a n g in g
110 Getting Real

p h e n o m e n o n , and by its r e la t e d and p a r tic u la r u sa ge s as a m a te r ia l-

d is c u r s iv e apparatu s o f b o d ily p r o d u c tio n in in tr a -a c tio n w i t h o t h e r
h is to r ic a lly a n d cu ltu ra lly s p e c ific apparatuses. So, f o r e x a m p le , t e c h n o ­
l o g i c a l i m p r o v e m e n t s in fe ta l i m a g in g , p a r tic u la r ly in c r e a s e d res o lu tio n ,
m a g n ific a tio n , a n d r e a l- U m e i m a g e s e n c o u r a g e the p a tien t and the
p r a c t itio n e r to fo cu s e x c lu s iv e ly on the fetus w h o s e m o v i n g im a g e fills lhe
e n t ir e s c r e e n . Such m a t e r ia l r e a r r a n g e m e n t s both fa c ilita te a n d are
in p a r t c o n d it io n e d by p o litic a l dis cou rse s insisting on the a u ton om y
a n d s u b je ctivity o f the fetus.27 T h i s has b e e n a c c o m p a n ie d by the
o b je c tific a tio n o f t h e p r e g n a n t w o m a n a n d the ex clu sio n o f h e r s u b je c t iv ­
ity. M a t e r ia l-d is c u r s iv e constraints and e x c lu s io n s a r e i n s e p a r a b l e - a fa ct
that w e c a n n o t a f f o r d to ig n o r e .

O n A g e n c y a n d C a u s a lity

As soon as I got hooked up to the
monitor, all everyone did was stare
at it. The nurses didn't even look at
me any more when they came into
the room-they went straight to the
monitor. I got the weirdestfeeling
that it was having the baby, not me.
(qtd. inLayne J8, emphasis added)
Situated knowledges require that the
object o f knowledge be pictured as an
actor and agent, not a screen or a
ground or a resource, neverjinally as
slave to the master that closes off the
dialectic in his unique agency and
authorship o f “objective" knowledge.
The point is paradigmatically clear
in critical approaches to the social
and human sciences, where the
agency o f people studied itse(f
transforms the entire project of
producing social theory. Indeed,
coming to terms with the agency-
qfthe “objects” studied is the only
way to avoid gross error and false
knowledge o f many kinds in these
sciences. But the same point must
apply to the other knowledge protects
called sciences. . . . The world neither
speaks itse(f nor disappears in favour
o f a master decoder. The codes o f the
world are not still, waiting only to be
read. . . . Acknowledging the agency
o f the world in knowledge makes
room fo r some unsettling possibilities,
including a sense o f the world’s
independent sense o f humour. Such
a sense qfhumour is nol comfortable
for humanists and others comrmtted
to the world as a resource. ( Harau-ay,
Simians 198-99)
— nonhuman agency deflects
attentionfrom human accountability
to other entities, whether human,
nonhuman, cyborg, or what/
whomever. (Casper 85J)

F o u c a u lt ’s theory o f p o w e r is not d e te r m in is tic . T h e su bject is

not d e t e r m in e d by p o w e r r ela tio n s; ra th e r, su bject fo rm a tio n m a y i n v o l v e
co n flict, stru ggles, and lo c a l a c l o f resistance. H ow are such resistances
p ossib le? B u tler tak es up this q u e s tio n by e x a m in in g h ow causality fig u res
in F o u c a u lt’s m ic r o p h y s ic s o f p o w e r and she then o ffe r s h e r o w n account
d i f f f r e n c p j 111

o f a g e n c y based on h er th eory o f pe r fo r m a tiv ity . l b e g in this section w ith

a r e v i e w or Butler's analysis o f F ou cault's notion o f causality and h er
account o f a ge n cy . I thi*n address lhe question o f causality from the
p e r s p e c t iv e of a g r n lia l rea lism and e x a m in e Lhe im p lic a tio n s fo r an
e n la r g e d a cco u n t o f a ge n cy (in c lu d in g non h u m a n , c y b o r g ia n form s, and
m a te r ia l r e a r r a n g e m e n ts ).
If, a c c o r d in g to Koucaull. p o w e r is not sim p ly co n stra in in g but
also p rod u c tiv e, if it does not act as an e x le r n a l fo r c e on a subject but
r a llie r o p e r a te s th rou g h the v e r y r o n s lilu lio n o f lh e subject, then h o w is
to possible lo even liegin lo address lhe issue o f d e t e r m i n i s m ? A n d y e t this
issue is o f g r e a t sig n ific a n c e , fo r w hat is at stake in the notion o fc a u s a lit y
is both the q u estion of agency and lhe m e a n in g of c o n stru c tion .28
Butler understands m a te r ia liza tio n “ in relation Lo the p r o d u c ­
tive and . . . m a t e r ia liz in g e f fe c ls of' r e g u la to r y p o w e r in the Fou caultian
s e n s e ” ( B od ies 9 -1 0 ). In f a d , s h . takes the m a te r ia liz a tio n o f the body to
be c o e x t e n s iv e w ilh the b o d y ’s in v e s litu re with p o w e r relations. Butler
sees Ihis u n d e rs ta n d in g o f lhe ir a t e r ia liz a t io n or the body, th ro u g h the
productive' w o r k in g s o f p o w e r , as an o c ca sio n fo r r e t h in k in g causality.
H en ce, w h e n she w rites that “ ‘ Im la t e r ia lit y ’ d e s ig n a le s a certain e ffe c t o f
p o w e r ” (B o d ie s 14), sh e cautions lhal:

ft/his is n o t lo m a k e “m a te r ia lity ” in to the effect < f a “d is c o u rs e ”

w h ich is its cause; ra th e r, it is to d isplace lh e c a u s a l r e la tio n
th ro u g h a re w o r k in g o fth e n o tio n o f “e.ff'e.cl. ” . . . T h e p r o d u c tio n
o f m a te r ia l effeels is Ilte ,fo r m a tit'e o r c o n s titu tiv e w o rk in g s o f
p o w e r, a p r o d u c tio n lh a l c a n n o t be c o n s tru e d as a u n ila te r a l
m o v e m m l f r o m causc to effecl. ( B odies 25 t)

In a p e r fo r m a t iv e ntiilell'.t. the su bject cannot be p r e s u m e d

to be the site o f a ge n cy since the su bject does not h a ve “ s o m e stable
e x is t e n c e p rior to the cu llu ral field lhal it n e g o tia te s ” (B utler, G e n d e r
142). Katlier, it is 1he r e it e r a tiv e c h a r a c t e r o f p e r f o r m a l i v i l y that op en s up
the possib ilily o f a ge n cy : “ T h at ihis re ite r a tio n is necessary is a sign that
m a t e r ia liz a tio n is n e v e r quite c o m p le t e , I hat bodies n e v e r q u ite com p ly
w ilh the n orm s by w h ich their m a t e r ia liz a tio n is i m p e l l e d ” (B utler, Bodies
2 ). Bullt'r e x p la in s that the juncl lire o f co n tra dictory d is cu rsive dem and s
on the subjeel pre\ ents lhe s 11 bj< •ct fro m f o l l o w i n g th em in strict o b e d i ­
ence1. “ It is the s p a c e o f this a m b i' a le n c e w h ic h opens up th e p o s s ib ilily o f
a r e w o r k in g o f t l w very term s b\ w hich subjeC'tivalion p r o c e e d s - a n d fails
112 Getting Real

to p r o c e e d ” (B odies 124). H e n c e , a lth o u g h n o r m s are c o m p u ls o r y , this

does not m a k e t h e m e n tir e ly e ffic a c io u s , and the fa c t thal the n o r m is
n e v e r fin ally e m b o d ie d , but is a lw a y s p a rt o f a cita tio n a l c h a in , p r e s e n ts
an op portu nity f o r a s u b v ersiv e r e s ig n ific a tio n o f the n orm .
H o w are the issues o f cau sality and a g e n c y fo r m u la t e d in the
c o n t e x t o f a g e n t ia l r e a l is m ? B o h r in sists th a t his a n a ly s is shows thal
causality is n e it h e r a m a t t e r o f strict d e t e r m in is m n o r u n con stra in e d
fre ed o m . The e x c lu s io n s that are n e c e s s a r ily a sso cia te d w it h the
e n a c tm e n t o f any p a r tic u la r b o u n d a rie s b e t w e e n “ s u b je ct” a n d “ o b je c t ”
f o r e c lo s e the possib ility o f d e te r m in is m . In a sense then, these e x c lu s io n s
p r o v id e the co n d itio n s fo r the p o s s ib ilitie s o f o p e n in g up the future.
M a t e r ia l- d is c u r s iv e appa ratu ses o f f e r constraints o n w h a t is p r o d u c e d ,
b u t t h e y a ls o a lw a y s p r o d u c e p a r tic u la r ex clu sion s. T h e r e f o r e , intra-
a clion s a re co n stra in in g but not d e te r m in in g . T h e n o tio n o f in tra-a ction s
r e f o r m u la t e s lh e tra d itio n a l n o tio n o f ca u sa lily a n d o p e n s u p a space
fo r m a t e r ia l-d is c u r s iv e fo r m s o f agency. Hence, a c c o r d in g to a ge n tia l
r ealism , the possibility o f a g e n c y does not r e q u ir e a “ cla sh ” o f apparatuses
(i.e ., a set o f c o n tr a d ic to r y cultural d e m a n d s ); e v e n w h e n apparatu ses are
p r im a r ily r e in f o r c in g , a g e n c y is nol fo re c lo s e d .
A g e n c y is a m a tte r o f in tra-a ctin g; it is an e n a c tm en t, not
s o m e th in g lh a t s o m e o n e or s o m e th in g has. A g e n c y c a n n o t be d e sig n a te d
as an attribute o f “ s u b je cts” o r “ o b je c t s ” (as they do not p r e - e x is t as such).
A g e n c y is a m a t le r o f m a k i n g ite r a tiv e c h a n g e s l o p a r tic u la r p ra ctice s
t h rou g h the d y n a m ic s o f in tra-a ctivity and the m e c h a n i s m o f en fo ld in g .
A g e n c y is a bou t the p o s s ib ilitie s and accountabi lily e n ta ile d in r e f ig u r in g
m a teria l-d iscu rsive apparatuses o f bodily p rod u ction, in c lu d in g the b o u n d ­
ary a rticu la tion s and e x c lu s io n s lh a t a r e m a r k e d by those practices.\!q
W h a t abou t the po ssib ility o f n o n h u m a n fo r m s o f a g e n c y ? 50
F rom a h u m a n is t p e r s p e c t iv e the q u e stion o f n o n h u m a n a gen cy m a y
s e e m a b it q u e er, sin ce a gen cy is g e n e r a ll y associated w ilh issues o f
su b je ctivity and in ten tio n a lily . H o w e v e r , i f a g e n c y is u n d e rs to o d as an
e n a c t m e n l and n o l s o m e th in g s o m e o n e has, then it s e e m s n ot o n ly a p p r o ­
priate but im p o rta n t to co n sid er n on h u m a n and cyb orgian fo rm s o f a g e n c y
as w e l l as hum an on es. T h is is p e rh a p s m o s t e v i d e n l in co n s id e r a tio n o f
fie ld s such as s c ie n c e , w h e r e the “ su b je c t” m atter is often “ n o n h u m a n .”
F o r as su rely as social factors p la y a r o l e in s c ien tific k n o w l e d g e co n slru c-
tion (th e y a re nol lh c sole d e l e r m in a n t - t h in g s d o n ’ l just c o m e out any w ay
w e ’d like th em to b e ) th ere is a sense in w h ic h “ the w o r l d k ic k s b a c k .”
d i r f e r e n f f j 113

In a sp ecial issue of lhe jo u r n a l A m e ric a n B e h a v io ra l S cientist,

d e v o te d to the “ II umans and Others: T h e C o n c ep t o f ‘ A g e n c y ’ and Its
Attribution,” M o n ic a C a s p e r o ile r s a p o litic a lly astute c ritiq u e o f the
d e b a le s on n o n h u m a n a g e n c y w ith in scien c e s t u d ie s ." She argu es,
fo r e x a m p le , thal lhe\ h a ve Tailed to c o n s id e r h o w the v e r y notion o f
non hu m an a g e n t ) is p r e m is e d on “ ,1 d ic h o to m o u s o n t o lo g ic a l p o sition in g
in w h ich |nonhumanJ is opposed lo h u m a n ” (84 0). She points out that
these a p p ro a ch es lo n on hu m an a g e n c y e x c lu d e a cru cia l fa c t o r fro m
analysis sin ce “ the a ttr ib u tio n o f lrnm an and non h u m a n to h e t e r o g e n e o u s
en tit ie s ” is a lw a y s a lre a d y lhe c o n s e q u e n c e o f p a r tic u la r p o lilic a ] p r a c ­
tices. C a s p e r d e m o n s tr a te s Ihi- kinds o f po litical assu m ptions that can
lie hidden in accounts that beft,iri w ilh a p r e - fo r m e d h u m an / n on h u m an
d ic h o t o m y by using her researc h on e x p e r im e n t a l fetal su rg ery to e x a m ­
ine lhe co n stru c tion o f lhe “ h u m a n ” th rou g h pa rticu la r le c h n o s c ie n tific
pracl ices.
C a s p e r a r g u e s that "a m a jo r w a y in w h ich fe ta l p e r s o n h o o d is
a c c o m p lis h e d . . . is v i a co n slru ctio n s o f I he fetus as a p a tien t” :

T h ro u g h a r a n g e q/prarttVe.s w ith in /he d o m a in </ e x p e r im e n ­

tal /etal sufgt'l'y, tht jetus is c o n s tru cte d a.s a potentia/ person
w ith h u m a n q u a litie s If! w eeA (v /etal-trratm enl m eetings, f o r
e.r:ampfr. /etf/srs a rt' r o u tin e ly re fe r r e d lo as "the Aid, ” “the
b a b y ," a n d “h e " - a l l quite h u m a n (a n d g e n d e r e d ) a ltr ib utions.
'/’his process is aidfid by the use o f d ia g n o s tic u ltrasou nd
w h ich p r o v id e s “baby p ic tu re s rf/etuses still in th e ir m o t h e r s ’
w om bs " (Pelrhesfc.v 1W? 7; S ta b ile 1992). 7’hese im ages a r e used
in / e ta l tre a tm e n t mr’ f lin g v d u r in g case presentations a n d are
re fe rre d to in h u m a n is tic term s. ( i 4 3 )

She w a r n s that “ c o n s lr u c lio n s o f a c tiv e fetal a g e n c y may r e n d e r p re gn a n t

w o m e n in v is ib le as hum an actors and r e d u c e them lo le c h n o m a l e r n a l
e n v ir o n m e n t s fo r fetal p a lie n l^ ’’ (84 4). U ltim a te ly , C asper d r a w s the lin e
in a se e m in g ly ad lioc fashion: ‘‘ I want h islo rically ‘ n o n h u m a n ’ p e o p le and
a n im als to have a ge n cy (and r musl admit 1 w o r t ) less about m a c h in e s in
this r e g a rd ), but I do nol n e ces sa rily w ant fe lu ses lo h a ve a g e n c y ” (852).
She j uslifies this m o v e as fol lows: “ My refu sal to gran t a ge n cy l o fetuses,
w h ile sim u lta n e o u s ly r e c o g n iz in g .1 in p r e g n a n t w o m e n and in m y cats, is
about ta k in g sides. M y politico . . are about fig u r in g out l o w h o m and
what in the w o rld I am u eco u n liib le” (85:'.i).
114 Getting Real

I stron g ly a g r e e with C a s p e r that it w o u l d be a m is ta k e to

f o r e c l o s e the d r a w i n g o f bo u n d a ries b e t w e e n the “ h u m a n ” and the “ non­
h u m a n ” fr o m critical analysis. But I a m not so sanguine about the im p lic it
u n iv e rs a lity o f the bo u n d a ry that she d ra w s in her a rticu la tion o f who/
w h a t gets to b e an a gent. F u r t h e r m o r e , C a s p e r s e e m s to im p ly that o n e is
o n ly a cco u n ta b le to that w h ic h o n e t a k e s to be a n a gent. In light o f this
p a r tic u la r a sso cia tion o f a g e n c y and a cco u n ta b ility, w h a t d o e s i l m e a n to
f o r e v e r exclu de the c o n s id e r a tio n o f fe ta l a g e n c y ? Isn ’I it p o s s ib le that in
c e r ta in circ u m s ta n c e s th ere m a y be a need to s tr a te g ic a lly in v o k e fetal
a g e n c y to c o u n t e r the m a t e r ia l e f fe c t s o f s e x is m o r o t h e r fo r m s o f
o p p res sio n ? F o r e x a m p le , w h a t a re the im p lic a t io n s o f this e x c lu s io n in
the case w h e r e “ g i r l e d ” fetu ses in In d ia are “ a b o r t e d o r m u r d e r e d upon
birth . . . b e ca u s e the f a m ilie s c a n n o t a ffo r d to k e e p t h e m ” (Ebert 560)?
T h e in ten s ific a tio n o f g lo b a l n e o c o lo n ia lis m , and the a s y m m e tr ic a l e x c lu ­
sions a n d constraints (s u c h as those g o v e r n e d by a s y m m e tr ic a l labor,
fiscal, t e c h n o lo g ic a l, and in fo r m a t io n f l o w s ) that a c c o m p a n y it, r e q u ir e
e v e r m o r e v i g i l a n c e c o n c e r n in g q u e stion s o f a cco u n ta b ility, not less. T h e
a d v a n c e d f o r e c lo s u r e o f a g e n c y m a y im p a ir , or e v e n c o m p le t e ly oc c lu d e ,
the analysis o f a cco u n ta b ility th a t is so vita lly im p o rta n t. T h e attribution
and ex c lu s io n o f a g e n c y - l i k e the attribu tion s and e x c lu s io n s i n v o lv e d in
the co n stru ction o f the h u m a n -is a p o litic a l issue.
ls the attribu tion o f a g e n c y to the fetus a u n ive rs al culprit?
W h e r e w o u ld pa rtic u la r kinds o f fe m in is t in terve n tio n s, such as m id w ife r y
as an a lte rn a t iv e to ( o v e r ) m e d i c a l i z e d b ir th in g p ra ctice s, be w ith o u t
a c k n o w l e d g i n g the fa c t that the fetu s “ kicks ba ck ? ” I su g g est that the
critical issue lie s n ot in the attribution o f a g e n c y to the fetu s in and o f
itself, bu t in the fr a m in g o f the r e f e r e n t o f the attribu tion ( a n d u ltim a te ly
in the fr a m in g o f a gen cy as a lo c a liz a b le a ttribu tion ). As a starting p o in t I
c o n s id e r the f o l l o w i n g q u e stion : w h o or w h a t is this “ fe tu s ” to w h ich
a g e n c y is b e i n g attributed?
T h e co n stru c tion o f t h e “ fe tu s” as a s e lf-c o n ta in e d fr e e - flo a t in g
o b je c t u n d e r the w a tc h fu l e y e o f s c i e n t i f i c and m e d ic a l s u r v e illa n c e is tied
to its co n stru c tion as a s u b je ct u n d e r the l a w and the m yth o f ob je c tiv is m
w h e r e b y th e scientist is c o n c e p t u a liz e d as “ a u t h o r iz e d v e n t rilo q u is l for
the o b je c t w o r l d ” (H a r a w a y , M o d e s t W itness 24). A b se n t from this pictu re
is the p r e g n a n t w o m a n and a cco u n ta b ility fo r the in tra -a ction s o f p a r tic u ­
la r m e d ic a l, scien tific, and leg a l p r a c tic e s ( in c lu d in g the c o n stru c tio n o f
the “ o b je c t o f in v e s t ig a t io n , ” its c o n n e c tio n to the le g a l c o n stru c tio n o f the
fetu s as a “ su b je ct,” the e x c lu s io n s e n a c te d by the constru ction , and the
d i f f e r e n r r x 115

e p is t e m o lo g ic a l, o n t o lo g ic a l, anil ethical c o n s e q u e n c e s ). T h a t is, w h ile

Casper a r g u e s lhal the red u c lin n o f p r e g n a n t w o m e n to te c h n o m a t e r n a l
e n v ir o n m e n ts l o r fetal patients is a c o n s e q u e n c e of c o n stru c tin g the fetus
as an a c tiv e a g e n l, I a m a r g u in g lhal this re d u c tio n is tied lo the sp ecific
constitu tion of “ oh jects'’ and “ s u b je cts” in the intra-a ction o f sp ecific
apparatu ses o f bo dily prod u ctio n and not lo fe ta l a g e n c y p e r se. In o t h e r
w o r d s , I a m c a llin g in lo q uestion the p re su m e d a lig n m e n l o f a g e n c y and
su h je ctivily and insisting thal ii is (h e la tte r and not the f o r m e r that has
played such a cru cial r o le in a M r t ion d e b a le s in this country since the
1980s. T h e “ fe I us" ou ght to be p o sitio n ed in r ela tion lo i Is o b je c t iv e
r e fe r e n l, thal is, in rt>I ation lo <i!l eiitial rea lily .
From t he perspecl i\e o f a g e n lia l r ea lism , the fetus is n o t a
p re e x is t in g ob ject o f in v e s lig a tio n w ith in h e r e n t p r o p e r tie s . Rather,
“ fetu s” d e s ig n a te s an e le m e n t o f a g e n lia l reality, a p h e n o m e n o n lh a l
is c o n s lilu te d and reconstituted mil o f the h is to r ic a lly and culturally silu-
ated iterative intra-actions ol' m a t e r ia l-d is c u r s iv e a p pa ratu ses o f bodily
p r o d u c lio ii. T h e fetus as a p h e n o m e n o n “ i n d u d e s ” those apparatuses/
p h e n o m e n a out ol' w h ic h ii is co n slilu ted : in particular, it in c lu d e s lhe
p r e g n a n t w o m a n ( h e r uterus, placenta, a m n i o lic fluid, h o r m o n e s , blood
supply, nutrients, cm o lin n s , sounds, etc. and her su rrou n din gs, and inlra-
a clio n s w ith in i t ) . ’-' T h e “ o b je cl of in v e s t ig a t io n ” is constructed through
pa rtic u la r boundary a rticu la tion s in v o lv in g p a r tic u la r n ia leria l-d isc u r-
s i ve constraints in I he construct ion oft he apparalu ses th e m s e lv e s . H e n c e ,
it is not a give n th al the “ o b je c t ” ts a s e lf-c o n ta in e d , fr e e - flo a t in g body
lo c a ted in side a I r c h n o m a le r n a l e n v ir o n m e n t; rath er, this id e n tifica tio n
is lh e result o f pa rtic u la r h is to ric a lly and cu lturally s p e c ific in tra-a ction s
ol‘ m ateria l-d isc u rs ive apparatus^ s. For e x a m p le , the ra c ia liz ed and classed
co n stru c tion o f a n “ e p id e m ic ol inferti lity,” w h ich “ contrary l o its p o p u la r
p re sen ta tio n as a p r o b le m that o v e r w h e l m i n g l y a f f l k l s w h ite , al'fluenl,
h ig h ly ed u c a te d w o m e n , is a ctually |a p r o b le m that is| h ig h e r a m o n g
the n o n w h ite and po orly e d m a le d , ” has s e r v e d as justification f o r the
e x p a n d e d d e v e lo p m e n t of a ran ^e of new r e p ro d u c t iv e t e c h n o lo g ie s for
the prod uction o f w h ite babies. S im u lta n eo u s ly, it has d e fle c t e d attention
fro m a c c o u n ta b ility fo r e n v i r o n m e n t a l racism., w h ic h is th ou gh t to be
r e s p o n s ib le f o r Ilie e x is lin g racial a s y m m e tr y in the a ctual s l a l i s l k s
(H a rto u n i 45). 1n I his in sta n ce, lhe n e w reproductive* t e c h n o lo g ie s w o r k to
reproduce* the fetus and p a r tic u la r race rt*lations m a r k in g m o r e w o m e n ’ s
b o d ies than just lhe p a rtic u la r ernes that s e r v e as “ m a te r n a l e n v i r o n ­
m en ts.”
116 Getting Real

R e ca ll h o w a g e n c y a n d a cco u n ta b ility a re t ie d to g e th e r . A c ­
c o r d in g to a g e n t ia l r e a lis m , a g e n c y ca n n o t be d e s ig n a te d as an attribute
o f “ su b je c ts ” or “ o b je c t s ,” but ra th e r are co n stitu ted w it h in sp ec ific
pra ctice s. F u r t h e r m o r e , apparatu ses are not m e r e p h y s ic a l instru m ents
that a re se p a ra b le f r o m the o b jects o f ob s e r v a tio n . Rather, apparatu ses
m u s t be u n d e rs to o d as p h e n o m e n a m a d e up o f sp e c ific in tra -a ction s o f
h u m a n s and n o n h u m a n s , w h e r e th e d iffe re n t ia l constitu tion o f “ h u m a n ”
(a s w i t h oth e r f o r m s ) it s e lf d e s ig n a te s an e m e r g e n t and e v e r - c h a n g in g
p h e n o m e n o n . A g e n c y is a b o u t the p o ss ib ilitie s and a cco u n ta b ility e n ­
t a ile d in r e f ig u r i n g m a t e r ia l-d is c u r s iv e ap pa ratu ses o f bodily p ro d u c tio n ,
in c lu d in g the bo u n d a ry articu la tion s a n d e x c lu s io n s that a r e m a r k e d by
those p ra ctices.
T h e fa c t t h a t the fetu s “ kicks b a c k ,” t h a t t h e r e a r e fe ta l e n a c t ­
ments, does not en tail the co n c e s s io n o f f e t a l su bjectivity. R e c a ll that the
fe tu s is a c o m p le x m a t e r ia l- d is c u r s iv e p h e n o m e n o n that in c lu d e s the
p r e g n a n t w o m a n in particular, in intra-a ction w ith o t h e r “ a ppa ratu ses.”
A n d feta l e n a c tm e n ts in c lu d e th e it e r a t iv e in tra -a ctivity b e t w e e n the
p r e g n a n t w o m a n a n d h e r fetus. T h i s fo rm u la t io n e x p o s e s the r e c e n t ly
in t e n s ifie d dis cou rse o f h y p e r - m a t e r n a l re s p o n s ib ility as a d is p la c e m e n t
o f the r e a l q u estion s o f accou nta bility on to the p r e g n a n t w o m a n w h o is
a c t iv e ly c o n stru c te d as a “m o t h e r ” b e a r in g full r e s p o n s ib ility , and the fu ll
bu rden o f a cco u n ta b ility, fo r fe ta l w e ll- b e in g , in c lu d in g b io lo g ic a l and
so c ia l fa c t o r s that m ay be b e y o n d h e r c o n trol.35 T h e r e a l q u estion s o f
a cc o u n ta b ility in c lu d e : a cco u n ta b ility fo r the consequences o f the
co n stru c tio n o f fe ta l su b je ctivity w h ich em erges out o f p a r tic u la r
m a te r ia l- d is c u r s iv e p r a c tic e s , a cco u n ta b ility f o r th e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f
in a d e q u a te h e a lth care a n d nu trition appa ratu ses in th e ir d iffe r e n t ia l
a ffe c t on p a r tic u la r p r e g n a n t w o m e n , a cco u n ta b ility fo r the c o n s e q u e n c e s
o f g lo b a l n e o c o lo n ia li s m in c lu d in g the u n e v e n d istrib ution o f w ea lth a n d
p o v e r ty , etc.
T h e r e a r e d if fe r e n t p o ssib ilities f o r r e w o r k i n g the m a t e r ia l-
d is cu rsive apparatu ses o f b o d ily p r o d u c tio n in c lu d in g acts o f su b v ersio n ,
r es ista n c e, op position , a n d r e v o lu t io n . T h e s e r e w o r k i n g s w i ll de p e n d
u p o n h u m a n , n o n h u m a n , a n d c y b o r g ia n fo r m s o f a ge n cy . L e a r n in g h o w
to in tra -a ct r e s p o n s ib ly w it h in the w o r l d m e a n s u n d e rs ta n d in g that
w e are not the only a c tiv e b e in g s - t h o u g h this is n e v e r ju stifica tio n fo r
d e fle c t in g that r e s p o n s ib ility o n to o t h e r entities. T h e a c k n o w le d g m e n t o f
n o n h u m a n a g e n c y d o es n o t les se n h u m a n acco u n ta b ility; on the c o n tra ry,
d i r f t' r e n c t' s 117

it m e a n s that a cco u n ta b ilily r e q u ir e s that m u c h m o r e a tten tive n es s l o

e x is t in g p o w e r a s y m m e tr ie s .
\ c t s o f su b v ersio n , fo r e x a m p le , in c lu d e, but a re not lim ite d to,
c h a n g e s iii pra ctices e n a c te d hv e n f o ld in g the m a te r ia l insta ntiation o f
s u b v e r s iv e resignil'ications. O t h e r possib ilities in d u d e d ir e c t c h a n g e s in
the m a te r ia l condi t i o n s o f p e o p l e ’ s li ves. In all cases, w e m ust o f course be
a ll e n l i v e to the in t e r t w in in g o f m a teria l and d is c u r s iv e constraints. In an
a rticle en titled , “ G y n o g en esis : \ L esb ia n A p p r o p r ia t io n o f R e p r o d u c tiv e
T e c h n o lo g i es,” Eli 1 ,a b e l h Sou rh u t e x p lo r e s the s u b v e r s iv e p o te n tia l o f
n e w r e p r o d u c t iv e l e d i n o l o g i e s . T h e s u b v e r s iv e po ten tia l o f g y n o g e n e s is ,
in w h ich the g e n e t ic m a te r ia l fr o m one e g g is added to a s e c o n d e g g lo
c r e a te an e m b r y o from l w o fe m a le pa rents, e x p lo it s “ the co n tra d ic tio n
b e t w e e n the ‘ u n n a lu r a ln e s s ’ ol test-tube c o n c e p t io n , and the supp osed
•naturalness’ o f l h e |patriarchal, he te ro n o r m a liv e | institutions these t e c h ­
niq u es a re m eant lo p e r p e tu a te '’ (F r a n k lin 226). T o date, n o n e o f the
(m o u s e ) g y u o g e n o n e s have d e v e lo p e d to term . h appears that this is due
to s o m e “ g e n e im jir in lin g ” m e d i a n i s m w h ic h is not yet u nderstood: that
is, all the n ecessary g e n e s a re m e r e , Ih e y j usl h a v e lo be *‘ Iu r n e d on and
o f f ' ’ at a p p r o p r ia l e tim es. G en e im p r in tin g is the n a m e l hat g en e tic ists
have a ssig n e d to tli is f o r m ol n o iih u m a n age n cy . This is not to s u g g e s t that
this n a m in g and this a s s ig n m e n t are sim ply d e s c r ip liv e ; on the contrary,
they must be u nderstood p e r fo r m a t iv e ly . Future le c h n o s c ie n tific in lr a -
aetion s le a d in g to l he successful d e v e lo p m e n t o f g y n o g e n o n e s w ill d e p e n d
u pon u n d e rs ta n d in g the ual ure o f this lo r m o f n o n h u m a n a g e n c y and h o w
it c h a n g e s in intra a clion with a g e n tia l shifts in the m a te r ia l-d is c u rs iv e
apparatu ses o f bodily producthrn; intra-acting res p o n s ib ly in the w o r ld
w ill r e q u ir e th in k in g c r iliea lly about the boundaries, constraints, and
e x c lu s io n s that o p e r a te th rou g h p a rtic u la r m a t e r ia l-d is c u r s iv e a p p a r a ­
tuses in tra-a ctin g w ilh o l h e r im p ortan t apparatuses.
W h ile g y n o g e n e s is lias itol yet been r e a liz e d , the n e w r e p r o ­
d u c tiv e t e c h n o lo g ie s h a ve a lre a d y n e m e n listed fo r purposes o t h e r than
those to w h ic h they w e r e in tem ied . ’‘T h e r e a re les b ia n c o u p le s in t h e
l :n ile d Stales w h e r e o n e pa rtn er is im p la n t e d w ith an e m b r y o c re a ted by
h e r lo v e r ’ s ov u m aitd d o n o r sp erm . T h a i partner, te c h n ic a lly a su rrogate,
then g e ls to g i v e birth lo h er l o v e r ’s baby'’ (M a r lin 3 5 8 ).54
■Needless to say. w h i le s u b v e r s iv e acts play on the instability o f
h e g e m o n i c apparatuses, i h e y - l i k e the h e g e m o n ic attem pts to c o n ta in
co n tra d ic tio n s and add slabilitv to the a p p a r a t u s e s - in d u d e r e in f o r c in g
 Getting Real

a n d d e s t a b iliz in g e le m e n t s . In this case, the d e s t a b iliz in g e f fe c ts o f

(m is )a p p r o p r ia t io n s o f n e w r e p r o d u c t iv e t e c h n o lo g ie s , in c lu d in g c h a l­
len ge s to the p a tria rch a l and h e t e r o n o r m a t iv e structu re, a r e a c c o m p a n ie d
by the r e in f o r c e m e n t o f class a s y m m e t r ie s and the cultural ov e r v a lu a t io n
o f rais in g c h ild r e n that are g e n e t i c o ffsp rin g s. A c c o u n ta b ility and r e s p o n ­
sib ility m ust be t h o u g h t in t e r m s o f w h a t m a tte r s and w h a t is e x c lu d e d
f r o m m a tte r in g .

C o n c lu s io n

As I w rite the co n c lu s io n to this p a p e r , the p i e z o e l e c t r i c tra n s­

d u ce r is b e in g e n fo ld e d into a n e w and v e r y p o w e r f u l t e c h n o s c ie n t ific
p ra ctice . G o in g m o s t c o m m o n l y by the n a m e o f “ 5D u ltr a s o n o g r a p h y ,”
it is also k n o w n as “ v o lu m ic e c h o g r a p h y ,” “ v o lu m e s o n o g r a p h y ,” and
“ u ltrasou nd h o lo g r a p h y .” T h e idea b e h in d this n e w te c h n o lo g y is close to
h a l f a c e n tu ry old, bu t it has only started to m a t e r ia li z e w it h in the past
d e c a d e , n o w th a t the c o m p u t e r t e c h n o lo g y has b e c o m e su fficie n tly
d e v e lo p e d , and it is o n ly w it h in the past c o u p le o f y ea rs that a c o n c e r t e d
e f fo r t has b e g u n to in t e g r a t e it into m e d i c a l p r a c tic e in this country and
ab roa d .15
I f t h e standard fa r e t w o - d im e n s io n a l u ltr a s o n o g r a p h ic t e c h ­
n o lo g y tak es g r e a t a d v a n ta g e o f the h ig h status a c c o rd e d to the visual in
o u r e p is t e m o lo g ic a l e c o n o m y , th en the n e w t h r e e - d im e n s io n a l t e c h n o l ­
o g y r a is es th e stakes by or d e r s o f m a g n it u d e , in d u c in g a k in d o f m a n ic
e x h ila r a tio n o v e r the e p is t e m ic e a r n in g s p o te n tia l o f this virtu a l r e a lity
tour o f the body that m a k e s r e a l- t im e t w o - d im e n s io n a l u ltra son o gra p h y
s e e m d o w n r i g h t r u d im e n ta r y . U n lik e the t w o - d im e n s io n a l im a g e s w h ic h
h a v e this “ u n n a tu ra l” “ x -r a y ” q uality to them , the n e w t h r e e -d im e n s io n a l
im a g e s h a v e an all to o fa m il ia r quality: the im a g e s a r e so “ l i f e l i k e ” that
Lhey sedu ce the v i e w e r in lo th in k in g that the re p re s e n ta t io n o f the objec-l
is is o m o r p h ic w it h the o b je c t itself; the im a g e s e e m s to be just lik e w h a t
w o u l d be seen w it h our own eyes, but e v e n b etter ( i f only our visual
ca p a c itie s h a d a z o o m fe a tu re , t h e ability to rotate i m a g e s w ith o u t p h y s i­
ca lly m o v i n g a ro u n d an ob ject, a n d th e ability to slice a w a y w i t h a “ virtual
s c a lp e l” any o p a q u e s e c tio n o f the o b je c t that w a s v is u a lly o b stru ctin g ou r
v i e w ) ! 56
H o w does this n e w t e c h n o lo g y w o r k ? R e ca ll that the ultra­
sou nd im a g e s that a re m o s t f a m ilia r to us are c r e a te d by im a g in i n g a
sin g le t w o - d i m e n s io n a l cross s e ctio n o f the ob ject. H e n c e , w hen a fetu s is
d i f f e r e u o c s 119

im a g e d , lh e s o n o g r a m has that “ x - r a y ” lo o k to it: the bo dy is r e n d e r e d

“ tra n s p a re n t” b e ca u s e a cross se ction a l v i e w d o e s n o t p r i v ile g e surfaces;
in a sense, it has no res p ec t f o r su rfa ces w h a t s o e v e r . T h e n e w t h r e e -
di m ensional t e c h n o lo g y w o r k s bv s c a n n in g su cc es sive c lo s e p la n e s o f lhe
ob ject and storin g the in fo r m a t io n in a c o m p u t e r until the e n tir e o b je c t is
scan ned. T h e c o m p u t e r in te g r a te s the t w o -d im e n s io n a l im ages, p r o d u c ­
i n g a th r e e - d im e n s io n a l m a p p in g o f the e n t ir e v o l u m e o f the o b je c t. T h e
d iffe r e n t su rfa ce s o f the hody can then be r e n d e r e d fr o m the in fo r m a t io n
o b ta in e d about the v o lu m e . H e m e , the im a g e s v i e w e d on the c o m p u t e r
screen can r e s to r e that f e e l o f o p a c i tv that w e a r e visu a lly a c c u s to m e d to:
the surface m a t e r ia liz e s d e r iv a t iv e ly fr o m the v o lu m e i n f o r m a t i o n , h e n c e
e n a b lin g this t e c h n o lo g y lo r e n d e r the i m a g e o f t h e body in t e ll ig ib le lo us
in a w a y that m atters-c o n stitu tin g this m a te r ia l- d is c u r s iv e p r a c tic e as a
p a rtic u la rly po ign an t instru m t i i l aiid v e c t o r o f p o w e r .
O f co u rse , this apparatus o f b o d i l y p r o d u c tio n is m a t e r ia liz i n g
in in tra-a ction with o t h e r practices, lik i‘ those that h elp constitu te the
a b ortion d eh a te in this country, and this te c h n o lo g y w ill n o do u b t be
e n jo in e d to h elp s ta b iliz e the m a te r ia liz a tio n o f those appa ratu ses in
p a rtic u la r d ire ctio n s. T h e r e a i e m a n y o t h e r p o ssib le uses, in c lu d in g
n on o b s te tr ic a l ones. fo r this te c h n o lo g y : it has, for e x a m p le , the potential
to drastically in c re a s e o u r unclei standing o f h uman b io lo g y and to s ig n if i­
cantly c h a n g e su rgica l practices.
l in d erstan d in g the n a tu re o f the p h e n o m e n a p r o d u c e d by this
p o w e r f u l tech nolo/.;!;y w i l l r e q u ir e a m o r e c o m p l e x u n d e rs ta n d in g o f
bo d ies th an w e cu rren tly have. \ th e o r y o f the b io lo g ic a l bo dy a lo n e w ill
not do, a th eory o f t h e constitu tion o f the b o d y ’s su rfa ce is not sufficient.
T h r e e - d im e n s io n a l u ltra sonogra phy is both a sym bol and a pra ctice p o in t­
in g to the n e c e s s il) o f k n o w in g h o w to r e a d the rela tio n s h ip b e t w e e n
su rfa ce and vo lu m e. Might this p o w e r f u l t e c h n o lo g y p r o d u c e im p o r ta n t
insigh ts c o n c e r n i n g the nature o f this rela tio n s h ip o r the c o n s e q u e n c e s
o f u sin g d iffe re n t m ap pings? Might the “ virtual s c a lp e l” p r o v id e som e
insighl in to the natu re o f boundary d r a w in g practices'* M ig h t fe m in is t
th eo ry p r o v id e cru cial insights into the p ra c tic e o f t h r e e -d im e n s io n a l
u ltr a s o n o g r a p h y , such as: lo c a tin g lhe o b je c t iv e re fe r e n t , u n d e rs ta n d in g
t h e e p i s t e n i i c and p s y ch ic se d u c tiv e n e s s o f v i s u a l rep re s e n ta tio n s , u n d e r ­
sta n din g tlie e p is t e m o lo g ic a l and o n io l o g ic a l c o n s e q u e n c e s o f m a k in g
pa rtic u la r virtual cuts, and g e ttin g p r a c t itio n e r s to r e f le c t on the w a y s in
w h ic h th is t e c h n o lo g y has the p o te n tia l to b o th erase and in itiate the
p a tien t’ s su b je ctivity ?'" T h e r e is a n e e d fo r fe m in is t s to be i n v o lv e d in
120 Getting Real

the p r a c t ic e s o f sc ie n c e , t e c h n o lo g y , a n d m e d ic in e , the th e o r iz a t io n o f
t e c h n o s c ie n t ific p ra ctices, a n d th e th e o r iz a t io n o f th e so cia l, the cultural,
and the political. T h e r e is a n e e d t o u n d e rs ta n d the la w s o f n a t u r e a s w e l l
as the l a w o f the fa th er.38 B u t u n d e rs ta n d in g and r e w o r k i n g d iffe r e n t
d is c ip lin a r y a p p a ra tu ses in iso la tio n w o n ’t suffice. In tra -a ction s m atter.

This paper derives from the keynote address that I gave at the Institute fo r Research on
Women "Gender, Technology, Place” Conference at Rutgers University in March o f 1996. I
wasfortunate to have the opportunity to explore these ideas further during Iwo other talks at
Rutgers: a Distinguished Lecture fo r the Center fo r the Critical Analysis Qf Contemporary
Culture m December o f 1996, and the Laurie New Jersey Chair Inaugura lAddress in Febru­
ary o f 1998.1want to thank mycolleagues at Rutgersfortheir encouragement and hospitality
during my visits. I also want to especially thank my colleagues in lhe 1111 “Women in the Public
Sphere: Power, Practice, and.4genl.':r” seminarfor their questions and comments on an earlier
drqft. I am grateful lo audiences at other institutions who graciously engaged with these
ideas. I am indebted to Alice Adams, Linda Alco.ff, Judith Butler, Lorraine Code, Leela
Fernandes, Michael Flower, Ruth Wilson Gilmore, Laura Liu, Rupal Oza, Joseph Rouse,
Jennifer Rycenga, Louisa Schein, and Caridad Souza f o r generously taking the lime to
discuss these issues with me and to Ellen Rooneyf o r her editorial assislanct'-

KAEIEN barad is the Blanche, Edith, and Irving Laurie New Jersey Chair in Women’s Studies
at Rutgers University and Associate Professor of Physics at Pomona College. She is the
author of numerous articles on the philosophy of science and feminism, and is currently
completing a book entitled Meeting the Universe Ha(fway.

N otes 1 As will become clear later in this he did not see them as being
paper, the framework of agential applicable solely to the
realism challenges the disciplin­ microscopic realm. In fact,
ary divide between epistemology Bohr insisted that if Planck’s
and ontology and suggests a new constant had been larger the
approach which I label epistem- epistemological issues Lhat
onto-logy. referring to the study concerned him would have been
of the inseparability of being and more evident and we would not
knowing (Barad, “Meeting the have been a& inclined to being
Universe Halfway," “ Agential fooled into representationalism.
Realism,” and “Getting Real"). In this regard, I wanl lo empha­
Properly speaking, agential size that my approach does not
realism is an epistem-onto- rest on mere analogies between
logical framework. the microscopic and macroscopic
domains, Rather, my approach is
2 It is Bohr’s general epistemo­ lo examine and further elaborate
logical framework, and not Bohr’s insights concerning widely
his interpretation of quantum applicable philosophical issues
mechanics, that is of interest such as the conditions for objec­
here. It is important to note that tivity, the appropriate referent Tor
Bohr did not see the episLemo- empirical attributes, the role of
logical issues with which he was natural as well as cultural factors
concerni-d as heing circumscribed in scientific knowledge produc­
by Planck’s constant. That is, tion, and the efficacy i>f science
d i f f e r e n c e s
(especially in the (awe of increas­
ingly numerous and sophisticated
de urnnslia lions of' Hs conlingenl
nalure).
l For more details see Barad, "'A
Feminist Approach," and Barad,
Mrt'ting /lit' I ''nivenr Hi"{/cuy.
Nole: “Agencies of observalion”
is Bohr's lenu, which lw seems
ltj use irilerchange<ibly with
"apparatus." Because or lhe
usual ai.socialion ol agency
with suhieclivily. ■■agencies ol
observalion” hinlo, lit an arnhigu-
it> in wlial prociselv coiislitules
an apparatus for Bohr. For lurther
discussion see the section of I his
paper titled “ On Apparatuses.-’
t Bohr quoted 111 Folse (l.!4).
5 Bohr called this m l “ arbilrary” lo
dislinguish it from an “ inherent”
cut. Bui lhe cut is not completely
arhilrar\ (see Band, Meeting)
and so I use “constructed" as a
conlrast lo “ inherent."
6Since "w holeness'* lakes on a
particular sel of runnolali oils
within feimiiisl theory, ii is
prohablv wo rlh mentioning home
ol lhe ways ill which “wholeness"
is (wing reconcepl ualized here:
holeness, accord ing
lo agenlial realism. dors nol
signify lhe dissolution ol
boundaries. On I he contrary,
houndaiies are necessary fur
making meanings Theorclical
concepts arc only ilefined wilhiii
;i giv en eon It'xl, a' specified by
*•1111 slructed hounrlaries. Whole­
ness is not about lhe priorili'J:mg
of'lhe mriocenl liole over
(he sum of tilt' parls; wholeness
signifies the iiisep.irabililv of
the malerial alid I he |discursive|.
Wholeness requires lhal ilelmea-
tioris. ditTerenlialioiis. disluuiions
lw drawn; diO'ereiitness is required
<if wholeness. l>ti»|iia[i dreams of
dissolving boundaries are pure
121
illusion since by definition there
is no agential realily without
construcled bouii daries.”
(Barad, “ Meelmg” 182)
Nole: See the section of this paper
lilled “On Maten ality and Ontol­
ogy” for a definilion of “agential
realil, ..'
7 According to Newtonian physics,
the two variahles lhal need lo
he pecif'ied simultaneously are
posit ion an cl moment urn. Accord­
ing lo Hohr. our understanding of
C'ausalily a,s \ewlonian determin­
ism musl hi' revised because
mutually exclusive apparalitses
are required to deliiw “position”
ancl “momenl urn.”
8 The exlension of Bohr’s analysis
from lhe physical-conceptual to
the material-discursive also
depend s upon a fuller acco unl of
maleriahly than lhal offered hy
Foucaull (see below). Nol that
Foucault limiled his account of
discursive praclices in any way
to exclude the natural sciences,
bul his a iialysis of lhe produ dive
effects of power/knowledge
systems on bodies seems lo be
confincd lo human bodies (see
nole t 8). See Rouse's Knowledge
and /’ wwrr for a detailed philo­
sophical analysis of the extension
of FVmcaull’s notion of power/
knowledge to the domain of the
nalural sciences.
H “ (W|hat was new, in the
eighteenlh cenlury, was lhal . . .
the disciplines crossed a ’techno­
logical' Ihreshold . . . [whereby
hospitals. schools, and work­
place s| became . . apparatuses
such that any mechanism of
objectificalion could be used
in lhem as an instrument of
subjection, any growth of
power could give rise in I hem to
possible branches of knowledge;
it was this link. proper to the
technological systems, Ihat made
122
possible wilhin the disciplinary
element the formation of clinical
medicme, psychiatry, child psy­
chology, educational psychology,
and the rationalization of labour.”
(ft'oucau11, Discipline 224)
10 In a sense, while Foucault’s
arcounl is being appropriated
to help articulate an “outside
boundary” for Bohr’s account
of apparatuses, Bohr’s account
provides crucial insights about
the “inside boundary,’’ providing
a significant corrective to Fou­
cault's account of the dynamics
of power/knowledge.
11 Bohr is completely inattentive
to lhe temporal nature of
apparatuses and practices.
Bohr's analysis starts with the
possibilities for selection of
instrumentation, for example,
devices with movable parts
or devices with fixed parts;
he does not say anything about
the practices that produce the
instrumentation or acknowledge
the fact that instrumentation
is constantly reworked as part
of the practices that produce
phenomena.
12 Because ofthe nature o fintra-
activit), phenomena that are
in the process of materializing
are always already implicated
in other practices that are in the
process of materializing other
phenomena. This is not to say
that mtra-activity is a determinis­
tic dynamics. On the contrary,
as has already been alluded to
and will be discussed more
thoroughly below, intra-aclions
entail a reworking of the notion
of causality. Intra-actions are
constraining but not determining.
Materialization is an open (but
non-arbitrary) process.
15 See Barad (“Reconceiving'’) for a
discussion on doing responsible
science and its connection to an
agential realist reworking of
Getting Real
the issue of (scientific) literacy.
See Barad (Meeting) for a post-
structuralisl reformulation of
accountability.
14 Materialization is taken up in
detail in the next section. The
notion of materialization that is
suggesled here shares certain
features in common with Butler's
notion (e.!/:., materialization in
both cases is a temporal and open
process) and yet il differs in other
ways discussed below.
15 Piezoelectric materials are used
for many nonmedical applications
as well. One company has used
piezoelectric materials to develop
'‘smart skis,” skis which “ know”
how to damp different vibrations
m order to maximize contact
between the ski and the snow.
“Smart technologies” were
developed in conjunction lo'tith
other aerospace and military
applications of piezoelectrics
that address vibration problems.
Boeing, Rockwell, Lockheed
Martin, Honeywell, McDonnell
Douglas, Northrop Grumman,
General Electric. Bobcoll. &
Wilcox, Westinghouse, Racor.
trw, and Raytheon are some of
the main customers.
16 In the current political climate
in the U.S., the objectification
of the fetus is related to its
subjectivation as the patient
and the "desubjectivation” of the
pregnant woman ar. a “container”
or “maternal environment” for
the fetus. Set' below.
17 For Bohr, not only is what is
produced dependent on what gets
excluded, but the “constitutive
outside” is a matter of material-
discursive exclusions (not simply
discursive ones). That is, intelli-
gibil it.) and material conditions
ot exclusion are indissocinbk.
18 Buller cites a particular passage
in Discipline and Punish (50) as
ti i r T e r e n c e s
evidence that Foucault theorizes
lhe materialization oft he prison
as well as the prisoner (Butler.
Hodtes H). I disagree with her
on this point. Concerning the
passage in question. 1 read
Foucault's point a;, insisting on
the importance of I he material
arra ngenients Ihat <on slitule Ihe
prison (and sustain particular
cli scoursei.) and an' Ihe basis Ior
i i ' efficac\ as an i nslrunieiit of
power. I clo nol take this lo mean
that the materiality. ol lhe prison
rs constilutfd Ihrough being
taken up iii power ivlalioiis.
Ln any case, Foncanll clearl )' doe,,
not give " de\elopccl acvoonl or
llie malerialj/ation of nonhuman
(mwludiii1 . inanimate) hoclics,
('l'he account ol mal<'riali/,atlou
Ihat he does p.iH‘ depend* upo n
the lad that ullunaiely "the soul
b lhe prison ol' the body” |/JJM'<-
plttie >D|.I I clo think, that Butler's
impulse to llieorizc the material­
ization ol nonhumriii bodies ;is
part of a I heorv ol I he mali‘ rtal-
i 1 .atioii ol human budiei- b
ahsolutelv correct, hul she
clot'i- not follow this impulse
through lo an adu.il account
ol' malerirtlizatioii Ihat is geiit* ra I
enough. lndeed, what ii- ulti
mately needed is an account of
materiality that seeks to under­
stand the praclices by which
iiiateriali/aliou is implicated in
the \er\ drawing nt the hound-
a rit*s helween the human .iud
the non hiiiiiaii. I lake up thb
question specihcalh helow.
19 II b interesting to iiote the paral­
lel between Bohr’s and Hutler's
challenges to representational-
i iii In T/w/ .l/allri.
Hutler wii tes:
The bod' posited
as prior to the sign, is always
posited or signified as prior. This
signification produces as an effect
of its o w i i procedu re the v e r \
body that il neveriliwless aiicl
sniiullaneoui-lv claims to discover
123
as I hat which prered es its own
ac-ti on. If lhe body signified as
prior to sign ification is an effect
of signification, then I he mimetic
or representational status of
language, which claims that signs
follow bodies as their necessary
mirrors. iii not mimetic at all.
On the contrary, il is productive,
constitutive, one might even
argue performative, inasmuch
as this signifying act delimits
and contours the hody I hat il
then claims to find prtor to any
and all syndication. (>O)
20 Like Hohr, who intended his
framework to have epistemo­
logical relevance heyoncl the
sphere of science. I clo not see
any re<isoii lo limit the framework
of agenlial realism to the domain
of science, thou1 -h this is not to
presume its universal applicabil­
ity. Ms stake in reconsidering
concepts Iike realism ancl truth
is rt>I aled to mv susp iciun lowarcl:;.
the feeling of comfort thal anl[re­
alism seems to engender. [I is
worth reiiiemhenng that many
ofthe physicists working on the
Manhattan Project at Los Alamos
did not set' themselves as involved
m lhe search tor truth. but im­
mersed in the pleasure, satisfaction,
ancl jov of makinl!- something
new, making it work.. The asso­
ciation of anti realism with play
permeates lhe postwar culture
of physics, especially in lhe class­
room I sec Barad, “ Feminist” ).
Could il he that iii other realms
as well the facile rejection of
realism is yel another symptom
of late capitalism and the accom­
panying cpiclem ic of a bnegation
of responsibility and accountahil-
ily'? [.ike our consumer cullure's
exaggeration of the plasticity of
bodies, or its fascination with
morphing, antirealism can be
used lo make cli ITerenlial rela­
tions ol power invisible without
remov ing them. l’prhaps at this
historical j tincture, the weighl of
124
realism-the serious business and
related responsibilities involved
in truth-hunting-can provide a
ballast agamst current tendencies
that confuse theorizing with
unconstrained play.
21 I have appropriated the wonder­
fully rich descriptive phrase
“ apparatuses of bodily produc­
tion" from Donna Haraway’s
article “Situated Knowledges"
Tor my own purposes here.
22 The mutually informative meth­
odology of reading texts through
one another is particularly
appropriate from the perspective
of agential realism. In contrast,
reading one text against another
involves reify ing or fixing of the
text against which the other is
viewed. In a related fashion,
agential realism suggests the
notion of intra-action as a
nondeterministic, alternative
dynamics to the limiting notions
of influence/impact/embedding
of one factor upon/in another.
To assume a dynamics of influence
is often to wrongly attribute agency
to reified notions called Culture,
Power, Discourse, etc. See Barad,
“Reconceiving” and Meeting.
25 These questions are addressed at
greater length and in more detail
in Barad, Meeting.
24 Ironically, although one of
Butler’s primary concerns is
the nature of abjection and the
processes through which “ hu­
man” is differentially constituted,
Butler’s account of materializa­
tion privileges human bodies
from the start.
25 This particular point about the
performative nature of speech
acts has been emphasized from
Austin to Derrida to Rutler. See
Butler’s Excitable Speech Tor
a thorough discussion oT lhe
politica I importance of the
indeterminant, open nature
of performaiivity.
Getting Real
26 Might Butler’s suggestion that
there are different kinds of
materiality (“It must be possible
to concede and affirm an array of
‘materialities’ that pertain to the
body, that which is signified by
the domains of biology, anatomy,
physiology, hormonal and
chemical composition, illness,
age, weight, metabolism, lift-
and death. None of this can be
denied." (Bodies 66|) be read as
symptomatic of the limitations of
her account of materialization?
Does lhe array of discourses thal
exist about the body mean that
there must be different materiali­
ties? Or rather, is it the case that
the intra-action of these different
disciplinary apparatuses contrib­
utes to the materialization of the
body?
27 Monica Casper has criticized
actor network theory’s account
of material agency for its trou­
bling implications concerning
the status of the fetus as a sub-
jeel. Recognition of material
agency within the context or
agential realism is not problem­
atic in this sense both because
the emergence and constitution
of the “subject"’ is part of what
is at issue and because agency
is not aligned with subjeclivily.
For details see below.
28 Butler goes so far as to suggest
that “ [t)he controversy over the
meaning of construction appears
to founder on the conventional
philosophical polarity between
free will and determinism." She
points out that the free will/deter-
mimsm duality limits our thinking
so that “the body" gets conceived
of either as
a passive medium
on which cultural meanings are
inscribed or as the instrument
through which an appropriative
and interpretive will determines
a cultural meaning fir itself. In
either case, the body is figured
as mere instrument or medium for
d i r r e r e n e r s
which a si-t oJ cultural meanings
art' only exlernalh related. But
“the body" is itsell a conslmelion
. . . the question tlier emerges . . .
I low do we recoin'i‘iw llw body
110 longer as a passive medium
or mstniinent awmlinfl; the enliv­
ening rapacity of n distinctly
immaterial will? (fiender 8)
29 Agency <ind ils connection lo
issues of responsibility arid
accountability is iiii important
element of aizential realii.m (see
Barad. “ Meeting’') For further
elaboration,:., see l\arad, Meeting
tfw Unirprsr fla(tiray.
50 In the science studies literature.
I his issue is often posed as lhe
question of “ material agency"
Tliis is rlue lo ail imforumale
letidencv in the silence sluilit's
lileralure to ( Onfl.ile “material”
with “ nature” or'iionhumaii,”
counterposing tin- material
world with the human one (as
il humans an* nol malerial").
sequestering whal is human in
lhe purely culturnl domain (a
reinscription of precisely wliat
is being conleMed here). So, I'or
example, some science studies
scholar* use lhe term “material
agency” (niwaninp. •‘acts of na-
lnre” ). I will speak of “ nouhuman
agency" and “cylwrgian ag ercy”
since humans. noil humans, and
cvborgs are all m.tterial-disciir-
s i H ‘ .I will argue, this i s
not to presume 1 li.il human:-.
iionhuiuans, and i.vborgs are
predisenrsivo entities Ihat are
lixed iii advanced fun the
eonlran ). Other iiceoiints
0I “malerial," “ rinnhuinan,"
or “ cyhorgian” Toi ms or agt'ncy
include the actor network theory
of Callon. Latour. and Law; and
ollier alternative., by Itaraway
(Sttmans), I’ickemig {Mangle),
and Rouse (1',7i1(a,i:.uzg). Pieker-
1ng identifit's his ■tccouni of' the
"mangle or praclu e'' as spenlicalh
posthumanist: ironically howt'vt'i,
tile liberal humanist actor that
125
makes choices in the context of
scientific practices is everywhere
evident in his theory. My account
of agency has more in common
with House and llaraway.
"1 The issue or agency is bantered
about in the infamous “epistemo-
1ogiral chicken” debates in science
studfri. (see Pickering, Science).
The central figures in the debates
indude I larry Collins, Steven
Yearley, Steve Woolizar, Michel
Callon, and Bruno Latour.
"i2 The fact that pregnant women are
referred to here as “apparatuses”
should not be taken to mean that
women are mere* inslruments or
technologies for the development
of the I'etus. The notion of “appa­
ratus" developed here differs
significantly I'rom more common
use.s or t he term. As remarked
earlier, material-discursi ve
apparatuses arc themselves
phenomena made up of speei fc
intra-aclions of humans and
nonhumans, where lhe difleren ■
ti al constitution of "human" (or
“nonhuman” ) i Isrlf designates
a parlicular phenomenon, and
what izels defined as a “ subject”
(or “object'’) and what gets defined
as an “ apparatus” is i ntra-aclively
constituted through specific
praetict's.
Y'i See Caridad Souza’s (forthcom­
ing) important ethnographic
rest'arch on and analysis or the
ral'ia lized nature of the p ublic
discourse on personal responsi­
bility and tis displacement of
state accountability.
14 While this can be seen as a
disruption or the presumed
equivalence of the biological
and gt'netic mothers, Sarah Blafler
llrdy makes the point that moth­
ers raising noiigenetically related
children are properly biological
mothers sirict' hioloizy is much
more than genelics (private
c omm unicati on).
126 Getting Real

15 Information about three­ link lo a speci alist al a tertiary

dimensional ultrasonography is
available on the World Wide Web
( e.g., http://tanya.ucsd.edu/
and http://www.cs.uwa.edu.au/
~bcrnard/us3d.html and http://
w^ww.worldnet.net/~henrib/
1D_ullra.html).
16 The technical name for what I
am calling a “ virtual scalpel'’ is
a “volume i nteraetive electronic
scalpel" (Nelson and Pretorius).
57 The subjeclivation of the fetus
through ultrasound technology
was discussed above. Addition­
ally. three-dimensional ultra­
sonography has the potential to
obscure the patient’s subjectivity:
“ Acquisition of volume patient
data also affords the possibility
of review after the patient has left
the medical facility or communi­
cation of the entire volume via an
interactive communications
care center. This could reduce
the need to refer a patient to a
specialized center by permitting
the primary physician and the
specialist to consult and interac­
tively review the study from both
sites thus improving patient care
and reducing costs” (l\elson and
Pretorius). While this feature
has some obvious benefits it also
has the potential to remove the
patient from the decision-making
circuit.
38 I would like to thank Laura Liu
for some wonderful discussions
concerning the great untapped
potential of engaging in mutually
informative conversations amongst
feminist scientists, feminist
science studies scholars, and
femimsl theorists, and f i r giving
me this way of pulting the point
so succinctly.

W o r k s C it e d Adams, A lice. Reproducing the Womb: Images o f Childbirth in Science, Feminist Theory, and
Literature. Ithaca: Cornell CP, 1994.

Barad, Karen. '‘Agential Realism: Feminist Interventions in Understanding Scientific Prac-

lices.” The Science Studies Reader. Ed. Mario Biagioli. New York.. Routledge, 1998. 1-11.

---------------- . “A Feminist Approach to Teaching Quantum Physics.” Teaching the Major­

ity: Breaking the Gender Barrier in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering. Ed. Sue V.
Rosser. New York: Teachers College P, 1995. 42-75.

---------------- . “Getting Real”. Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy. Boston. 12 Aug.

1998.

----------------- . Meeting the Universe Halfway. Forthcoming.

---------------- . “Meeting the Universe Halfway: Realism and Social Constructivism without
Contradiction.” Feminism, Science, and the Philosophy of Science. Ed. Lynn Hankinson
Nelson and Jack .Nelson. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1996. 161-94.

---------------- . “Reconceiving Scientific Literacy as Agential Literacy, or Learning How to

Intra-act Responsibly within the World.” Doing Cultural Studies o f Science and Medicine.
Ed. Rodde}' Reid and Sharon Traweek. New York: Routledge, 1999.

Bohr, Niels. The Philosophical Writings of Niels Bohr. Vol. 1, Atomic Theory and the
Description of Nature. Woodbridge, Conn.: Ox Bow I', 1961.

---------------- . The Philosophical Writings o f Niels Bohr. Vol. II, EssaysZ932-/957 on Atomic
Physics and Human Knowledge. Woodbridge, Conn.: Ox Bow P, 1963.
d i f f e r e n c e s 127

The Ptn/osophtca/ Writings 4 .'Vit/s Hohr.

----------------------- . V ol. Ill, Kssays I 9S8-1962 on
Uonuc Physics am/ Human Knowledge. W o o d b r i d g c , C o n n : O x R o w I', 1965.

B u tler, .lu dilh . Botltes /hat Mallei: Oil the Discursive Limits o f “Sex. ” N e w Y ork: R o u tled ge,
I 995.

----------------------- . R.tcitable Speech: I Politics ofthe Performative. Y o r k : R o u t l e d g e , 19 9 7 .

------------------ . Gender Trouble: Femim\m an d the Subversion o f Iden tity. 'l e w Y ork: Ro u t-
l e d g e . 1990 .

C allo n , M ic h H . “ F o u r M o d e ls lo r th e D y n a m ic 's o f S c ie n c e .” Handbook of Science and

Technology Studies. Ed. S . .l a s a n o t T . t-1 a l . l ,os A n g e l e s : S a g e , 1994. 2 9 -6 3 .

C aspet', M o n ic a . “ R e i r . i m i n g .u id G r o u n d i n g N o n h u m a n A g e n c y : W h a t M a k e s a F e t u s an
A g e iii:" Am erican Helitii'ioral .SWt'rttt.Yl 57 .f i ( M a y 1 9 9 4 ) : 8 " i 9 - 5 f i .

E b erl, T e r e s a . “ T h e M a i l e r ol' M a l e n a l i s m . ” The Material (hteer: 1 LesBiGay Cultural

Studtes Header. Ed. D o n a l d M o r i o n . B o u l d e r : W e s l v i e w P, 1996. 552-61.

F a rq iih a r, D ion . The Olher Mac/line: Discourse am/ Ueproductwe Technologies. N e w York:
R o u l l e d g c , 1996 .

F o l s e , 1l e n r y . T i w Philosophy ofVieh flu/ //: t’he Framework ojCornplemenlarity. New York

N o r t h H o l l a n d P h y s i o P u b l i s h i n g , 1991 .

F on c a u ll, M ic h el. Discipline and Punish: Tlte Birth o f the Prison. T ra n s . A la n S h erid a n .
N e w ) o r k : V m l a g c , 1977.

------------------ . The -Archaeology o f Knowledge and The Discotir.se on /,ungu age. T r a n s . A. M .

S h e r id a n Siiiilh. ,\e\\> \ o r k : P a n t h e o n H o o k s . 1972.

F r a n k l i n , S a r a h . “ D e c o n s t r u c t i n g ‘ D e s p c r a l e n e s s ' : T h e S o d a I C o n s t r u c t i o n o f I n f e r t i l i t y in
P o p u la r R e p r e s e n t 'd io n s o f N e w K c | in )ih ic lh c T e c h n o l o g i e s . ” The New Reproductive Tech-
tiologics. E d . M . M c N e i l , el a l . L o n d o n : M a c m i l l a n , I090. 200-29.

Fuss. D ia n a . lissciitailly Spetilcmg: Finnni,rn. Nature. Difference. NeVI! Y o r k : R o u t l e d g e ,

1989.

I l a g e n - A n s e r l , S a n d r a I.. Textbook <>f IJiapno.sttc l ltrasonop.raphy. SI . L o u r s : C.V. M o s h y

C o ., I 983.

H a r a w a y . D o n n a . Modest Hitne.\s(fj>SecondMillennium.FemaleAlan Meets Oncoll-loitse: Femi­

nism and Techno.-cience. N e ” ' r o r k : R n u l l e i l g c , 1997 .

----------------------- . S /m u m .. Cyborgs. und Women: The Reinvention oj Nature. New York

R o u l l e d g e . 1991.

----------------------- . “ S i l u a l e d K n o w l e d g e s . ' Simians, Cyborgs, and Women. 183-202.

I la rlo u n i, V a le rie Cullural (.onccptious: On Keproiiurttve Technologies and the liemaking

of l,ifc. M i n n e a p o l i s : I 1 o f M i n n c s o l a I', 1097 .

I. a l o u r , B r u n o . /he Posleurizalion of France. C a m b r i d g e , V I a s s . : H a r v a r d LIP, 1 9 8 8 .

----------------- . Science in Action: /low to hollow Scientists awl Engineers through Society.
C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . : H a r v a r d l P. 1987.
128 Getting Real

Law, John. Modernity, Myth, and Materialism. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993.

Layne, Linda. “Oil Fetuses and Angels: Fragmentation and integration in Narratives of
Pregnancy Loss.” Knowledge and Society: The Anthropology qf Science and Technology.
Vol. 9. JAI P Inc., 1992. 29-58.

Martin, April. The Guide to Lesbian and Gay Parenting. London: Pandora, 1995.

Nelson, Thomas, and Dolores Pretorius. “Interactive Acquisition, Analysis and Visualiza­
tion of Sonographic Volume Data.” International Journal o f Imaging Systems and Tech­
nology 8 (1997): 26-37.

Petersen, Aage. “The Philosophy of Niels Bohr." Niels Bohr: A Centenary Volume. Ed. A. P.
French and P. J. Kennedy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP, 1985. 299-310.

Pickering, Andrew. The Mangle o f Practice: Time, Agency, and Science. Chicago: L: or
Chicago P. 1995.

---------------- . Science as Practice and Culture. Chicago: lJ of Chicago P, 1992.

Rouse, Joseph. Engaging Science: How to Understand Its Practices Philosophically. Ithaca:
Cornell CP, 1996.

---------------- . Knowledge and Power: Toward a Political Philosophy o f Science.lthaca:

Cornell UP, 1987.

Sourbut, Elizabeth. “Gynogenesis: A Lesbian Appropriation of Reproductive Technolo­

gies.’' Between Monsters, Goddesses and Cyborgs: Feminist Confrontations with Science.
Medicine, and Cyberspace. Ed. Nina Lykke and Rosi Braidolti. London: Zed Books, 1996.
227-41.

Souza, Caridad. “Young Puerto Rican Mothers and the Discourse ofPersonal Responsibil­
ity.” Forthcoming.