What is political in sub-politics? How Aristotle might help STS

Recent contributions by Collins, Evans, Jasanoff and Wynne to the
discussion of how science and technology studies (STS) might contribute to
understanding ‘subpolitics’ - the complex, expert knowledge-intensive and distributed
political issues technological societies have to deal with - and involvement of STS
scholars in experiments to extend public participation in decision-making about science
and technology are shown to be based on an un-reflexive use of an off-the-shelf
conception of politics. This conception, grafted on the old model of the sovereign,
frames political actors as ‘mini-kings’: as subjects with preferences, interests, aims and
plans that they want to be executed. To reveal the limitations of this conception of
politics, I confront it with Aristotle’s conception of politics. The conception of politics
that has guided work in STS is shown to be based on too narrow a conception of
political action that fails to properly account for the object of politics. I argue that
Aristotle invites us to analyse the object of politics in ways that closely resemble the
way in which STS has learned to analyse the object of experimental science. Although
Latour comes close to the tasks that an Aristotelian conception of politics suggest, his
Politics of Nature shares some of the limitations that trouble other work of STS in the
political domain. Despite 25 centuries separating us from his conception of politics,
Aristotle may help STS to understand the politics implied in subpolitics.