You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Psychoanalysis has recently made great strides in investigating its borders with friendly neighboring fields, such as neuroscience, developmental psychology, and cultural studies, among others. The yield from these investigations has been impressive. One contemporary area, however, has escaped psychoanalytic investigation, perhaps because its composition is hybrid, its subject matter somewhat parochial, and its own borders somewhat unclear. This area goes by several titles, often Science Studies or at times Science and Technology Studies, which for the purposes of this essay I will abbreviate as STS. As a field of inquiry, STS came of age in the last few years.1 It focuses on how knowledge is produced in and through modern science, set against the background of the history of science. Uncovering the secret life of objectivity across history and within historical contexts provides a unifying thread of this field, whose better known figures include Peter Galison, Bruno Latour, Arnold Davidson, Lorraine Daston, Karin Knorr Cetina, Ian Hacking, Donna Haraway, Mario Biagioli, Barbara Herrnstein Smith, and Andrew Pickering. STS is internationally based and discipline-nonspecific. Its practitioners include, from among other disciplines, philosophers, sociologists, psychologists, historians, and physicists. Overlooking this area has come at a cost for psychoanalysis, for STS directly and persuasively speaks to one side of a long and destructive debate within psychoanalysis about truth and objectivity. The reverse, however, is also the case: the productivity of psychoanalytic understanding