I feel that I'm confused in our discussion (and before it) on objects,
interaction, partners, body, and tools as well as that I'm a part of the
confusion (paraphrasing Naoki and his wonderful quote from Callon' s phrase
"economics does not reflect reality of economical activity but is part of
reality").
I think my confusion comes from a too ambiguous use of terms like body,
object, tool, interaction, partner. Our discussion seems to capture and be
captured by this ambiguity. For example, is a contact lens in Bill's
example a tool or is it a body? Physically, it is a tool (an implement) but
functionally it is a body. When you clean your lens, it is functionally an
object. Contact lens may never be a tool for me in Kohler's sense as a
thing that transforms my psychological field (e.g., an ape discovering that
stick can reach a banana outside the cage) unless maybe momentarily when I
put it in my eye to discover the difference of my vision without and with
the lens.
Bateson pointed out that a stick in a hand of a blind man tapping his road
can be functionally (i.e., within the action) a continuation of his body.
Are people, whom I use for my purpose, functionally a part of my dynamically
changing body (e.g., bank tellers when I deposit a chick)? For sure, also
people can be functionally objects of manipulation.
I agree with Eva that functionally things can be very complicated and
unclear. However, I think it can be time to give "purified" definitions (in
Latour's terms) of what is functionally body, what is functionally object,
what is functionally tool, what is functionally media, and what is
functionally co-subject (i.e., partner, co-agency)? (Did I miss something
in my list?) Otherwise, we may continue to be confused.
What do you think?
Eugene