At this very moment I'm writing a paper concerning our project’s aims.But instead of doing my fiercest work engaging in specific issues, like participatory models or technology assessment, I’m focusing more on general ideas (and that may constitute a problem) but it could lead us instead to a better understanding of the dialogue.
And that’s why, taking Baudrillard’s idea of simulacra, I’m discussing the particular way he conceives the vanishing of aims in science and the fading away in intention, or even utopia, for politics.
We have a parallel meltdown of the scale of social significance in both areas and I think it would be profitable to direct more attention towards this question.
In the case of science, where there was once a dominant speech, now exists a fractured discourse often superimposed by new levels of understanding. But can they be politically significant? In political terms, can “agonistic space” (Latour and Lyotard) effectively supply democracy? How can we discuss the idiosyncrasy of leadership in both areas?
With these questions being a reference to this work, I would like to explore the idea of participatory models in the case of science and policy.
Do you have any remarks on the subject?
