Talk:Anthropology of technology

Interface with Science and Technology Studies
@JendisMoreau It seems somewhat strange to differentiate AnTech from STS by the use of participant observation. Ethnographic fieldwork is a characteristic of many laboratory studies in STS, for example, including foundational ones such as Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar's "Laboratory Life" (1979). I would suppose something similar could be said for phenomenological approaches and the emphasis on the body (thinking for example of Annemarie Mol's work here). Referring to this indented list in the current version:

"It is differentiated from the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS) by

- the use of small-scale anthropological fieldwork methodologies, including archaeological excavation and participant observation, which enable researchers to detect and document the social embeddedness of technological activities in a wide variety of human cultures, - an emphasis on bodily skill and know-how; that technology cannot be practiced without the muscle memory that exists beyond the mental learning, and

- in many cases, a phenomenological approach: how people feel, see, sense, smell, and apprehend through the body as technology is practiced and the products used." Akmunk (talk) 07:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The point is well-made. See the rewritten version. JendisMoreau (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Great. Works really well! Akmunk (talk) 08:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would add that AoT is enriched by distinctively anthropological theoretical streams, including Mauss's concept (from The Gift) of *total* social phenomena, simultaneously integrating all things social (political, interactional, ecological, material, economic, religious, etc.) 73.156.24.115 (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The beginning of this sounds like an advertisement to the field
The first thing the article says are that the field is unique, diverse and growing. It sounds like buzzwords. Wikipedia isn't trying to drum up students to the field, so I think writing that it's a new field will suffice. The continuation of the article has some of the after mentioned quality too. FlowerFFF (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)