{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027504105090311988, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0016420361247947454, 'mean_word_length': 5.185279187817259, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Theatre of Measurement: Michel Serres

The philosopher and historian of science, Michel Serres, has an established reputation within several fields. Across the humanities, Serres is known as the author of critical studies which situate authors such as Emile Zola, Jules Verne or La Fontaine in relation to a broader cultural and scientific field. His audacious claim that the arts prefigure science, or rather that the work of art may in some sense translate between cultural problematics and scientific formalizations has helped to renew an entire field of studies in ‘Literature and Science’ (see in particular the journal Configurations). Conversely, in Science and Technology Studies (STS), Serres’ notion of translation is recognised as one of wellsprings of Actor-Network Theory (ANT). As such, his work has served as an essential resource for theorists looking to resituate science as part of the hybrid networks which cut across the division between politics and nature. Finally, within the heterogeneous literature on Information Systems, Serres is recognized as offering a distinctive account of information and communication and of the globalization of ‘message bearing systems’. His beautifully illustrated text Angels: A Modern Myth stands alongside contemporary work by Pierre Levy and Geoffrey Bowker. What then of organization theory? In recent years a steady stream of ‘French thinkers’ such as Foucault, Lyotard, Derrida and Deleuze have all been co-opted into the field, sometimes under the overly broad rubric of ‘the postmodern’, but more usually as touchstones which enable a speaking in the name of ‘critique’ (see the adroit summary by Jones, 2004 on the case of the reception of Derrida). According to Sørensen (in this volume), Serres is next in line. That remains to be seen. But what is clear is that the co-option of Serres presents particular challenges. Whilst the Foucauldian or Deleuzian oeuvre defies ready summary, there are at least clear points of division and routinely established categories in the work with which to engage, along with a burgeoning secondary literature. The Serresian oeuvre, by contrast, varies wildly in terms of project, technique, style, method and content. What to make of a writer who authorizes himself to veer between topics as diverse as the Diogenes’ encounter with Alexander the Great, the Columbia space shuttle disaster, the origins of geometry, the operation of