The literature engaging political theory in STS often puts forward a deficit model view of STS, in which homegrown STS ideas about politics, such as co-production, are either treated as having an insufficient account of the political or not read as political theory at all. This article challenges the deficit discourse by reading co-production as a full-blown political theory in its own right, in particular by showing how it investigates normative questions of ‘the good’ that are central to any theorization of politics. Where political theory often concerns itself with the construction and application of universal political ideals—such as of the good citizen, legitimate procedures or smart outcomes—co-production looks at empirical sites where citizens, procedures, and outcomes articulate understandings of the good held by political actors in situ. By looking at the making of citizens, procedures, and outcomes in practice, we can better understand co-production as political theory. In particular, co-production elaborates on how the making of citizens, procedures, and outcomes constitute (and are constituted by) ideal normative positions, including: authoritative views about what citizens may claim to know, culturally-situated understandings of procedural legitimacy, and political values and ideologies embedded in seemingly ‘objective’ measurements of outcomes.

中文翻译：

---

塑造公民、程序和结果：以联合生产主义的惯用语理论化政治


在 STS 中涉及政治理论的文献经常提出 STS 的赤字模型观点，其中本土的 STS 政治思想，例如共同生产，要么被视为对政治的解释不足，要么根本不被解读为政治理论。本文通过将共同生产本身解读为一种成熟的政治理论来挑战赤字话语，特别是通过展示它如何研究“善”的规范性问题，这些问题是任何政治理论化的核心。政治理论通常关注普遍政治理想的构建和应用——例如好公民、合法程序或聪明的结果——而联合生产则着眼于公民、程序和结果阐明对政治行为者在现场所持有的利益的理解的经验站点。通过观察实践中公民的形成、程序和结果，我们可以更好地理解共同生产作为政治理论。特别是，联合制作详细阐述了公民的形成、程序和结果如何构成（并被构成）理想的规范立场，包括：关于公民可能声称知道什么的权威观点，对程序合法性的文化理解，以及嵌入在看似“客观”的结果测量中的政治价值观和意识形态。