6.15%: Taking Numbers at Interface Value

  • Tjitske Holtrop Leiden University

Abstract

This article discusses a number, 6.15%, as it comes into being in the course of an evaluation study of education in a southern Afghan province. This number indicates that out of 100 school-aged girls 6.15 go to school. While this kind of number may invite refl ections on its epistemic accuracy, more often it draws attention to its inherent negative — the girls that do not go to school — substantiating a need for sustained international commitment. As this article will show, numbers work to establish girls as research entities, as part of populations, and as a concern for the Afghan government and the international intervention. This interfacing work of numbers — between girls, states, interventions, and research protocols — is often absent from academic work that takes numbers to be stable and passive tools with which the world can be known. This article, instead, takes numbers to have an internally complex multiplicity and to actively engage with their environments. In this article, I use the interface between numbers and environment as a space for ethnographic exploration of world-making. By describing three moments in the lifecycle of the number — data cleaning, analysis and presentation — I describe three distinct moments of interfacing in which the number comes to act in three capacities: effecting reference, constituting proportional comparison, and evoking doubt and certainty. Detailed understanding of numbering practices provides an opportunity to not just critically assess numbers as end products but to carefully assess the worlds that emerge alongside numbering practices and the ways in which numbers contribute in processes of governance.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Anders G (2015) The Normativity of Numbers in Practice: Technologies of Counting, Accounting and Auditing in Malawi's Civil Service Reform. Social Anthropology 23(1): 29-41.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8676.12101

Asad, T. (1994). Ethnographic Representation, Statistics and Modern Power. Social Research 61(1), 55-88.

Babaian, A. (2008). The IT Girl's Guide to Becoming an Excel Diva. Indianapolis: Wiley Publishing Inc.

Ballestero, A. (2014). What is in a Percentage? Calculation as the Poetic Translation of Human Rights. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 21(1), 27-53.
https://doi.org/10.2979/indjglolegstu.21.1.27

Beeres, R., van der Meulen, J., Soeters, J., and Vogelaar, A. (eds). (2012). Mission Uruzgan. Collaborating in Multiple Coalitions for Afghanistan. Amsterdam: Pallas Publications.

Bergen, P. (ed). (2013). Talibanistan. Negotiating the Borders between Terror, Politics, and Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Callon, M., and Law, J. (2005). On Qualculation, Agency and Otherness. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 23(5), 717-733.
https://doi.org/10.1068/d343t

Corsín Jiménez, A. (2008). Well-being in Anthropological Balance: Remarks on Proportionality as Political Imagination. In: A. Corsín Jiménez (ed.), Culture and Well-being. Anthropological Approaches to Freedom and Political Ethics (pp. 180-197) London: Pluto Press.

Crump, T. (1990). The Anthropology of Numbers. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the Cambridge University.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621680

Dam, B. (2014). A Man and a Motorcycle. How Hamid Karzai came to Power. Utrecht: Ipso Facto Publishers.

Daston L., and Galison, P. (2007). Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.

Davis, K., Kingsbury, B., and Merry, S. (2012). Indicators as a Technology of Global Governance. Law and Society Review 46(1), 71-104.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2012.00473.x

Day, S., Lury, C., & Wakeford, N. (2014). Number Ecologies: Numbers and Numbering Practices. Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory 15(2), 123-154.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1600910X.2014.923011

Gezari, V. M. (2013, 10 August). How to Read Afghanistan. New York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/11/opinion/sunday/how-to-read-afghanistan.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (accessed 8.9.2015).

Guyer, J. I., Khan, N., Obarrio, J., Bledsoe, C., Chu, J., Bachir Diagne, S. … Verran, H. (2010). Number as an Inventive Frontier Anthropological Theory 10(1-2), 36-61.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1463499610365388

Guyer, J. I. (2014). Percentages and Perchance: Archaic Forms in the Twenty-first Century. Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory 15(2), 155-173.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1600910X.2014.920268

Hacking, I. (1990). The Taming of Chance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511819766

Harper, R. (2000). The Social Organization of the IMF's Mission Work. An Examination of International Auditing. In: M. Strathern (ed.). Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy (pp. 21-54) London: Routledge.

Latour, B. (1999). Circulating Reference. Sampling the Soil in the Amazon Forest. In: B. Latour, Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies (pp. 24-79) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Latour, B. (2004). How to Talk about the Body? The Normative Dimension of Science Studies. Body & Society 10(2-3), 205−229.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034X04042943

Law, J. (2009). Seeing Like a Survey. Cultural Sociology 3(2), 239-256.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1749975509105533

Lippert, I. (forthcoming). Undermining Certainty. Calculative Enactments of Environmental Realities in a Fortune 50 Company.

MacKenzie, D. (1999). Nuclear Missile Testing and the Social Construction of Accuracy. In: M. Biagioli (ed.). The Science Studies Reader (pp. 342-357) New York: Routledge.

Merry, S. E. (2011). Measuring the World. Indicators, Human Rights, and Global Governance Current Anthropology, 52(3), 83-95.
https://doi.org/10.1086/657241

Mitchell, T. (2002). Rule of Experts: Egypt, Techno-Politics, Modernity. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Neyland, D. (forthcoming). Something and Nothing. On Undoing the Algorithm, Deletion, Accountability and Value.

Poovey, M. (1998). A History of the Modern Fact. Problems of Knowledge in the Sciences of Wealth and Society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226675183.001.0001

Porter, T. (1995). Trust in Numbers. The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Power, M. (1997). The Audit Society. Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Riles, A. (2000). The Network Inside Out. University of Michigan Press.
https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.15517

Rosga, A., and Satterthwaie, M. L. (2009). The Trust in Indicators: Measuring Human Rights. Berkeley Journal of International Law 27(2), 253-315.

Rotman, B. (1987). Signifying Nothing. The Semiotics of Zero. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-18689-1

Sauder, M., and Espeland, W. N. (2009). The Discipline of Rankings: Tight Coupling and Organizational Change. American Sociological Review 74, 63-82.
https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400104

Shore, C., and Wright, S. (2015). Governing by Numbers: Audit Culture, Rankings and the New World Order. Social Anthropology 23(1), 22-28.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8676.12098

Strathern, M. (ed.) (2000). Audit Cultures. Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy. London: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203449721

TLO (2010) The Dutch Engagement in Uruzgan: 2006 to 2010. http://www.tloafghanistan.org/images/PDF_Provincial_District_and_Area_Assessments/2010-TLO-Dutch-Engagement-in-Uruzgan.pdf

Verran, H. (2001). Science and an African Logic. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Verran, H. (2010). Number as an Inventive Frontier in Knowing and Working Australia's Water Resources. Anthropological Theory 10 (1-2), 171-178.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1463499610365383

Verran, H. (2012). Number. In: C. Lury C and N. Wakeford (eds.). Inventive Methods: The Happening of the Social (pp. 110-124) London: Routledge.

Verran, H. (2013). Numbers Performing Nature in Quantitative Valuing. NatureCulture 2, 23-37.

Verran, H. (2015). Enumerated entities in public policy and governance. In: E. Davis and P.J. Davis (eds) Mathematics, Substance and Surmise (pp. 365-379) Basel: Springer International Publishing Switzerland
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21473-3_18
Published
2018-12-15