Page - 17 - in Critical Issues in Science, Technology and Society Studies - Conference Proceedings of the 17th STS Conference Graz 2018

technoscientific post-modernity. During the last ten-fifteen years, the attention to Haraway's issues continues and renews in different areas of gender and post-human studies, lately focused on the “animal turn” (from Companion Species Manifesto, 2003 to Staying with the trouble. Making Kin in the Chthulucene, 2016), however, still largely regarded as elaboration upon political-expressive opportunities technoscience opens to otherness (Lenghissa et al. 2017). Technoscience meets feminism insofar it is meant as an essentially positive force de-centering the anthropocentric posture which historically defined what is human (natural vs cultural, human vs non human, organic vs inorganic...) within a framework in which naturcultures are predominantly considered good objects/subjects to reflect with. This reflection is to be understood at the light of the urgency to outline new complexity ethical-political forms and interventions, especially considering the problem of species survival in Anthropocene. Nevertheless, at the same time, might this reflection point to one way of thinking technoscience and feminism, while shadowing other possible significances? Might it tend to emphasize a fascination with technoscience while strengthening a gap with on the ground experiences of/reflection on it? I am not going to answer to these questions, but I would like to go back to the Italian women's hi- story to find some suggestions about these problems. Conclusive notes. Doing and thinking (techno)science in feminist perspective. Learning with an Italian women’s history about feminism, science and technology. In both the Coordinamento and Ipazia, the vanishing points of feminist theorizations on S-T were bounded by a relational practice among women, and vice-versa a feminist relational practice opened to a theoretical reflection, thus generating a symbolic-political space in-between, where new words, thoughts and meanings could circulate freely, yet grounded in a material-relational context. In both these experiences, a relational practice was meant as a process of “thinking in the presence of others”, therefore exceeding both the purely theoretical dimension of a thought, and its practice meant as a translation of theory (Stengers 2015; Stengers & Despret 2017). The transformative value of this practice is therefore primarily methodological. It can be described as a resource of transformation of the object of reflection while transforming the subjects involved (Zamboni 2009), or as a form of women's transversal politics, that refers to a diverse range of not assimilated and non-assimilable positions, yet in search for common and shared goals (Associazione “Orlando” mid-1993, quoted in Yuval-Davis 1997). More importantly, I would emphasize the political-poetical intention that informed these experiences. In other words, they did not predominately resulted in specific goals to gain, or initiative to undertake, but created a common creative-generative-political space, in between science-technology and non science-technology, science-technology and feminism, the latter meant as an overall different politically relevant situatedness, by which difference was open to a diverse range of possibilities (meanings, speculations, agencies, interventions...). This Italian (hi)story of women and science (some groups and interrelated individuals) did not, in fact, produce essential feminist theories on techno-scientific knowledge and practice, nevertheless it is an example to learn with in that it generated relationships and thoughts thorough discussions in the presence of other women and whereas techno-scientific and political words and practices were not separated one from the other. These few final notes, which poorly conclude this paper, would like to underline a way of thinking 17