Living Dangerously with Bruno Latour in a Hybrid World

Theory, Culture and Society 16 (4):1-24 (1999)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article critically engages with the work of Bruno Latour and, in particular, his book We Have Never Been Modern. Looking beyond the wit and brevity of Latour's writing, the article focuses on some of the non-innocent aspects of his vision of a non-modern world. Rather than completely rejecting the `Great Divides' between Nature and Culture, Westerners and non-Westerners, Latour is seen as only interested in erasing these major fault lines of modernity in order to draw them anew. Ultimately, Latour is not asking his readers to doubt the superiority of Western science but only to understand this superiority differently — as contingent and uncertain rather than necessary and secure. Latour is not as alone as he would have us believe in bringing a non-modern world into focus and the article devotes the bulk of its attention to comparing Latour's thoughts with those governing the Euro-American discipline of international relations before and after the end of the Cold War. Latour's particular account of the non-modern condition, it is argued, corresponds well with the shift from realism to neo-realism within international relations and the replacement of bi-polarity by global technological competition as the dominant feature of the international system. Although Latour continues to be regularly attacked in the so-called `Science Wars' as an enemy of Western science, he actually joins forces with leading Euro-American security experts today in contending that the future of both `Science' and the `West' hinges on the careful monitoring and management of hybrid networks of humans and non-humans and not on uncompromising acts of `purification' as has been the strategy in the past.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,219

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Rescuing the Gorgias from Latour.Jeff Kochan - 2006 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 36 (4):395-422.
Pandora’s hope.Bruno Latour - 1999 - Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
The author rebounds: Latour to Oldroyd.Bruno Latour - 1988 - Social Epistemology 2 (2):183.
The author responds: Latour to Oldroyd.Bruno Latour - 1987 - Social Epistemology 1 (4):347 – 350.
Bruno Latour and actor-network-theory.Bozidar Filipovic - 2012 - Filozofija I Društvo 23 (1):129-149.
The Importance of Bruno Latour for Philosophy.Graham Harman - 2007 - Cultural Studies Review 13 (1):31-49.
Latour's Heidegger.Jeff Kochan - 2010 - Social Studies of Science 40 (4):579-598.
The economic consequences of Bruno Latour.Chris Mcclellan - 1996 - Social Epistemology 10 (2):193 – 208.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-02-02

Downloads
30 (#504,503)

6 months
5 (#544,079)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

On the Consequences of Post-ANT.Casper Bruun Jensen & Christopher Gad - 2010 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 35 (1):55-80.
Objective Styles in Northern Field Science.Jeff Kochan - 2015 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 52:1-12.
Putting a Spin on Circulating Reference, or How to Rediscover the Scientific Subject.Jeff Kochan - 2015 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 49:103-107.
Assessing Latour: The case of the sickle cell body in history.Simon M. Dyson - 2019 - European Journal of Social Theory 22 (2):212-230.

View all 10 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Modest witness: Feminist diffractions in science studies.Donna Haraway - 1996 - In Peter Galison & David J. Stump (eds.), The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power. Stanford University Press. pp. 428--442.
Hobbes and the International Anarchy.Hedley Bull - 1981 - Social Research: An International Quarterly 48.

Add more references