Author: Tim Howles, University of Oxford
And so we arrive at chapter 11 of AIME, ‘Welcoming the Beings Sensitive to the Word’. Here, we find religion as the next mode of existence to be encountered.
To get us going, then, may I offer a provocative suggestion? Could it be the case that religion is in fact the concealed dynamo of Latour’s entire intellectual project? And, moreover, that it has functioned in this way from the very beginning? Continue reading
Author: Terence Blake
The movement of deconstruction of the split between subject and object allied to the pluralisation of ontologies continues. We must now apply this ontological pluralism to the irrational superstitions that are thought to characterise traditional societies. Modernity has been constituted in terms of a battle against the superstitious belief in invisible beings and occult powers. The previous chapters have shown that the Moderns are mistaken about the nature and composition of the visible world. For Latour there is no “visible world”, the very idea is the result of a category mistake. A suspicious symptom from our history is the overwhelming violence that has accompanied the spread of Reason in the world, a sign that we are anxious and frightened about what we nonetheless assert to be devoid of existence. Continue reading
Posted in Chapter 7, Modes of Existence, Religion
Tagged Felix Guattari, Gilles Deleuze, Hurbert Dreyfus, James Hillman, Jean Francois Lyotard, Nietzsche, Sean Kelly, Sigmund Freud, Terence Blake
Author: Josh Brahinsky
Why the gap between practice and theory? “Why is it so hard to follow experience?” In other words, why do Moderns doubt the referential and reproductive mediations of practice? Simple answer – we confuse our modes.
Construction is hard to imagine positively. Or, at least, in the world of fact, construction outlines the cracks. The cracks in time Latour calls reproduction, cracks in contact, reference. Latour recognizes the challenge in the name, the word construction, so devoid of philosophical warmth that even naked, without social, its baggage has him revising as composition and now instauration. For construction is both a sign of ignorance (not-knowledge) and has lost some of its density. However, for Latour, construction suggests a doubled action (doubled author), uncertain direction (co-constituted trajectories between authors), and a qualitative judgment regarding construction. Or at least it ought to, he says. Since we have denuded it of these connotations, and have forever tied it to “weak” knowing rather than “strong” being-becoming, Latour offers a new term. Perhaps, he hopes, instaurators instigate, reciprocally, without certainty, always concerned with quality? Further, it is a concept that invites, and requires, certain respect for the resources, perhaps agency, of the beings that co-participate in this new version of construction. You/I/We must “encounter beings capable of worrying you… articulable beings… beings that have their own resources.” Neither raw material nor creative imagination, only grasped successfully in their own interpretive key. Continue reading
Author: John W. Wright, Point Loma Nazarene University
So far in An Inquiry into Modes of Existence, Latour has thickened a program found in much of his previous writings. He has combined the philosophical categories developed in We Have Never Been Modern (1993) with his ethnographic method developed with Steve Woolgar in Laboratory Life (1979). The program, however, begins to shift in chapter 5. Latour now introduces concerns recorded in “Irreductions” (1993): “Nothing is, by itself, either reducible or irreducible to anything else” (The Pasteurization of France, p. 158). He slowly builds conduits to circulate us within veridiction conditions for a pluralistic ontology of modes of existence. Continue reading
Author: Sam Mickey
Let’s look at chapter two of AIME. As in the introduction and first chapter, Latour touches on a lot of issues in the second chapter, and a lot of questions and possible criticisms still remain. We should bear in mind that we’re still early in the book, and Latour is imagining a reader who is patient and kind, demanding a final reckoning only at the end of the inquiry, not “after only a few pages” (p. 67).
Posted in Actor Network Theory, Chapter 2, Law, Religion
Tagged Actor Network Theory, AIME, Bruno Latour, Category Mistakes, Interpretive Key, Law, Religion, Sam Mickey