This article sheds new light on Bruno Latour’s sociology of science and technology by looking at his early study of the French writer, philosopher and editor Charles Péguy (1873–1914). In the early 1970s, Latour engaged in a comparative study of Péguy’s Clio and the four gospels of the New Testament. His 1973 contribution to a Péguy colloquium (published in 1977) offers rich insights into his interest in questions of time, history, tradition and translation. Inspired by Gilles Deleuze’s philosophy of difference, (...) Latour reads Clio as spelling out and illustrating the following argument: ‘Repetition is a machine to produce differences with identity’. However, in contrast to Deleuze’s work (together with Félix Guattari) on the materiality of machines, or assemblages [agencements], Latour emphasizes the semiotic aspects of the repetition/difference process. As in Péguy, the main model for this process is the Roman Catholic tradition of religious events. The article argues that it is this reading of Péguy and Latour’s early interest in biblical exegesis that inspired much of Latour’s later work. In Laboratory Life (Latour and Woolgar, 1979) and The Pasteurization of France (1988) in particular, problems of exegesis and tradition provide important stimuli for the analysis of scientific texts. In this context, Latour gradually transforms the question of tradition into the problem of reference. In a first step, he shifts the event that is transmitted and translated from the temporal dimension (i.e. the past) to the spatial (i.e. from one part of the laboratory to another). It is only in a second step that Latour resituates scientific events in time. As facts they are ‘constructed’ but nevertheless ‘irreducible’. They result, according to Latour, from the tradition of the future. As a consequence, the Latourian approach to science distances itself from the materialism of Deleuze and other innovative theoreticians. (shrink)

In this article, I use the work of Alfred North Whitehead and Isabelle Stengers to challenge the biomedical and commonsense view that those diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease suffer an irreparable and inevitable loss of self and that this loss is inextricably tied to a decline in linguistic capability which itself bears immediate witness to a deterioration in the brain. Through an analysis of Whitehead's (1933, 1938) provocative conceptualization of the soul, and Stengers' (2005) reading of this, I suggest that it (...) is possible to dislocate language from its supposed position as that which produces and fully expresses human experience. This involves a challenge to the ‘linguistic turn’ as to be found in much contemporary social theory, philosophy and social psychology. The discussion of Whitehead's (and Stengers') ideas regarding the soul involves a reading of Whitehead's notions of ‘propositions’, ‘contrasts’ and the ‘social environment’. Through these analyses, I seek to relocate the problem of language and identity and its relation to Alzheimer's disease. I go beyond any reduction of the problem either to its social component, where the self is seen as a resolutely human ‘person’, or to its natural element, where Alzheimer's disease is seen solely as a problem located within the brain. Instead, I try to think the natural and social together. My aim is not to explain away the problem but to suggest a more productive way of thinking about those diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, and ourselves. (shrink)