From the book: What is to be done with political ecology? Nothing. What is to be done? Political ecology!

The debate between Bloor and Latour is based on a fundamental misunderstanding due to too narrow a view of what Bloor calls ‘the field’. The boundaries of this ‘field’ are not defined by the sociological analysis of the content of science: SSK and Latour do not share the same object of study. Latour's approach marks a shift from the social determinants of scientific knowledge to the ontological labour performed by scientific activity. The research on the science/society interface has generated two (...) approaches. Some works tackle the social factors which determine science. Their object is society in science. Other works address the social role of science. Their object of study is science in society. The difference in the way SSK and Latour look at science is an incarnation of this division. A re-conceptualization of ‘the field’ based on the acknowledgement of these two objects is perhaps the only way to allow for a diversity of approaches in the study of the science/society interface. (shrink)

According to some authors, Latour’s attention to politics during the last decades is the result of his proposing a different approach to politics that entails, with respect to his overall project, one of two situations. Either his epistemological proposal has suffered a “normative turn”—which necessarily breaks with the previous assumptions of Actor-Network Theory (ANT); or, if ANT’s view on technosciences remains valid, his political proposal becomes not possible as a new normative approach. In this paper, I will focus on the (...) critique voiced by John Law, as well as Graham Harman. I will argue that this is a false dilemma because there has not been a change in Latour’s conceptual basis, nor a lack of coherence within his thought that would undermine the democratic commitment of his Political Epistemology. I will justify this by exposing the fact that Latour’s overall project, as part of Science Studies, has not lately followed a “political” but an “ontological” turn, which has been underling his works since the very beginning of ANT. (shrink)

Quand Bruno Latour introduit le « monde commun » dans son oeuvre à la fin des années 1990, ce syntagme est déjà fort connu en théorie politique où il circule largement depuis la parution en 1958 du magnum opus d’Hannah Arendt The Human Condition. Or, Latour ne se réclame pas d’Arendt quand il traite du monde commun et, s’il la mentionne à l’occasion, c’est toujours pour s’en distancer. En analysant les conceptualisations respectives de Latour et d’Arendt, le présent article vise (...) à montrer qu’il existe bien un monde commun entre ces deux penseurs que tout semble éloigner.When Bruno Latour introduces the “common world” in his work at the end of the 1990s, this phrase is already well known in political theory thanks to the 1958 publication of Hannah Arendt’s magnum opus The Human Condition. Strangely enough, when he addresses the common world Latour does not claim to be a follower. If he mentions Arendt from time to time, it is always to distance himself from her. Through the analysis of the respective conceptualisations of Latour and Arendt, the present article aims to show that a common world does exist between these two authors who seemingly stand so far apart from one another. (shrink)

While much has been written on Latour’s politics and use of militaristic language, by attending to some of Latour’s lesser known or read writings, his political location within the traditional Left-Right spectrum becomes more discernable, as does the reason for his frequent resort to the language of war. This article does not seek to defend Latour’s politics or rhetoric, but to provide a corrective by incorporating, rather than taking distance from, his use of militaristic language. Doing so reveals an understanding (...) of Latour’s project as having always been—if not traditionally Left—charting a different Leftist approach. (shrink)

This article explores the role of constitutional thought in Latour’s work on cosmopolitics. It will study his non-modern proposal in the Politics of Nature (2004) and argue for a constitutional rather than political understanding. To address criticisms of being too metaphysical or unpractical, we will work out the notion of a “constitutional ecology of practices” to highlight how different practices such as politics, science, organization, but also law, all contribute to the design of the stage and processes for composing a (...) common world. Special focus will here be placed on the role of “epigrams”: practical models for ordering contributions of different practices or modes in hierarchical relationships. This renders them identifiable, mobilizable, and contestable as cross-cutting models for shaping mutual relations in concrete collaborative settings. The case of the legal regulation of robots will be presented as an example of a cosmopolitical attempt to introduce non-human entities in the common collective. We will here observe the role that epigrams play in framing, ordering and contesting the epistemic contributions of the various practices involved in this innovation ecology. This case will be used to discuss Latour’s proposals and to study non-modern constitutionalism in action. (shrink)