• Log In

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

Subscribe on Android Spotify Google Podcasts audible patreon
  • Home
  • Podcast
    • PEL Network Episodes
    • Publicly Available PEL Episodes
    • Paywalled and Ad-Free Episodes
    • PEL Episodes by Topic
    • Nightcap
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • (sub)Text
    • Phi Fic Podcast
    • Combat & Classics
    • Constellary Tales
  • Blog
  • About
    • PEL FAQ
    • Meet PEL
    • About Pretty Much Pop
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Meet Phi Fic
    • Listener Feedback
    • Links
  • Join
    • Become a Citizen
    • Join Our Mailing List
    • Log In
  • Donate
  • Store
    • Episodes
    • Swag
    • Everything Else
    • Cart
    • Checkout
    • My Account
  • Contact
  • Mailing List

Ep. 230: Bruno Latour on Science, Culture, and Modernity (Part One)

November 25, 2019 by Mark Linsenmayer 13 Comments

https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.libsyn.com/partiallyexaminedlife/PEL_ep_230pt1_11-4-19.mp3

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 45:53 — 42.1MB)

On Latour's We Have Never Been Modern (1993) with guest Lynda Olman.

What's the "modern" ideology of science, and is there something we should critique about it? Latour wants us to think about science not abstractly through the eternal truths it supposedly discovers, but through the concrete practices of scientists. This means acknowledging the phenomenology of science: It may well be that there's a totally objective, human-independent world that scientists are trying to get at, but their actual products are a mixture of nature and culture, or what Latour calls a "hybrid."

In talking about hybrids, Latour is referring to both the ideas that science comes up with (like the idea of a quark, a particular extrapolation from some data involving particle colliders and things; Andrew Pickering's Constructing Quarks tells a long story about the contingent historical circumstances that caused scientists to develop that particular conception) and technological objects that science develops, like computers, whose political component is partly a matter of how it changes our lives.

Latour describes "modernity" as an era characterized by a Constitution, which is conceptually a thing like Hobbes's social contract. It's a set of interlocking ideas that we've implicitly agreed to insofar as we're still enacting modernity, and as the title of this book indicates, he thinks we've never really wholly bought into this Constitution.

The Constitution primarily involves a strict separation of the scientific from the political. Science is objective; it's about us discovering things in the mind-independent world, and while yes, scientists have biases, these can be set aside so that we can get at truths that anyone who does the research should be able to agree on. On the other hand, the political is entirely our group creation: There are no divinely appointed monarchs, just structures that we've created, whether by centralized design or by a series of uncoordinated actions by individuals.

So what's wrong with these two claims? First, if nature really were something entirely separate from us, it would be alien and hostile; we couldn't do anything with it. No, science has always been not just about discovering objective truth, but about human utility. On the side of politics, if leadership were really a pure extension of our group will, then that would be an unrestricted, whimsical democracy. Instead, we posit some things like "rights" as if they were God-given. Both science and politics mix the objective and group-subjectivity.

Latour thinks that this Constitutional myth of modernity whereby science and politics are kept separate has on the one hand been very productive in allowing science to advance, and thus (ironically) technological hybrids to proliferate. By denying that hybrids exist, it actually encourages more hybrids. However, this willful ignorance has its downside: Scientists ignore the probable social effects of their creations, from the atom bomb to the emissions that have caused climate change to the throngs of people that we have saved with our medical but also removed the need for by automating away their jobs.

One parallel that comes up in the discussion: Mill's ideas on free speech are very much the product of modernity. He believed that we can separate out a forum for the free exchange of ideas (like the exchange between scientists) from different, overtly political speech acts like bullying and hate speech. A more sophisticated view (in Latour's view) would recognize that these can never be fully separated, and our codes of conduct need to recognize this (a la Fish in our free speech episode).

Despite all impressions, Latour insists that he's not a relativist, and he has nothing but contempt for post-modernism. His solution as outlined at the end of the book is a modified contract that keeps most of the benefits of modernism but does not insist on its myth-driven abstractions. We want technology, but we want careful scrutiny of its social effects. Extreme social constructionists set no bounds for the way our concepts could have been mapped out, but Latour acknowledges that much of what science deals with is "resistant" (this is his phenomenological way of saying "objective") to our attempts at reinterpretation or denial. He uses the term "quasi-object" to describe something that's "more more social, much more fabricated, much more collective than the 'hard' parts of nature, but they are in no way the arbitrary receptacles of a full-fledged society… They are much more real, nonhuman and objective than those shapeless screens on which society—for unknown reasons—needed to be 'projected.'" (p. 55).

You might remember Lynda from when her last name was Walsh, and she appeared with us on ep. 96 about her book on Robert Oppenheimer and the rhetoric of science advisors.

Buy the book or try this online version. We restricted ourselves in this discussion to books 1 and 2 through section 3.2, plus sections 5.1 and 5.2 to get an idea of Latour's solution at the end. The book that Latour discusses so much about Robert Boyle vs. Thomas Hobbes is Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (1985).

Continues with part two; get your unbroken, ad-free Citizen Edition now. Please support PEL!

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: Podcast Episodes Tagged With: Bruno Latour, modernity, philosophy of science, philosophy podcast, science and politics, science wars

Comments

  1. dmf says

    November 25, 2019 at 4:38 pm

    Leviathan and the Air-Pump is a better book than one would know from Latour, shame that Bruno came to overshadow Isabelle Stengers:
    https://monoskop.org/images/2/28/Stengers_Isabelle_The_Invention_of_Modern_Science.pdf

    Reply
    • Richard B. Keys says

      November 25, 2019 at 11:13 pm

      I was thinking that one of the feminist science & technology studies crew such as Donna Haraway (the cyborg queen herself), Isabelle Stengers (as you mention dmf… who draws on Whitehead interestingly I think), or Karen Barad (whose Meeting the Univer Halfway is an interesting attempt to create a process philosophy through what seem to me as a non scientist to be a fairly rigorous engagement with Quantum theory and the philosophical speculations of of Niels Bohr).

      Reply
      • dmf says

        November 27, 2019 at 11:25 am

        Haraway is interesting to the degree that she is overtly experimental and poetic, when she wants to lift assemblages from technoscience and see what can be done with them in other contexts, this is a kind of pragmatism/instrumentalism that fits well with Stengers’ own more fleshed out modes of inquiry but Barad seems to want to literally apply quantum phenomena at the the level that we dwell at and that seems like bad science and bad philosophy to me.
        https://www.academia.edu/36385115/D._Debaise_and_I._Stengers_The_Insistence_of_Possibles._Towards_a_Speculative_Pragmatism

        Reply
  2. dmf says

    November 25, 2019 at 4:41 pm

    ps here’s Shapin’s Pump and Circumstance: Robert Boyle’s Literary Technology:
    https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/shapin/files/shapin-pump_circum.pdf

    Reply
  3. Richard B. Keys says

    November 25, 2019 at 11:07 pm

    I use Latour in my thesis (…work in progress) on ecological art & aesthetics a fair bit… BUT I just wanted to say I *love* how displeased Wes was with this reading.

    Reply
  4. Charles Crawford says

    December 6, 2019 at 9:34 am

    Oh dear.

    As far as I can tell, Latour builds a towering edifice of pompous nonsense on the trite category mistake that air-pumps and microscopes and such things ‘give testimony’ and so are ‘hybrids between humans and nature. Talk about overdoing an amusing modest analogy.

    And there’s poor Seth, now huffing and puffing against the same Enlightenment Values that allow him to have a good life and a podcast without the state summarily shutting him down. The phrase ‘weeing in one’s own soup’ comes to mind. He’s gone a very long way in the wrong direction since PEL started. Is he OK?

    Reply
    • Mark Linsenmayer says

      December 10, 2019 at 2:56 pm

      While I’m not crazy about Latour’s presentation, there’s something in the circle (kind of like the Cartesian circle): We used a bunch of material/methodological tools to conceive of objective, mind-independent reality in the way we do (Latour correctly points out that this was not the precise conception of the ancient Greeks or any other time period prior to the Enlightenment), yet we then use the assumption of objective reality to justify these tools/practices. This is not the best text to explore that, but I’m hoping we find one in the course of our looking into phil of science.

      Reply
  5. atcr says

    December 11, 2019 at 4:14 pm

    I felt the “motte” metaphor captures well Latour’s modus operandi:

    This kind of thing has been called “motte and bailey” doctrine, in reference to medieval castles: the motte (metaphor for a defensible position) is the big tower in the middle, and the bailey (metaphor for an extreme, indefensible position) is the surrounding productive fields. A medieval lord would spend most of their economic activity in the bailey (activist/ideologue/maverick spends a lot of time making extreme provocative remarks) but, when an enemy approached (critics attack these statements) they retreated to the motte (respond that what they really meant was this much more limited, more reasonable and defensible claim). Then once the enemy went away (no longer under pressure from critics) the medieval lord returned to the bailey (activist/ideologue/maverick goes right back to making the same extreme remarks).

    https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2018/12/07/40828/

    As a commentator puts it, “It is helpful to put a name to a slippery tactic.”

    Reply
  6. regied says

    December 14, 2019 at 5:35 pm

    Latour and charlatans like him drove generations of students away from rationality and now we’re all reaping the harvest with sick puppies running US and UK:

    https://physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/comment_on_NYT_latour.html

    Reply
    • Mason Kerr says

      February 23, 2020 at 1:33 pm

      Lol that Sokal article makes me like Latour even more. “How could the pharaoh have died of a bacillus discovered by Robert Koch in the 1800s?”

      Reply
  7. beacer says

    December 17, 2019 at 7:40 pm

    Latour’s m.o. has been known for a quarter century at least:

    From the example above, it is easy to see why lt has frequently been classified as an unreconstructed constructivist. Nonetheless, to say this is to miss an important aspect of his intellectual cunning and charm. lt is always ready to recast and, in effect, retract what he has previously said…Simulataneously, he will censure rigorously the dogmatics of strict cultural constructivism. Just as he pictures (literally) the mind-set of science as a Janus-faced dualist, he too is constantly springing from one side of a dichotomy to the other.

    https://www.amazon.com/Higher-Superstition-Academic-Quarrels-Science/dp/0801857074

    https://digifesto.com/tag/bruno-latour/

    Reply
  8. Daniel McNichol says

    January 6, 2020 at 1:44 am

    Longtime, lapsed (now prodigally returned?) listener, just became an annual citizen in long overdue recompense for a decade(ish) of provided value.

    Anyway, my first listen in a while, great ep, but kinda most intrigued by the Seth / Wes dynamic. Is this new?? Since tis the season, can we get a political / ideological debate ep ??? (Just Seth/Wes or whoever wants to join?)

    (Has this or the equivalent already happened?)

    I’ll take my response in my podcast player!

    Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Podcast on Bruno Latour – Communicating Science says:
    June 12, 2020 at 12:59 am

    […] Ep. 230: Bruno Latour on Science, Culture, and Modernity (Part One) […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

PEL Live Show 2023

Brothers K Live Show

Citizenship has its Benefits

Become a PEL Citizen
Become a PEL Citizen, and get access to all paywalled episodes, early and ad-free, including exclusive Part 2's for episodes starting September 2020; our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally; a community of fellow learners, and more.

Rate and Review

Nightcap

Listen to Nightcap
On Nightcap, listen to the guys respond to listener email and chat more casually about their lives, the making of the show, current events and politics, and anything else that happens to come up.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Select list(s):

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Support PEL

Buy stuff through Amazon and send a few shekels our way at no extra cost to you.

Tweets by PartiallyExLife

Recent Comments

  • Larry Young on Ep. 310: Wittgenstein On World-Pictures (Part One)
  • Wes Alwan on PEL Nightcap April 2022
  • Wes Alwan on Ep. 305: Cormac McCarthy’s “Blood Meridian” (Part Three for Supporters)
  • Wes Alwan on Ep. 305: Cormac McCarthy’s “Blood Meridian” (Part Three for Supporters)
  • Wes Alwan on Ep. 306: Dworkin and the Dobbs Decision (Part Three for Supporters)

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.

Blog Post Categories

  • (sub)Text
  • Aftershow
  • Announcements
  • Audiobook
  • Book Excerpts
  • Citizen Content
  • Citizen Document
  • Citizen News
  • Close Reading
  • Combat and Classics
  • Constellary Tales
  • Exclude from Newsletter
  • Featured Ad-Free
  • Featured Article
  • General Announcements
  • Interview
  • Letter to the Editor
  • Misc. Philosophical Musings
  • Nakedly Examined Music Podcast
  • Nakedly Self-Examined Music
  • NEM Bonus
  • Not School Recording
  • Not School Report
  • Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts
  • PEL Music
  • PEL Nightcap
  • PEL's Notes
  • Personal Philosophies
  • Phi Fic Podcast
  • Philosophy vs. Improv
  • Podcast Episode (Citizen)
  • Podcast Episodes
  • Pretty Much Pop
  • Reviewage
  • Song Self-Exam
  • Supporter Exclusive
  • Things to Watch
  • Vintage Episode (Citizen)
  • Web Detritus

Follow:

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Apple Podcasts

Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · The Partially Examined Life, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Copyright Policy

Copyright © 2023 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in