Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:01:18 — 56.2MB)
Continuing on Latour's We Have Never Been Modern (1993) with guest Lynda Olman.
Latour is challenging the idea of objective truth totally apart from perceivers; so is he an idealist? He claims that he is not; he's not even a strong social constructionist. We lay out the "Constitution" of modernity that keeps science and politics separate, how this way of thinking about things makes it difficult for us to address issues like climate change, and we get into Latour's positive account for what should replace this Constitution.
Start with part 1 or get the full, ad-free Citizen Edition. Please support PEL!
End song: "Mono No Aware" by Guy Sigsworth, as discussed on Nakedly Examined Music #109.
Sponsors: $10 off at skylightframe.com (code PEL), 20% off at hempfusion.com (code PEL), learn about St. John's College at sjc.edu, and give effectively through givewell.org/PEL.
dmf says
December 3, 2019 at 2:52 pmso we assemble tools (vocabularies, algorithms, hammer, microscopes, etc) that allow us to manipulate our environments in ways that more or less suit us, meet and shape our interests, no more no less…
GL Rosa says
December 5, 2019 at 1:34 amRe: anti-enlightenment thinking, John Gray would make an excellent guest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gray_(philosopher)
Bob says
December 17, 2019 at 6:22 pmIf science is a separate reality, then science is a social construct.
Larry Rosenthal says
March 19, 2020 at 4:13 pmRelative to the inability of the modern constitution to address things like digital gaslighting/harassment, flaws Prof. Olman trumpets confidently:
It might be useful to consider the evolving jurisprudence on the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
Though bound as it must be by speech freedoms, we do no less have in IIED an extant theory of social wrong, legal recognition of harm, and deterrence via civil action in this space. There’s even been talk among scholars of extending IIED doctrine into the criminal law, to hold perpetrators responsible for revenge porn, cyber bullying, and the like.
The real impediment obstructing progress becomes the true hybrid of online interaction, namely, anonymity. 4chan users may well be elusive and untouchable. Identifying them and serving legal process upon them may remain well nigh impossible for the time being, but not entirely due to a failure of vision and lawmaking. Modern law and policy are pliable.
The conceptualization of this harm evolved from the modern constitution. While mourning its many failings, we should appreciate its evolution and capabilities. The nuance of IIED and its heritage may well serve to sharpen the arguments Olman and Latour forge.