Frédéric Neyrat
- Published in print:
- 2018
- Published Online:
- May 2019
- ISBN:
- 9780823282586
- eISBN:
- 9780823284931
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Fordham University Press
- DOI:
- 10.5422/fordham/9780823282586.003.0008
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Science
Chapter 7 is an overview of the work of the French thinker, Bruno Latour and how his recent thinking and writing seems to align well with those thinkers who place themselves in the camps of ...
More
Chapter 7 is an overview of the work of the French thinker, Bruno Latour and how his recent thinking and writing seems to align well with those thinkers who place themselves in the camps of ecomodernism and postenvironmnetalism. While Neyrat begins by espousing the importance and scholarly merit of Latour’s Actor-Network-Theory, which allows a myriad of fields to further examine non-anthropocentric conceptions of how we represent human worlds aesthetically, politically, and socially. The rest of the chapter is a critique of Latour’s recent thinking in its promotion of technological development and what Neyrat describes as Latour’s “political ecology.” To do this, Neyrat performs a careful and critical reading of Latour’s essay, “Love Your Monsters: Why We Must Care For Our Technologies As We Do Our Children.” Using the story of Frankenstein as his vehicle, Latour explains our continual suspicion and distrust for technological advancements, that is, “our monsters,” with which we must come to terms with having to care for.Less
Chapter 7 is an overview of the work of the French thinker, Bruno Latour and how his recent thinking and writing seems to align well with those thinkers who place themselves in the camps of ecomodernism and postenvironmnetalism. While Neyrat begins by espousing the importance and scholarly merit of Latour’s Actor-Network-Theory, which allows a myriad of fields to further examine non-anthropocentric conceptions of how we represent human worlds aesthetically, politically, and socially. The rest of the chapter is a critique of Latour’s recent thinking in its promotion of technological development and what Neyrat describes as Latour’s “political ecology.” To do this, Neyrat performs a careful and critical reading of Latour’s essay, “Love Your Monsters: Why We Must Care For Our Technologies As We Do Our Children.” Using the story of Frankenstein as his vehicle, Latour explains our continual suspicion and distrust for technological advancements, that is, “our monsters,” with which we must come to terms with having to care for.
Graham Harman
- Published in print:
- 2015
- Published Online:
- May 2017
- ISBN:
- 9780748697908
- eISBN:
- 9781474416061
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Edinburgh University Press
- DOI:
- 10.3366/edinburgh/9780748697908.003.0003
- Subject:
- Law, Philosophy of Law
This chapter presents Graham Harman’s assessment of a vital, highly disputed, frequently perplexing contrast, namely that of the trajectories of political and legal enunciation. With an air of ...
More
This chapter presents Graham Harman’s assessment of a vital, highly disputed, frequently perplexing contrast, namely that of the trajectories of political and legal enunciation. With an air of clinical detachment, Harman patiently disentangles the mesh of legal obligations and places this strange, non-referential chain into proximity with the political Circle, drawing on the dichotomy of Power Politics and Truth Politics offered in his recent study of Latour’s political philosophy. According to Harman, politics must precede law because it is the charge of politics to collect groups, which may in turn develop a legal order. Similarly, law relies more or less directly on the existence of political authorities – without politics, in other words, law is mere empty, unenforceable, unreliable words. Concluding with an enticing set of questions about the implications of this arrangement for a Latourian international relations theory, Harman’s chapter skilfully demonstrates the promise and the peril of a comprehensive scheme of modes of existence.Less
This chapter presents Graham Harman’s assessment of a vital, highly disputed, frequently perplexing contrast, namely that of the trajectories of political and legal enunciation. With an air of clinical detachment, Harman patiently disentangles the mesh of legal obligations and places this strange, non-referential chain into proximity with the political Circle, drawing on the dichotomy of Power Politics and Truth Politics offered in his recent study of Latour’s political philosophy. According to Harman, politics must precede law because it is the charge of politics to collect groups, which may in turn develop a legal order. Similarly, law relies more or less directly on the existence of political authorities – without politics, in other words, law is mere empty, unenforceable, unreliable words. Concluding with an enticing set of questions about the implications of this arrangement for a Latourian international relations theory, Harman’s chapter skilfully demonstrates the promise and the peril of a comprehensive scheme of modes of existence.
Jason Maxwell
- Published in print:
- 2019
- Published Online:
- September 2019
- ISBN:
- 9780823282463
- eISBN:
- 9780823286317
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Fordham University Press
- DOI:
- 10.5422/fordham/9780823282463.003.0006
- Subject:
- Literature, Criticism/Theory
This chapter provides a careful examination of the work of theorist Bruno Latour and his uptake within English studies. Both literary studies and rhetoric and composition have turned to Latour as a ...
More
This chapter provides a careful examination of the work of theorist Bruno Latour and his uptake within English studies. Both literary studies and rhetoric and composition have turned to Latour as a figure who can revitalize a sagging critical enterprise and allow it to respond more effectively to the crises of the current historical moment, most notably climate change. The chapter first examines Latour’s relationship to the major theorists (Deleuze, Derrida, Foucault) that preceded him and concludes that there is less critical distance between them than many contemporary commentators have concluded. In fact, critics within English have positioned Latour as such a departure from his predecessors as a way to obscure an underlying stability and predictability within critical discourse that they would rather not acknowledge.Less
This chapter provides a careful examination of the work of theorist Bruno Latour and his uptake within English studies. Both literary studies and rhetoric and composition have turned to Latour as a figure who can revitalize a sagging critical enterprise and allow it to respond more effectively to the crises of the current historical moment, most notably climate change. The chapter first examines Latour’s relationship to the major theorists (Deleuze, Derrida, Foucault) that preceded him and concludes that there is less critical distance between them than many contemporary commentators have concluded. In fact, critics within English have positioned Latour as such a departure from his predecessors as a way to obscure an underlying stability and predictability within critical discourse that they would rather not acknowledge.
Margaret C. Jacob
- Published in print:
- 1998
- Published Online:
- February 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780195117257
- eISBN:
- 9780199785995
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0195117255.003.0016
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Science
Because some historians of 17th-century science did not understand the vast differences in the political positions taken by Robert Boyle and Thomas Hobbes, they concluded that not much difference ...
More
Because some historians of 17th-century science did not understand the vast differences in the political positions taken by Robert Boyle and Thomas Hobbes, they concluded that not much difference would have resulted had Hobbes’s absolutism become the English form of government in the 17th century. The actual autonomy of parliament and relative freedom of civil society seemed relatively insignificant. Not being an historian but undeterred by his inexperience, Bruno Latour jumped into the field and argued that modernity, representative institutions, and the freedom of civil society, like the science of either of these great theorists, offered little that was distinctively different from the forms of government in France or Spain at the time. “We Have Never Been Modern” argued that position, and this essay seeks to show how wrong-headed it is.Less
Because some historians of 17th-century science did not understand the vast differences in the political positions taken by Robert Boyle and Thomas Hobbes, they concluded that not much difference would have resulted had Hobbes’s absolutism become the English form of government in the 17th century. The actual autonomy of parliament and relative freedom of civil society seemed relatively insignificant. Not being an historian but undeterred by his inexperience, Bruno Latour jumped into the field and argued that modernity, representative institutions, and the freedom of civil society, like the science of either of these great theorists, offered little that was distinctively different from the forms of government in France or Spain at the time. “We Have Never Been Modern” argued that position, and this essay seeks to show how wrong-headed it is.
John Huth
- Published in print:
- 1998
- Published Online:
- February 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780195117257
- eISBN:
- 9780199785995
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0195117255.003.0012
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Science
Bruno Latour’s article on Einstein attempts to show that even physics is “social through and through”. This essay criticizes his relativistic account of Einstein’s theory of relativity, showing that ...
More
Bruno Latour’s article on Einstein attempts to show that even physics is “social through and through”. This essay criticizes his relativistic account of Einstein’s theory of relativity, showing that Latour misunderstood the role of the observer in that theory.Less
Bruno Latour’s article on Einstein attempts to show that even physics is “social through and through”. This essay criticizes his relativistic account of Einstein’s theory of relativity, showing that Latour misunderstood the role of the observer in that theory.
Henning Schmidgen
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- May 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780823263691
- eISBN:
- 9780823266555
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Fordham University Press
- DOI:
- 10.5422/fordham/9780823263691.001.0001
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Science
The French philosopher and sociologist Bruno Latour (*1947) is a major figure of contemporary thought. This book provides a comprehensive overview of the Latourian oeuvre, from his early ...
More
The French philosopher and sociologist Bruno Latour (*1947) is a major figure of contemporary thought. This book provides a comprehensive overview of the Latourian oeuvre, from his early anthropological studies in Abidjan (Ivory Coast) to his influential books like Laboratory Life and Science in Action and his most recent reflections on an empirical metaphysics of “modes of existence.” The book argues that the basic problem to which Latour’s work responds is that of social tradition, i.e. the complex relationship of culture, knowledge, and time. It shows that Latour’s understanding of this problem is deeply informed by his early involvement with Biblical exegesis, in particular the work of the German theologian Rudolf Bultmann. Against this background, the book questions the innovative potential of actor-network theory (ANT) and the fruitfulness of Latour’s philosophical attempts to understand the plurality of “modes of existence.”Less
The French philosopher and sociologist Bruno Latour (*1947) is a major figure of contemporary thought. This book provides a comprehensive overview of the Latourian oeuvre, from his early anthropological studies in Abidjan (Ivory Coast) to his influential books like Laboratory Life and Science in Action and his most recent reflections on an empirical metaphysics of “modes of existence.” The book argues that the basic problem to which Latour’s work responds is that of social tradition, i.e. the complex relationship of culture, knowledge, and time. It shows that Latour’s understanding of this problem is deeply informed by his early involvement with Biblical exegesis, in particular the work of the German theologian Rudolf Bultmann. Against this background, the book questions the innovative potential of actor-network theory (ANT) and the fruitfulness of Latour’s philosophical attempts to understand the plurality of “modes of existence.”
Christopher Watkin
- Published in print:
- 2016
- Published Online:
- May 2018
- ISBN:
- 9781474414739
- eISBN:
- 9781474422338
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Edinburgh University Press
- DOI:
- 10.3366/edinburgh/9781474414739.003.0007
- Subject:
- Philosophy, General
Chapter 6 considers the figure of the human that emerges in Bruno Latour’s An Inquiry into Modes of Existence and his ‘Facing Gaia’ lectures. Latour neither repeats nor discards previous notions of ...
More
Chapter 6 considers the figure of the human that emerges in Bruno Latour’s An Inquiry into Modes of Existence and his ‘Facing Gaia’ lectures. Latour neither repeats nor discards previous notions of humanity but translates them in a gesture that can be traced all the way back to his doctoral work on the theologian of demythologisation Rudolf Bultmann. In his attempts to elaborate a figure of the human that follows neither the emancipation narrative nor the structure of modernity, Latour (like Serres) develops a multi-modal approach. The human is an amalgam of multiple modes of existence and cannot be isolated within any single mode. Latour also avoids the problems inherent in a host capacity approach by distributing both capacities and substance across human and nonhuman actors in unatomisable collectivities. Whereas the host capacity and host substance approaches seek to understand the human by looking within, Latour insists that the human only becomes comprehensible when we look outside and around. His 2013 Gifford Lectures both develop and challenge themes from the Modes of Existence project, reasserting the centrality of the human now in terms of a non-modern anthropos defined by its limits and its multiple attachments to the world.Less
Chapter 6 considers the figure of the human that emerges in Bruno Latour’s An Inquiry into Modes of Existence and his ‘Facing Gaia’ lectures. Latour neither repeats nor discards previous notions of humanity but translates them in a gesture that can be traced all the way back to his doctoral work on the theologian of demythologisation Rudolf Bultmann. In his attempts to elaborate a figure of the human that follows neither the emancipation narrative nor the structure of modernity, Latour (like Serres) develops a multi-modal approach. The human is an amalgam of multiple modes of existence and cannot be isolated within any single mode. Latour also avoids the problems inherent in a host capacity approach by distributing both capacities and substance across human and nonhuman actors in unatomisable collectivities. Whereas the host capacity and host substance approaches seek to understand the human by looking within, Latour insists that the human only becomes comprehensible when we look outside and around. His 2013 Gifford Lectures both develop and challenge themes from the Modes of Existence project, reasserting the centrality of the human now in terms of a non-modern anthropos defined by its limits and its multiple attachments to the world.
Benjamin Noys
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- September 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780748638635
- eISBN:
- 9780748671915
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Edinburgh University Press
- DOI:
- 10.3366/edinburgh/9780748638635.003.0004
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Political Philosophy
This chapter examines the work of the contemporary anthropologist of science Bruno Latour. Although not usually regarded as a significant figure in contemporary theory, Latour’s work on networks is ...
More
This chapter examines the work of the contemporary anthropologist of science Bruno Latour. Although not usually regarded as a significant figure in contemporary theory, Latour’s work on networks is becoming increasingly influential and demonstrates the spread of affirmative thinking across the humanities and social sciences. Despite the claim to being a neutral analytic tool Latour’s use of network thinking incarnates an affirmative politics that is explicitly anti-revolutionary – a reticular reformism. The emphasis on complexity and density that is core to Latour’s thinking is predicated on the disavowal of any form of negativity as radical change. Against this disavowal, this chapter probes the problem of political violence to reveal the limits of Latour’s thinking. The problem of violence, which Latour tries to dismiss, can be rethought to challenge the violence of state and capitalist power.Less
This chapter examines the work of the contemporary anthropologist of science Bruno Latour. Although not usually regarded as a significant figure in contemporary theory, Latour’s work on networks is becoming increasingly influential and demonstrates the spread of affirmative thinking across the humanities and social sciences. Despite the claim to being a neutral analytic tool Latour’s use of network thinking incarnates an affirmative politics that is explicitly anti-revolutionary – a reticular reformism. The emphasis on complexity and density that is core to Latour’s thinking is predicated on the disavowal of any form of negativity as radical change. Against this disavowal, this chapter probes the problem of political violence to reveal the limits of Latour’s thinking. The problem of violence, which Latour tries to dismiss, can be rethought to challenge the violence of state and capitalist power.
Laurent de Sutter
- Published in print:
- 2015
- Published Online:
- May 2017
- ISBN:
- 9780748697908
- eISBN:
- 9781474416061
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Edinburgh University Press
- DOI:
- 10.3366/edinburgh/9780748697908.003.0008
- Subject:
- Law, Philosophy of Law
Here, Laurent de Sutter poses a direct challenge to a principal tenet of Latour’s metaphysics: Latour’s commitment to empiricity,
positivity and above all the trace by which alone an actor is grasped ...
More
Here, Laurent de Sutter poses a direct challenge to a principal tenet of Latour’s metaphysics: Latour’s commitment to empiricity,
positivity and above all the trace by which alone an actor is grasped in actor-network theory. De Sutter embraces Latour’s argument about the ontological openness or generosity of law – it is the only mode, de Sutter reminds us, capable of seizing any being whatsoever and attaching it to an utterance or an action and thereby registering its agency and, importantly, rendering it compossible with beings of quite other pedigrees. As such, law is the only ‘ontologically neutral’ mode, but there is much more at stake than the harmonics of existential modes, namely the real composition of worlds and, indeed, of what must be defined as the unworldly: ‘all that exists only as non-existing’, ‘all that is present only as absent’, or again, ‘all that has form only as unformed’. These missing masses that Latour occasionally acknowledges, de Sutter argues, escape from the tendrils of the networks that define the real and the knowable, but enjoy something more than a mere negative or emptily theoretical existence. For Latour, plasma is simply the ‘dumping ground’ where he deposits the things that do not awaken his interest, a realm of obscurity that must be set off from the world of which clear and distinct representations are possible. To undo this surprisingly Cartesian tendency in Latour, perhaps, de Sutter suggests, it would be possible to recover plasma as the genus to which Deleuze’s dark precursor would belong. If there is identity, similitude, resemblance, traceability, in short the whole modern system of representation, it is only as a plasmatic excrescent. As a first step along this path, de Sutter makes a pitch for the recovery of what he calls the beings of sensitivity, which may affect other beings profoundly but which themselves leave no measurable trace.Less
Here, Laurent de Sutter poses a direct challenge to a principal tenet of Latour’s metaphysics: Latour’s commitment to empiricity,
positivity and above all the trace by which alone an actor is grasped in actor-network theory. De Sutter embraces Latour’s argument about the ontological openness or generosity of law – it is the only mode, de Sutter reminds us, capable of seizing any being whatsoever and attaching it to an utterance or an action and thereby registering its agency and, importantly, rendering it compossible with beings of quite other pedigrees. As such, law is the only ‘ontologically neutral’ mode, but there is much more at stake than the harmonics of existential modes, namely the real composition of worlds and, indeed, of what must be defined as the unworldly: ‘all that exists only as non-existing’, ‘all that is present only as absent’, or again, ‘all that has form only as unformed’. These missing masses that Latour occasionally acknowledges, de Sutter argues, escape from the tendrils of the networks that define the real and the knowable, but enjoy something more than a mere negative or emptily theoretical existence. For Latour, plasma is simply the ‘dumping ground’ where he deposits the things that do not awaken his interest, a realm of obscurity that must be set off from the world of which clear and distinct representations are possible. To undo this surprisingly Cartesian tendency in Latour, perhaps, de Sutter suggests, it would be possible to recover plasma as the genus to which Deleuze’s dark precursor would belong. If there is identity, similitude, resemblance, traceability, in short the whole modern system of representation, it is only as a plasmatic excrescent. As a first step along this path, de Sutter makes a pitch for the recovery of what he calls the beings of sensitivity, which may affect other beings profoundly but which themselves leave no measurable trace.
Kyle McGee (ed.)
- Published in print:
- 2015
- Published Online:
- May 2017
- ISBN:
- 9780748697908
- eISBN:
- 9781474416061
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Edinburgh University Press
- DOI:
- 10.3366/edinburgh/9780748697908.001.0001
- Subject:
- Law, Philosophy of Law
Thirteen essays exploring Bruno Latour's legal theory from a variety of disciplinary perspectives – including a chapter by Bruno Latour responding to the arguments and critiques offered in each ...
More
Thirteen essays exploring Bruno Latour's legal theory from a variety of disciplinary perspectives – including a chapter by Bruno Latour responding to the arguments and critiques offered in each chapter. This book develops an exciting new vision for legal theory combining analytical tools drawn from Latour's actor-network theory developed in works like Science in Action, Reassembling the Social and The Making of Law with the philosophical anthropology of the Moderns in An Inquiry into Modes of Existence to blaze an entirely new trail in legal epistemology. Bruno Latour's writings in science and technology studies, anthropology, sociology and philosophy are well-known, but only rarely has his work in law been appreciated as a core element, and still less as an obligatory passage point for students and scholars of law. This collection demonstrates the urgency with which both of those omissions must be reconsidered.Less
Thirteen essays exploring Bruno Latour's legal theory from a variety of disciplinary perspectives – including a chapter by Bruno Latour responding to the arguments and critiques offered in each chapter. This book develops an exciting new vision for legal theory combining analytical tools drawn from Latour's actor-network theory developed in works like Science in Action, Reassembling the Social and The Making of Law with the philosophical anthropology of the Moderns in An Inquiry into Modes of Existence to blaze an entirely new trail in legal epistemology. Bruno Latour's writings in science and technology studies, anthropology, sociology and philosophy are well-known, but only rarely has his work in law been appreciated as a core element, and still less as an obligatory passage point for students and scholars of law. This collection demonstrates the urgency with which both of those omissions must be reconsidered.
Sianne Ngai
- Published in print:
- 2012
- Published Online:
- November 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780231156172
- eISBN:
- 9780231520775
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Columbia University Press
- DOI:
- 10.7312/columbia/9780231156172.003.0017
- Subject:
- Literature, Criticism/Theory
This chapter examines two twenty-first-century texts committed to a “philosophy of connection”—one literary, the other sociological—that explicitly take up the challenge posed by the network as form ...
More
This chapter examines two twenty-first-century texts committed to a “philosophy of connection”—one literary, the other sociological—that explicitly take up the challenge posed by the network as form and in a way that directly links it to the challenge of creating a more lucid representation of individual and collective action. The first is Bruno Latour's Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory (2005), which Latour explicitly invites us to read as a literary as well as methodological treatise. The second text is American poet Juliana Spahr's The Transformation (2007), a generically ambiguous prose narrative featuring a radically heterogeneous collective protagonist. Read together, these two texts give a sense of what an aesthetics or discourse of pleasure and evaluation based on networks might look and feel like, as well as a sense of the poetics of connectionism's limits.Less
This chapter examines two twenty-first-century texts committed to a “philosophy of connection”—one literary, the other sociological—that explicitly take up the challenge posed by the network as form and in a way that directly links it to the challenge of creating a more lucid representation of individual and collective action. The first is Bruno Latour's Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory (2005), which Latour explicitly invites us to read as a literary as well as methodological treatise. The second text is American poet Juliana Spahr's The Transformation (2007), a generically ambiguous prose narrative featuring a radically heterogeneous collective protagonist. Read together, these two texts give a sense of what an aesthetics or discourse of pleasure and evaluation based on networks might look and feel like, as well as a sense of the poetics of connectionism's limits.
Henning Schmidgen
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- May 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780823263691
- eISBN:
- 9780823266555
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Fordham University Press
- DOI:
- 10.5422/fordham/9780823263691.003.0009
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Science
Between 2000 and 2010, Bruno Latour starts to shape his general theory of “regimes of enunciation” or “truth production.” In addition to science and technology, he considers religion, law and other ...
More
Between 2000 and 2010, Bruno Latour starts to shape his general theory of “regimes of enunciation” or “truth production.” In addition to science and technology, he considers religion, law and other areas. While his discussion of institutions and materiality remains tied to the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze, the general framework is provided by an encounter between exegesis and phenomenology, i.e. between Rudolf Bultmann on the one side and Etienne Souriau as well as Gilbert Simondon on the other.Less
Between 2000 and 2010, Bruno Latour starts to shape his general theory of “regimes of enunciation” or “truth production.” In addition to science and technology, he considers religion, law and other areas. While his discussion of institutions and materiality remains tied to the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze, the general framework is provided by an encounter between exegesis and phenomenology, i.e. between Rudolf Bultmann on the one side and Etienne Souriau as well as Gilbert Simondon on the other.
Danielle Sands
- Published in print:
- 2019
- Published Online:
- May 2020
- ISBN:
- 9781474439039
- eISBN:
- 9781474476881
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Edinburgh University Press
- DOI:
- 10.3366/edinburgh/9781474439039.003.0004
- Subject:
- Philosophy, General
This chapter puts the novels of Jim Crace in conversation with Graham Harman’s Object-Oriented Philosophy. Beginning with a discussion of the development of OOP in contradistinction to Bruno Latour’s ...
More
This chapter puts the novels of Jim Crace in conversation with Graham Harman’s Object-Oriented Philosophy. Beginning with a discussion of the development of OOP in contradistinction to Bruno Latour’s Actor Network Theory, it assesses the claims made by Harman for the superiority of OOP over contemporary relational ontologies such as that espoused by Jane Bennett. Turning to Crace, the chapter argues that his fiction enacts a sustained movement away from anthropocentrism, demonstrating the collaborative nature of storytelling and absenting the human from a variety of different landscapes. It argues that, in their examination of the ‘allure’ of objects, these novels espouse a position closer to Harman than Bennett. Finally, the chapter interrogates Harman’s presentation of aesthetics as first philosophy, arguing that the clear alignment between Crace’s fiction and Harman’s work reinforces the claim that aesthetics gives access to the ontological, and demands a reconsideration of agency.Less
This chapter puts the novels of Jim Crace in conversation with Graham Harman’s Object-Oriented Philosophy. Beginning with a discussion of the development of OOP in contradistinction to Bruno Latour’s Actor Network Theory, it assesses the claims made by Harman for the superiority of OOP over contemporary relational ontologies such as that espoused by Jane Bennett. Turning to Crace, the chapter argues that his fiction enacts a sustained movement away from anthropocentrism, demonstrating the collaborative nature of storytelling and absenting the human from a variety of different landscapes. It argues that, in their examination of the ‘allure’ of objects, these novels espouse a position closer to Harman than Bennett. Finally, the chapter interrogates Harman’s presentation of aesthetics as first philosophy, arguing that the clear alignment between Crace’s fiction and Harman’s work reinforces the claim that aesthetics gives access to the ontological, and demands a reconsideration of agency.
Serge Gutwirth
- Published in print:
- 2015
- Published Online:
- May 2017
- ISBN:
- 9780748697908
- eISBN:
- 9781474416061
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Edinburgh University Press
- DOI:
- 10.3366/edinburgh/9780748697908.003.0006
- Subject:
- Law, Philosophy of Law
A decisive philosophical intervention pitched at the level of law’s ontology, Gutwirth’s ‘Providing the Missing Link’ renders the difference between law as an institution or a body of norms and law ...
More
A decisive philosophical intervention pitched at the level of law’s ontology, Gutwirth’s ‘Providing the Missing Link’ renders the difference between law as an institution or a body of norms and law as a mode of existence or value a crucial point of passage for any future philosophy of law. The first, Gutwirth argues, isn’t really law at all, but a political and organisational phenomenon easily confused with other norms and normative systems, from the rules of sporting groups or trade associations to ethical codes. The second is a far narrower concept keyed to the production of novel solutions under a particular kind of constraint and has nothing to do with the establishment of standards to be followed. Gutwirth’s finely tuned theorisation of law, which resonates with the work of Isabelle Stengers and Gilles Deleuze, sounds a laudable alarum designed to compel legal theorists to disencumber law of the formidable demands of the Rechtsstaat, while holding firmly to the evasive thread of legal enunciation. For Gutwirth, statements in the key of [LAW] require, as an absolute condition, the ‘anticipat[ion of] how and what a judge or court would decide’, and we are all jurists engaged in the practice of law, or at the least, we ‘speak legally’ and not merely ‘about law’, insofar as we projectively reason on the basis of that anticipation. The passage of law depends on this anticipatory structure, from which Gutwirth derives the signal operations of law (qualification, hesitation, imputation and so on), which work in essentially the same way as they did for the Romans.
Law alone, he concludes – even after it has been unburdened of the political, economic, moral and other duties recklessly imposed on it – remains ‘the rightful and ultimate provider of stability and security’, as the loops of its unique temporality ensure that a resolution to any controversy can indeed be fashioned, even where every other mode fails.Less
A decisive philosophical intervention pitched at the level of law’s ontology, Gutwirth’s ‘Providing the Missing Link’ renders the difference between law as an institution or a body of norms and law as a mode of existence or value a crucial point of passage for any future philosophy of law. The first, Gutwirth argues, isn’t really law at all, but a political and organisational phenomenon easily confused with other norms and normative systems, from the rules of sporting groups or trade associations to ethical codes. The second is a far narrower concept keyed to the production of novel solutions under a particular kind of constraint and has nothing to do with the establishment of standards to be followed. Gutwirth’s finely tuned theorisation of law, which resonates with the work of Isabelle Stengers and Gilles Deleuze, sounds a laudable alarum designed to compel legal theorists to disencumber law of the formidable demands of the Rechtsstaat, while holding firmly to the evasive thread of legal enunciation. For Gutwirth, statements in the key of [LAW] require, as an absolute condition, the ‘anticipat[ion of] how and what a judge or court would decide’, and we are all jurists engaged in the practice of law, or at the least, we ‘speak legally’ and not merely ‘about law’, insofar as we projectively reason on the basis of that anticipation. The passage of law depends on this anticipatory structure, from which Gutwirth derives the signal operations of law (qualification, hesitation, imputation and so on), which work in essentially the same way as they did for the Romans.
Law alone, he concludes – even after it has been unburdened of the political, economic, moral and other duties recklessly imposed on it – remains ‘the rightful and ultimate provider of stability and security’, as the loops of its unique temporality ensure that a resolution to any controversy can indeed be fashioned, even where every other mode fails.
Bruce Clarke
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- September 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780823228508
- eISBN:
- 9780823240999
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Fordham University Press
- DOI:
- 10.5422/fordham/9780823228508.003.0003
- Subject:
- Literature, Criticism/Theory
The theory of evolution marks a recent moment in the long history of narratives of bodily metamorphosis, a modern moment when scientific discourse presented new and persuasive explanations for ...
More
The theory of evolution marks a recent moment in the long history of narratives of bodily metamorphosis, a modern moment when scientific discourse presented new and persuasive explanations for divergences in the forms of living beings. In the mid-twentieth century, the discourse of cybernetics emerged to explore the increasingly complex interface of technological and biological systems. Philosopher of science Michel Serres and sociologist of science and technology Bruno Latour's work is inspired by neocybernetics. Due to the connection to neocybernetics discourse, Latour informs his important polemics against philosophies that divide beings up and purify nature and society from one another. Discourse hybridity in network and self-referential closure can work together in a conceived neocybernetics because they stem from the same classical cybernetic sources. Latour's concepts describe a neocybernetic vision of the necessary hybridity of symbiotic networks and system-environment couplings, and they describe equally well the daemonic landscapes of metamorphic narratives.Less
The theory of evolution marks a recent moment in the long history of narratives of bodily metamorphosis, a modern moment when scientific discourse presented new and persuasive explanations for divergences in the forms of living beings. In the mid-twentieth century, the discourse of cybernetics emerged to explore the increasingly complex interface of technological and biological systems. Philosopher of science Michel Serres and sociologist of science and technology Bruno Latour's work is inspired by neocybernetics. Due to the connection to neocybernetics discourse, Latour informs his important polemics against philosophies that divide beings up and purify nature and society from one another. Discourse hybridity in network and self-referential closure can work together in a conceived neocybernetics because they stem from the same classical cybernetic sources. Latour's concepts describe a neocybernetic vision of the necessary hybridity of symbiotic networks and system-environment couplings, and they describe equally well the daemonic landscapes of metamorphic narratives.
Peter-Paul Verbeek
- Published in print:
- 2011
- Published Online:
- September 2013
- ISBN:
- 9780226852911
- eISBN:
- 9780226852904
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- University of Chicago Press
- DOI:
- 10.7208/chicago/9780226852904.001.0001
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Science
Technology permeates nearly every aspect of our daily lives. Cars enable us to travel long distances, mobile phones help us to communicate, and medical devices make it possible to detect and cure ...
More
Technology permeates nearly every aspect of our daily lives. Cars enable us to travel long distances, mobile phones help us to communicate, and medical devices make it possible to detect and cure diseases. However, these aids to existence are not simply neutral instruments, they give shape to what we do and how we experience the world. Because technology plays such an active role in shaping our daily actions and decisions, it is crucial, this book argues, that we consider the moral dimension of technology. As such, the book offers an in-depth study of the ethical dilemmas and moral issues surrounding the interaction of humans and technology. Drawing from Heidegger and Foucault, as well as from philosophers of technology such as Don Ihde and Bruno Latour, it locates morality not just in the human users of technology but in the interaction between us and our machines. The book cites concrete examples, including some personal ones, and argues for the morality of things. The book forces us all to consider the virtue of new inventions and to rethink the rightness of the products we use every day.Less
Technology permeates nearly every aspect of our daily lives. Cars enable us to travel long distances, mobile phones help us to communicate, and medical devices make it possible to detect and cure diseases. However, these aids to existence are not simply neutral instruments, they give shape to what we do and how we experience the world. Because technology plays such an active role in shaping our daily actions and decisions, it is crucial, this book argues, that we consider the moral dimension of technology. As such, the book offers an in-depth study of the ethical dilemmas and moral issues surrounding the interaction of humans and technology. Drawing from Heidegger and Foucault, as well as from philosophers of technology such as Don Ihde and Bruno Latour, it locates morality not just in the human users of technology but in the interaction between us and our machines. The book cites concrete examples, including some personal ones, and argues for the morality of things. The book forces us all to consider the virtue of new inventions and to rethink the rightness of the products we use every day.
Henning Schmidgen
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- May 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780823263691
- eISBN:
- 9780823266555
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Fordham University Press
- DOI:
- 10.5422/fordham/9780823263691.003.0008
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Science
In the 1990s, Bruno Latour’s research interests shift from science to technology. At the same time, he puts forth his philosophical theory of modernity. This chapter shows Latour continues to ...
More
In the 1990s, Bruno Latour’s research interests shift from science to technology. At the same time, he puts forth his philosophical theory of modernity. This chapter shows Latour continues to conceive of the topics of his studies in terms of exegesis. Technology is only of interest insofar as it can be understood as “translating” actions into slightly altered actions, modernity is seen as a mere “regime of enunciation.”Less
In the 1990s, Bruno Latour’s research interests shift from science to technology. At the same time, he puts forth his philosophical theory of modernity. This chapter shows Latour continues to conceive of the topics of his studies in terms of exegesis. Technology is only of interest insofar as it can be understood as “translating” actions into slightly altered actions, modernity is seen as a mere “regime of enunciation.”
David S. Caudill
- Published in print:
- 2015
- Published Online:
- May 2017
- ISBN:
- 9780748697908
- eISBN:
- 9781474416061
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Edinburgh University Press
- DOI:
- 10.3366/edinburgh/9780748697908.003.0011
- Subject:
- Law, Philosophy of Law
Issuing a bold and, in light of current preoccupations with AIME, untimely call for the continued relevance of Laboratory Life, David Caudill’s chapter realigns the question of Latour’s value for ...
More
Issuing a bold and, in light of current preoccupations with AIME, untimely call for the continued relevance of Laboratory Life, David Caudill’s chapter realigns the question of Latour’s value for legal theory. Rather than mapping the unstable, unpredictable movements of the legal trajectory – a term that, in preceding chapters, has taken on several perhaps inconsistent layers of meaning – Caudill proposes to reconsider the relationship between law and the sciences (and revisits some of the drama of the Science Wars) under the auspices of the economics of science, a flourishing sub-field of science studies veritably inaugurated by Laboratory Life’s influential discussion of cycles of credit and credibility. Deftly untangling the law-sciences-economics knot, Caudill stages the matter of Philip Mirowski v. Bruno Latour (and Michel Callon), in which the defendants were accused of complicity with neoliberalism and charged, by proxy, with the allegedly pernicious effects of the increasing commercialisation of research on the scientific establishment. Mirowski’s critique runs out of steam, Caudill shows, and runs off the rails as soon as the details of law’s appropriation of scientific research and evidence are examined. But the often dismaying implications of Science Wars-era disputes – now being recapitulated or replayed in miniature, in the economics wing of the science studies field and in legal studies – continue to haunt contemporary law as well as science policy, because it remains unclear to what extent judges and regulators (and legal academics) appreciate the material contributions of works like Laboratory Life to the improvement of our understanding of the sciences, and to what extent the co-production thesis developed by Latour, Callon and others still registers as a fanciful exercise in debunking.Less
Issuing a bold and, in light of current preoccupations with AIME, untimely call for the continued relevance of Laboratory Life, David Caudill’s chapter realigns the question of Latour’s value for legal theory. Rather than mapping the unstable, unpredictable movements of the legal trajectory – a term that, in preceding chapters, has taken on several perhaps inconsistent layers of meaning – Caudill proposes to reconsider the relationship between law and the sciences (and revisits some of the drama of the Science Wars) under the auspices of the economics of science, a flourishing sub-field of science studies veritably inaugurated by Laboratory Life’s influential discussion of cycles of credit and credibility. Deftly untangling the law-sciences-economics knot, Caudill stages the matter of Philip Mirowski v. Bruno Latour (and Michel Callon), in which the defendants were accused of complicity with neoliberalism and charged, by proxy, with the allegedly pernicious effects of the increasing commercialisation of research on the scientific establishment. Mirowski’s critique runs out of steam, Caudill shows, and runs off the rails as soon as the details of law’s appropriation of scientific research and evidence are examined. But the often dismaying implications of Science Wars-era disputes – now being recapitulated or replayed in miniature, in the economics wing of the science studies field and in legal studies – continue to haunt contemporary law as well as science policy, because it remains unclear to what extent judges and regulators (and legal academics) appreciate the material contributions of works like Laboratory Life to the improvement of our understanding of the sciences, and to what extent the co-production thesis developed by Latour, Callon and others still registers as a fanciful exercise in debunking.
Manuel A. Vásquez
- Published in print:
- 2017
- Published Online:
- January 2018
- ISBN:
- 9780823276219
- eISBN:
- 9780823277049
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Fordham University Press
- DOI:
- 10.5422/fordham/9780823276219.003.0010
- Subject:
- Religion, Theology
Drawing from Bruno Latour and using the case of La Luz del Mundo, a Mexican Pentecostal church in Atlanta, as an example, this chapter demonstrates the payoffs of a non-reductive, materialist, ...
More
Drawing from Bruno Latour and using the case of La Luz del Mundo, a Mexican Pentecostal church in Atlanta, as an example, this chapter demonstrates the payoffs of a non-reductive, materialist, networks approach to the study of religion. By embedding embodied, historical human actors in vascularized and inter-active ecological figurations from which they have evolved, and through and within which they carve out shared and contested spaces of livelihood, this approach moves beyond the Cartesian-Kantian model of the sovereign, unified, and buffered subject dominant in Western modernity and religious studies, more specifically, allowing for a rich exploration of the multiple processes and materials that make religious phenomena efficacious. The chapter concludes by endorsing Isabelle Stengers’s notion of a cosmopolitics that is maximally inclusive in its engagement with alterity.Less
Drawing from Bruno Latour and using the case of La Luz del Mundo, a Mexican Pentecostal church in Atlanta, as an example, this chapter demonstrates the payoffs of a non-reductive, materialist, networks approach to the study of religion. By embedding embodied, historical human actors in vascularized and inter-active ecological figurations from which they have evolved, and through and within which they carve out shared and contested spaces of livelihood, this approach moves beyond the Cartesian-Kantian model of the sovereign, unified, and buffered subject dominant in Western modernity and religious studies, more specifically, allowing for a rich exploration of the multiple processes and materials that make religious phenomena efficacious. The chapter concludes by endorsing Isabelle Stengers’s notion of a cosmopolitics that is maximally inclusive in its engagement with alterity.
Henning Schmidgen
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- May 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780823263691
- eISBN:
- 9780823266555
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Fordham University Press
- DOI:
- 10.5422/fordham/9780823263691.003.0006
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Science
This chapter aims at clarifying some fundamental concepts of Bruno Latour’s philosophical sociology. It shows that the concept of “actor,” or “actant,” was derived from the semiology of Algirdas ...
More
This chapter aims at clarifying some fundamental concepts of Bruno Latour’s philosophical sociology. It shows that the concept of “actor,” or “actant,” was derived from the semiology of Algirdas Julien Greimas. In addition, it depicts Latour’s gradual shift from the semiological to a pragmatist notion of “actors.” This shift occurs in Latour’s dialogue with Michel Serres and Isabelle Stengers that he increasingly engages in in the late 1980s.Less
This chapter aims at clarifying some fundamental concepts of Bruno Latour’s philosophical sociology. It shows that the concept of “actor,” or “actant,” was derived from the semiology of Algirdas Julien Greimas. In addition, it depicts Latour’s gradual shift from the semiological to a pragmatist notion of “actors.” This shift occurs in Latour’s dialogue with Michel Serres and Isabelle Stengers that he increasingly engages in in the late 1980s.
