Bruno Latour is a French anthropologist, philosopher and sociologist who has made significant contributions to the fields of science and technology studies (STS), actor-network theory (ANT), and environmental sociology. His work has been influential in a wide range of academic disciplines, including anthropology, sociology, philosophy, science studies, and media studies.
Key Ideas:
Actor-network theory (ANT): Latour is one of the founders of ANT, which is a sociological approach to the study of science and technology. ANT is based on the idea that social and technical actors are not separate but are instead part of a network of relationships.
The coproduction of nature and society: Latour argues that nature and society are not separate but are instead coproduced through the practices of scientists, engineers, and other actors. This means that our understanding of nature is not objective or independent of human action, but is instead shaped by the way we interact with it.
The role of intermediaries in networks: Latour argues that intermediaries, such as objects, texts, and people, play a crucial role in connecting actors and shaping the flow of information and influence within networks.
The importance of reflexivity: Latour argues that scientists and social scientists need to be reflexive about their own role in producing knowledge and shaping the world around them.
Impact:
Latour’s work has been highly influential in the field of STS, and it has also had a broader impact on social theory and philosophy. His ideas have been used to study a wide range of phenomena, including climate change, globalization, and the role of technology in society.
Books
We Have Never Been Modern (1993): This book is a critique of the modern worldview, which Latour argues is based on a false distinction between nature and society. Latour argues that this distinction is artificial and that nature and society are instead coproduced through human action.
Science in Action (1987): This book is an introduction to actor-network theory (ANT), which is a sociological approach to the study of science and technology. Latour argues that ANT can help us to understand how scientific knowledge is produced and how it shapes the world around us.
Pandora’s Hope (1999): This book is a follow-up to We Have Never Been Modern, in which Latour explores the possibilities for environmental politics in a post-modern world. Latour argues that we need to move beyond the traditional distinction between nature and society in order to address environmental problems.
Reassembling the Social (2005): This book is a collection of essays that further develops Latour’s ideas about ANT and the coproduction of nature and society. Latour argues that we need to rethink our understanding of the social world in order to account for the role of non-human actors.
An Inquiry into Modes of Existence (2013): This book is a major reworking of Latour’s earlier work, in which he proposes a new classification of the different modes of existence that make up the world. Latour argues that we need to take into account the diverse and heterogeneous nature of the world in order to understand how it works.
These are just a few of Bruno Latour’s many books. His work is extensive and covers a wide range of topics. If you are interested in learning more about his work, I encourage you to explore his bibliography.
Here are a list of some of the books written by Bruno Latour:
We Have Never Been Modern (1993)
The Pasteurization of France (1988)
Science in Action (1987)
Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts (1979)
Aramis or the Love of Technology (1996)
Pandora’s Hope (1999)
Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy (2004)
Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory (2005)
Facing Gaia: Eight Lectures on the New Climate Regime (2017)
We Have Never Been Modern (1993)
In his book We Have Never Been Modern (1993), Bruno Latour critiques the modernist worldview, which he argues is based on a false distinction between nature and society. He argues that this distinction is artificial and that nature and society are instead coproduced through human action.
Key Ideas:
The distinction between nature and society is artificial: Latour argues that the distinction between nature and society is a product of modernity and is not based on any objective reality. He argues that nature and society are instead intertwined and coproduced through human action.
The role of intermediaries in the production of nature: Latour argues that intermediaries, such as objects, texts, and people, play a crucial role in the production of nature. These intermediaries act as mediators between humans and the natural world, and they help to shape our understanding of nature.
The need to rethink our relationship with nature: Latour argues that we need to rethink our relationship with nature in light of the fact that nature and society are coproduced. He argues that we need to move beyond the traditional distinction between nature and society and to develop a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between humans and the natural world.
Here is a table summarizing the key ideas of the book:
| Idea | Definition | |—| | Distinction between nature and society is artificial | Nature and society are intertwined and coproduced through human action. | | The role of intermediaries in the production of nature | Intermediaries, such as objects, texts, and people, play a crucial role in the production of nature. | | The need to rethink our relationship with nature | We need to move beyond the traditional distinction between nature and society and to develop a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between humans and the natural world. |
Science in Action (1987)
In his book Science in Action (1987), Bruno Latour introduces actor-network theory (ANT), a sociological approach to the study of science and technology. ANT is based on the idea that social and technical actors are not separate but are instead part of a network of relationships.
Key Ideas:
The rejection of the distinction between science and society: Latour argues that the traditional distinction between science and society is artificial and that the two are instead intertwined. He argues that we need to study science as a social practice in order to understand it fully.
The importance of intermediaries in the production of scientific knowledge: Latour argues that intermediaries, such as objects, texts, and people, play a crucial role in the production of scientific knowledge. These intermediaries help to connect actors and shape the flow of information and influence within networks.
The coproduction of scientific knowledge and society: Latour argues that scientific knowledge is not produced in a vacuum, but is instead shaped by the social and material context in which it is produced. This means that scientific knowledge is not objective or neutral, but is instead socially constructed.
Here is a table summarizing the key ideas of the book:
| Idea | Definition |
|---|---|
| Rejection of distinction between science and society | Science and society are intertwined and need to be studied together. |
| Importance of intermediaries in the production of scientific knowledge | Intermediaries play a crucial role in the production of scientific knowledge. |
| Coproduction of scientific knowledge and society | Scientific knowledge is not objective or neutral, but is instead socially constructed. |
Pandora's Hope (1999)
In his book Pandora’s Hope (1999), Bruno Latour argues that we need to move beyond the traditional distinction between nature and society in order to address global environmental problems. He argues that we should focus on the entanglement of humans and non-humans, and that we should treat all actors as full participants in the process of making and remaking the world.
Key Ideas:
The need to move beyond the distinction between nature and society: Latour argues that the traditional distinction between nature and society is a false dichotomy that is not helpful for addressing environmental problems. He argues that we need to focus on the entanglement of humans and non-humans, and that we should treat all actors as full participants in the process of making and remaking the world.
The importance of the collective action of humans and non-humans: Latour argues that we need to develop new forms of collective action that can involve humans and non-humans working together to solve environmental problems. He argues that we need to be more creative and flexible in our thinking about how to address these problems.
The need for a “parliament of things”: Latour argues that we need to create a “parliament of things” in which all actors, both human and non-human, can have a voice in decision-making processes. This would allow us to take a more holistic and democratic approach to addressing environmental problems.
Here is a table summarizing the key ideas of the book:
| Idea | Definition |
|---|---|
| Move beyond distinction between nature and society | We should focus on the entanglement of humans and non-humans. |
| Importance of collective action of humans and non-humans | We need to develop new forms of collective action that can involve humans and non-humans working together. |
| Need for a “parliament of things” | We need to create a “parliament of things” in which all actors, both human and non-human, can have a voice in decision-making processes. |
Reassembling the Social (2005)
In his book Reassembling the Social (2005), Bruno Latour further develops his ideas about actor-network theory (ANT) and the coproduction of nature and society. He argues that we need to rethink our understanding of the social world in order to account for the role of non-human actors.
Key Ideas:
The reassembling of the social: Latour argues that we need to reassemble the social world by taking into account the role of non-human actors. He argues that non-human actors are not passive objects, but are instead active participants in the production and reproduction of social relations.
The importance of networks: Latour argues that the social world is not made up of separate or discrete entities, but is instead made up of networks of interconnected actors. These networks are constantly being assembled and reassembled through the actions of humans and non-humans.
The role of mediation: Latour argues that non-human actors play a crucial role in mediating between humans and other humans. They can act as intermediaries, translators, and bridges between different actors and networks.
Here is a table summarizing the key ideas of the book:
| Idea | Definition |
|---|---|
| Reassembling the social | We need to take into account the role of non-human actors in the production and reproduction of social relations. |
| Importance of networks | The social world is made up of networks of interconnected actors. |
| Role of mediation | Non-human actors play a crucial role in mediating between humans and other humans. |
An Inquiry into Modes of Existence (2013)
In his book An Inquiry into Modes of Existence (2013), Bruno Latour proposes a new classification of the different modes of existence that make up the world. He argues that we need to take into account the diverse and heterogeneous nature of the world in order to understand how it works.
Key Ideas:
The multiplicity of modes of existence: Latour argues that there is not a single, unified reality, but rather a plurality of modes of existence. These modes of existence are not reducible to one another, and they can coexist in complex and unpredictable ways.
The importance of translation: Latour argues that we need to be able to translate between different modes of existence in order to understand the world around us. This requires us to be open to the possibility that there may be other ways of knowing and being in the world than our own.
The need for a new metaphysics: Latour argues that we need to develop a new metaphysics that can account for the plurality of modes of existence. This metaphysics would need to be able to accommodate the diversity of the world and our place within it.
Here is a table summarizing the key ideas of the book:
| Idea | Definition |
|---|---|
| Multiplicity of modes of existence | There is not a single, unified reality, but rather a plurality of modes of existence. |
| Importance of translation | We need to be able to translate between different modes of existence in order to understand the world around us. |
| Need for a new metaphysics | We need to develop a new metaphysics that can account for the plurality of modes of existence. |
Laboratory Life is a groundbreaking work of science studies that challenges the traditional view of science as a neutral and objective enterprise. Latour argues that scientific facts are not discovered, but rather they are constructed through a complex process of negotiation and persuasion that takes place in the laboratory. He shows how scientists use a variety of techniques, such as inscription devices, rhetoric, and the deployment of particular social and cultural resources, to convince others of the validity of their claims.
Latour’s key arguments can be summarized as follows:
The laboratory is not a neutral space: Latour argues that the laboratory is not a place where scientists simply observe and record the natural world. Instead, it is a social and political space where scientists actively construct scientific facts through a variety of practices.
Scientific facts are not objective: Latour argues that scientific facts are not objective and value-free. Instead, they are always embedded in the social and cultural context in which they are produced.
Scientific knowledge is not stable: Latour argues that scientific knowledge is not stable or fixed, but is constantly being challenged and renegotiated.
The success of a scientific fact depends on its ability to travel: Latour argues that the success of a scientific fact depends on its ability to travel beyond the laboratory and convince other scientists, policymakers, and the public of its validity.
Latour’s work has had a profound impact on the field of science studies and has helped to shape our understanding of how scientific knowledge is produced and contested. His work has also been used to challenge the authority of science and to open up new possibilities for understanding the role of science in society.
Here are some of the specific techniques that Latour describes in Laboratory Life that scientists use to construct scientific facts:
Inscription devices: Scientists use inscriptions, such as graphs, charts, and photographs, to transform messy and ambiguous data into a clear and unambiguous form.
Rhetoric: Scientists use rhetoric, such as analogy, metaphor, and storytelling, to persuade others of the validity of their claims.
Social and cultural resources: Scientists draw on a variety of social and cultural resources, such as authority, expertise, and reputation, to bolster their claims.
Latour’s work has been praised for its insightful and provocative analysis of the social construction of scientific knowledge. However, it has also been criticized for being too relativistic and for not providing a clear account of how scientific knowledge can be justified.
3_latourewoolgar_1986_laboratory-life-e28093-theconstruction-of-scientific-facts_book