1. It is with great sadness that we learn the news of Bruno Latour’s passing today. He was an intellectual giant, a friend, & someone whose work inspired me greatly. A thread for those who want to know more about this extraordinary life.
2. To understand Latour, you have to begin in a vineyard. He was born in 1947 into the Maison Louis Latour in the Bourgogne district. Of course, winegrowing is a complex amalgam of the social and the natural. This becomes the motif of his work. logisticsofreligionblog.wordpress.com/2016/06/17/lat…
3. Latour attended a Jesuit school in Paris. Religion will remain important to him, both confessionally & analytically. "I am a professing Roman Catholic”, he declares. His doctoral research included work on Catholic mystic Charles Péguy & German biblical scholar Rudolf Bultmann.
4. An early research project in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire on labour relations between native Ivorians & French factory owners was also crucial; here he began to see the asymmetrical relations of power encoded within the supposedly “neutral” administrations of (post-)colonial France.
5. From here, Latour began work in scientific laboratories in California & elsewhere on the sociology of science, showing how scientists painstakingly "compose" their results by marshalling "allies", both human & non-human, in chains of reference that show us reality.
6. This resulted in a series of studies inc. "Laboratory Life" (1979) & "Science in Action" (1983). These showed us that epistemology = ontology, & vice versa. There is no scientific veridiction that drops down from heaven: truth is that which is progressively composed by actors.
7. These texts were the basis for Latour’s subsequent involvement in the inter-disciplinary field of ‘Actor-Network Theory’ (ANT). But for those who sought a meta-theory, he would point out 3 potential issues: the "A", the "N", the "T" & the hyphen. Such was his humility.
8. Latour is the great philosopher of "transcendent immanence", of a reality that is faithful to sum of its parts. He gives voice endlessly to the proliferating actors that occupy our world, human & non-human. He once said to me: "details, young man, always more details".
9. Among my favourite of his books are those that apply his metaphysical vision to concrete and lived situations, inc. "Aramis" (1993), "The Making of Law" (2002) and (my favourite of all): the extraordinary photo-journalistic study of the city of Paris (1998).
10. His most well-known work (in the Anglophone sphere) is "We Have Never Been Modern", published in French in 1991 and in English two years later, where Latour extends these insights into an analysis of the entire ideological structure of western society.
12. From the early 2000s, Latour began to apply this rich philosophical vision to the situation of the contemporary environmental crisis. This resulted in "Politics of Nature" (2006) &, crucially, "Facing Gaia" (2016).
13. Latour enabled fresh thinking about responsible human-nature interactions at this time, including the concept of Gaia as a way to describe the complex, delicate and inter-connected relationships that exist between living entities and the physical environments they inhabit.
14. He argued that humans must come to understand themselves as embedded within our planetary system, working in co-ordination and synchronisation with its mechanisms, rather than envisaging themselves as equipped to direct or manipulate these from the outside.
15. Thus, for Latour, nothing less than a shift towards a “Gaian politics” will be required if global society is to develop the ecological sensibilities and values needed to face the present environmental crisis and to ensure a sustainable future for all.
17. Latour applied this "Gaian thinking" to the situation of contemporary politics (including Brexit, Trump & the pandemic) in "Down to Earth" (2017), the wonderful "After Lockdown" (2021) and the recent "Memo on the New Ecological Class" (2022).
18. His philosophical masterwork incorporates all these insights into "an anthropology of the moderns", the much-neglected & substantial text "An Inquiry into Modes of Existence" (2013)
19. All this culminates in his plaintive plea that we should renew attention to the delicate and fragile interconnections that bind us together, never seeking to hand over responsibility for the maintenance of the "common world" to another person or concept.
20. Bruno Latour was a great thinker, and a kind & generous human being (see story of my first meeting with him over a coffee in London here: logisticsofreligionblog.wordpress.com/2020/06/16/les…). We remember his life with thanks & seek to carry forward his vision for a world in which all can live in peace.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. In one interesting, controversial and yet little-known essay, René Girard applies his theory to an understanding of the phenomenon of eating disorders: ‘Anorexia and Mimetic Desire’ (2013, from a 1996 lecture). A thread.
2. Why can Girard speak diagnostically on this topic? On the basis of his theory about human desire. For Girard, desire is never a function of an autonomous subject. Rather, it is generated by a pre-conscious psychological formatting that he calls ‘mimetic’.
3. On this basis, Girard proposes mimetic theory suggests itself as an ideal methodological tool for an analysis of the concept of food preference - which is characterized by a disjunction between a subject’s stated and enacted desire of a food item.
1. One of my favourite scholarly books of the last few years has been Gary Dorrien’s "Social Democracy in the Making: Political and Religious Roots of European Socialism". I have learnt a lot from it. A short thread.
2. Dorrien argues for democratic socialism as “the ethical passion for social justice and radical democratic community […] conceiving democracy in terms of character of relationships in a society, not mere voting rights” (p.4).
3. Thus, he seeks to describe a movement of "the heart" that is a kind of supplement to the merely political aims of Social Democracy.
1. I love the @DisorderShow podcast and have greatly appreciated thinking about contemporary geopolitics through this prism. But, if I may, I have a question about the concept of “order” itself.
@alexhallhall and @JasonPackLibya
2. Is there a risk that the term itself - including all its historical and lexical baggage - risks re-baptising a sense of exceptionalism and hegemony that (I know) at heart you seek to critique and overturn?
3. Put it another way, can the idea of “order” ever overcome the sense that it is seeking to format a material that otherwise would be able to flow freely, and find its own "meaning" over time, even if this unfortunately comes through moments of violence, suffering and "disorder"
1. For those Vance-inspired American nationalists trying to claim an intellectual mandate from René Girard, I would suggest a careful reading of “Achever Clausewitz” (2011) - trans "Battling to the End" - in relation to political theology and the concept of apocalypse. A short 🧵
2. In this text Girard argues that world history is an admixture of progress and regression. And that we must live humbly in the midst of, not as "masters" of this trajectory. The metaxy is key here.
3. Girard understands Christianity as demystifying sacred violence. But demystification, which is good in the absolute, is bad in the relative, for it unleashes violent forces that are no longer contained by the scapegoat mechanism -this idea comes from Jesuit theologian Schwager
1. I’ve been meaning for a while to comment on an important article published in @NewLeftReview earlier this year by @docteur_en_rien entitled “Reactionary Ecology”. Let’s see if I can gather some thoughts now, even if this is somewhat inchoate. newleftreview.org/sidecar/posts/…
2. To begin with, I’m glad this sort of discussion can be held. With feisty polemic, it correctly identifies how the recent book - "On the Emergence of an Ecological Class" by Bruno Latour & Nikolaj Schultz - enacts an orthogonal redirection of Marxist political economy tropes.
3. Dominique (who falls into the trap of focusing on Latour, rather than Latour/ Schultz) echoes the dissatisfaction with Latour expressed by many on the Left over the years, who see him as a sort of prodigal son. For example see: newleftreview.org/sidecar/posts/…
1. Throughout his work Bruno Latour offers a critique not just of “modernity”, but also of “secular modernity” - in particular the claim of the secular to provide a structure within which all human ideologies are able to flourish equally.
2. Fundamental to secularism is its claim to provide a neutral or non-aligned space within which human existence can be creatively and independently pursued. Latour challenges this claim, proposing that secularism must be understood as itself having the form of an ideology.
3. In the "Inquiry into Modes of Existence" (2012) and elsewhere, Latour's critique of the neutrality of secularism is on the basis that at crucial points secularism has failed to dissociate or dis-amalgamate itself from a particular religious heritage.