In his 1991 monograph We Have Never Been Modern Bruno Latour argues that “There has never been a modern world.”[1] He begins his argument with 1989, a year which marked the rise of global environmental conferences that acknowledged how the rise of ‘modernity’ had a serious negative impact on the environment. He claims that are were three main responses to this idea: An anti modern stance that seeks to end humans’ attempted domination over the natural world, A modern response that maintains faith in modernization and “carr[ies] on as if nothing had changed” though this idea “seems hesitant, sometimes even outmoded”[2] and finally, a postmodern response which wavers between the two, skeptical of both. Latour then carefully outlines his conception of modernism. First, the purification of nonhuman nature and human culture into separate spheres, and then translation creates hybrid networks which mix the two, while still assuming that the two are separate such as the simultaneous scientific, political and economic study of the ozone. He dates the rise of modernism to the seventeenth century when Boyle and Hobbes took separate dominion over the sciences and politics and nature and culture were officially separated. This version of modernism results in a set of paradoxes: Though humans construct nature, they act as if they did not and even though they do not construct society, they act as if they do. Additionally, the human and natural spheres must stay separate and while God exists and is personal and useful, he does not interfere with nature or society. He argues that these paradoxes actually make the modernists seem invincible as they can counter any disagreement by saying that their opponent is anti-modern. Latour continues his argument by saying “no one has ever been modern” and suggests anthropologists take nonmodern view that “takes simultaneously into account the moderns’ Constitution and the populations of hybrids that that Constitutions rejects and allows to proliferate.”[3]
In his third chapter, Latour introduces his concepts of “quasi-objects” or hybrids of nature and society that have been rapidly multiplying in the recent past, such as global warming or deforestation. However, rather than blurring the distinction between the nature and society, these hybrids crystallize the division between the two as they imply that there is a separation to begin with. Instead, he argues that people need to understand the past by recognizing that there was never a moment in the past where nature and culture were divided and no point when historical actors broke suddenly away from their past and thrust themselves into modernity. Therefore, nature and society need to be examined together and not simply be used to explain other activities. Further, he introduces his “principle of symmetry,”[4] in which he argues that the best way to examine nature and society is through “quasi-objects” or the vast networks where human and non human actors and actants interact. Finally, Latour concludes with his thoughts on what academics can learn from intellectuals of the past. From “premoderns,” we can take their hybridization of humans and nonhuman actors; from moderns we can take their propensity for long networks and experimentation, and finally from post moderns we can take an attitude of constructivism.
Latour’s text is interesting for many reasons. Though his writing is often convoluted, he identifies a central problem in science studies: the strident separation between nature and culture. As many recent environmental and technological histories have shown, such a distinction is arbitrary and essentially artificial. Human activity cannot be separated from nonhuman activity because they are one and the same. His text recalls ideas from Raymond Williams’ 1980 article “Ideas of Nature.”[5] Williams argues that it is a fallacy to refer to Nature as a singular unchanging deity separate from humans, when not only have conceptions of ‘nature’ and what is ‘natural’ changed immensely over time, humans exist within the natural world and have great impacts on their environments. And since humans are part of nature, it is hard for us to recognize what this role is exactly or even how we fit within the environment.
Latour’s argument is also reminiscent of C.P. Snow’s famous two cultures thesis presented in 1959.[6] In this controversial book, the British scientist and novelist argues that there is a deep cultural divide between the sciences and the humanities, originating in the Enlightenment. Though the main point of his text is to condemn the British educational system which favored the humanities over science as opposed to American and German systems that offered a more balanced approach, Snow suggests that such a divide is unnecessary and even dangerous since many of the world’s problems are in fact hybrids of issues in science and issues in the more cultural and social arenas. The obvious problem with all of texts is that by addressing the so-called divide between the natural and the sociocultural realms, they lack the language to actually discuss these networks without acknowledging a divide does in fact exist. However, the ideas discussed in Latour and William’s texts are fundamental for anyone who wishes to analyze the role that non-human actors play in history.
[1] Latour, Bruno. 1993. We have never been modern. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. p. 47
[2] Ibid p.9
[3] Ibid p.47
[4] Ibid p. 94
[5] Williams, Raymond. 1980. Problems in materialism and culture: selected essays. London: Verso.
[6] Snow, C. P. 1959. The two cultures and the scientific revolution. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Latour's Book at Amazon
Thanks for the post. Here are a few quotes from We Have Never Been Modern:
ReplyDeleteQuotes from We Have Never Been Modern