Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

We Have Never Been Modern

by Bruno Latour, Catherine Porter (Translator)

3.92 of 5 stars 3.92 · rating details · 473 ratings · 31 reviews

With the rise of science, we moderns believe, the world changed irrevocably, separating us forever from our primitive, premodern ancestors. But if we were to let go of this fond conviction, Bruno Latour asks, what would the world look like? His book, an anthropology of science, shows us how much of modernity is actually a matter of faith.

What does it mean to be modern? Wha...more

Paperback, 168 pages

Published October 15th 1993 by Harvard University Press

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

More…

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

Thousand Years of Nonlinear History by Manuel De Landa

Aramis, or the Love of Technology by Bruno Latour

Towards Speculative Realism by Graham Harman

Speculative Realism, Actor-Network Theory, Object-Oriented Ontology

9th out of 12 books — 8 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 1,093)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Apr 22, 2013 Neil rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: social-science-and-philosophy, actor-network-theory

Latour is attempting to radically redefine an approach to inquiry - ALL inquiry - through describing both a model for reality and a way of investigating that model which aims to resolve several unresolved issues in inquiry. These range from the issues with the subject/object divide in examining reality, the apparent distinctions between "social" and "natural" science, the apparent distinction between "modern" and other social forms, and the question of just how "scientific" knowledge comes into...more Latour is attempting to radically redefine an approach to inquiry - ALL inquiry - through describing both a model for reality and a way of investigating that model which aims to resolve several unresolved issues in inquiry. These range from the issues with the subject/object divide in examining reality, the apparent distinctions between "social" and "natural" science, the apparent distinction between "modern" and other social forms, and the question of just how "scientific" knowledge comes into being, not least how it comes to be qualified as "scientific" in contrast to other forms.

Actor-Network Theory - of which this book is a founding text, although Latour absolutely hated everything about the name - was developed in part in response to the problems that arose when the practice of scientists was first examined from a sociological perspective. The resulting conflict, known informally as the Science Wars, stemmed from the apparent incompatibility between viewing science as a sociological practice just like any other, neither more "true" nor more "false" overall, and the claim of science to be able to provide an understanding of reality superior to any other.

In this book, Latour claims that the problem of incompatibility stems not just from epistemological assumptions about what "truth" is, nor from the different practices performed by researchers into "society" and "nature". Instead, it is the very distinction between "society" and "nature" that is the problem. The core of modern thinking stems from this insistence that each of the two realms is completely separate from each other. "Moderns" like ourselves hold ontradictory claims about reality, but the claims are never seen together. Society and the human world is both constructed by people and the product of clear external rules, while nature and the material world is both external and constructd (or manipulated) by humans.

Latour describes the world as it should be seen as neither wholly "society" nor wholly "nature": these distinctions are processed into reality through empirical and observable processes of "purification". Additionally, and unseen by moderns, a whole host of "quasi-objects" - objects that do not fit either the category of "social" or "natural" - are brought into being. Somehow, it's the very fact of ignoring the existence of such quasi-objects that leads to their proliferation in modern society.

Latour proposes that by paying attention to the "quasi-objects", it becomes possible to collapse all the dualisms that have plagued ontology and epistemology. This is because the creation of objects - whether "social", "natural" or "quasi-object" - can be understood now as the actions not just of purification, but of translation and delegation operating all together across objects. Quasi-objects, previously ignored as mere "intermediaries" circulating meaning without changing it, become understood as "mediators", explicitly implicated in the creation of reality through the operations performed in the circulation of "facts" and meaning.

The operation of purification separates objects into categories, while translation creates new objects from the old. Delegation is the ongoing processual act of circulating meaning by which an object remains in existence without an essence. Transcendent meaning circulates among objects, but there is no immanent "essential" meaning created outside of the circulation. What happens instead is that the circulation contingently stabilises, resulting in what appear to be "essential" qualities (like "social" or "natural") of objects, which have the appearance of essences but the capability to modify meaning or be modified in meaning themselves.

Inquiry of any kind can now proceed by tracing the circulations of meaning, seeing how they develop and how they stabilise (or don't stabilise). The advantage of this approach is that social and natural inquiry now need not be viewed as separate realms. Since the division between "society" and "nature" is not inherent but contingent, there is no need to keep them divided. Additionally, the existence of "quasi-objects" - neither completely social nor completely natural - can be taken into account and productively utilised. Finally, the distinction between "modern" knowledge and "primitive" knowledge can be described in terms that aren't ethnocentric: according to Latour, the difference between the knowledge of the moderns and the knowledge of "primitives" is merely that the "networks" by which reality is constituted as meaningful is down to nothing more than the large, more extensive networks active in "modern" nature-societies.

The disadvantages of this approach, besides being highly counter-intuitive, are that in rendering the practices of inquiry into nature and society as commensurate, it appears to me to have robbed both of them of any justification for actually proceeding, without offering a compensating justification. This is most pronounced in the social side of the question. A vital aspect of Latour's philosophy is that all objects are commensurate, humans no less than any other. What this means is that all objects, human or no, are imbued with human-like properties: "action, will, meaning and even speech" (p136). Does this extend to human values like justice? Ethics? Life? How does one speak of the "right to life" of a non-human object?

The natural sciences, as well as those methods of social inquiry that seek to test hypotheses, fair no better. In order to make his framework do its work, Latour denies that that there is any transcendent "truth" outside of its situatedness within the workings of networks of meaning. He claims that "facts" observed in, say, laboratories, have no validity outside of that observation, and it is only through deployment of the equipment by which such observations can be made that such "facts" can be created and accepted as "universal" - by which he means, universal to the extent that they exist within the network deployed to create them.

Scientific knowledge is therefore robbed of its claim to predictability. Situating the "fact" as a creation of a network, which must be deployed in order for the "facts" to exist beyond a single point in the network, begs the question of how and why to "deploy the network" in order to propagate different "facts". It also robs scientific knowledge of its special claim to reliability, but Latour is quite okay with this, as his explicit goal is to show that "scientific" and non-scientific knowledge only differ in how their various networks of delegating mediators are deployed.

Latour ends with a call to reconsider the divide between "society" and "nature" in a way that is cognisant of the "quasi-objects" that have proliferated, and which accepts the nature/society distinction but gains awareness of its contingent rather than essential nature. An approach to inquiry that doesn't unnecessarily or prematurely reduce the area of study to soley "nature", or solely "society", and which takes into account the possibility of an area of reality that doesn't fall neatly into either category, sounds like a useful thing. But I'm far from convinced that the radically symmetrical approach suggested by Latour's ontology of objects in networks is a good one. True, he's managed to offer a plausible-sounding (once you get past the language) model by which inquiry could proceed. But it seems to me that he's done so at the cost of providing any reason why anyone should. There is no answer to ethical or political questions possible. There isn't even an opportunity to discover anything except a contingent, entirely situational and readily modifiable truth.(less)

like · see review

Feb 03, 2013 Aurochz rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: philosophy, post-structuralism-and-modernism

Well we kind of have been modern. Oh wait actually we haven't because we separated society and nature and now we need to merge them back together to form a quasi-object. Oh wait actually we never were not that quasi-object, we do mix nature and society. Well actually not by the terms set out very strictly by Boyle and Hobbes who show similarities. Oh wait again my book will seem much cooler and more like those post-modernists I'm trying to separate myself from because I think they're shallow if...more Well we kind of have been modern. Oh wait actually we haven't because we separated society and nature and now we need to merge them back together to form a quasi-object. Oh wait actually we never were not that quasi-object, we do mix nature and society. Well actually not by the terms set out very strictly by Boyle and Hobbes who show similarities. Oh wait again my book will seem much cooler and more like those post-modernists I'm trying to separate myself from because I think they're shallow if I say we were never modern that is a pretty dramatic statement right? But wait what about my cool as fugg quasi- object idea how do I reconcile that with my swagged out dramatic title? I'll say that we never had modernism, but we will when we go with my idea of Quasi-objects. Who cares if every other chapter says something different up until the half way point.

The book didn't exactly go like above but it felt like every chapter brought on some new contradictory view of modernism to the forefront. At one point I found myself almost intrigued by the idea of quasi-objects. I started to taste Mcdonalds food in my mouth. Which I haven't eaten in roughly fifteen years, for some reason it's meat caught between life and death, cooked and uncooked states, being more perfume chemical then substance reminded me of this idea of quasi- objects. I then remembered another philosophy had ideas like this, oh yeah Derrida did and am I the only person in existence that read what he said about "undecidables?" It feels that way sometimes reading these big name philosophers who attack him for not "transcending" or otherwise moving beyond the dichotomies he pointed out. No actually he pointed them out for a reason and he did aim to move beyond them in a way, by using them as an aporetic strategy. Which was much more interesting to me then this idea of quasi-objects. In fact most of the post-modernists are better then Latour, whose philosophy is mostly a watered down quasi-analytical attempt at some of their ideas. They just don't write them in a way as transparent as him, because they wanted their writing style and argumentation to match their ideas. Decentered, rigorous, boundary breaking and process laden. So maybe his quasi-objects aren't Mcdonalds they're more like a whopper filled with lean horse meat. If I was going to eat fast food, there are better choices is what I'm trying to say, I think...

I quasi-recommend this book to those interested in quasi-arguments about quasi-objects, that were better argued for thirty quasi-years before this book.

QUASI!(less)

2 likes · like · see review

Aug 31, 2012 Mjhancock rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: ethnography, philosophy, scholarly

Latour thoroughly goes over the still-present problems that modernity introduced into Western society, and somewhat less thoroughly proposes a solution. It's a short book, at around 145 p of main text, but it's remarkably dense, and despite the very welcome summaries and charts, will probably require careful reading and perhaps rereading. Latour argues, for example, that modernism depends on dichotomies such as nature and society, subject and object, and the more we insist on the division betwee...more Latour thoroughly goes over the still-present problems that modernity introduced into Western society, and somewhat less thoroughly proposes a solution. It's a short book, at around 145 p of main text, but it's remarkably dense, and despite the very welcome summaries and charts, will probably require careful reading and perhaps rereading. Latour argues, for example, that modernism depends on dichotomies such as nature and society, subject and object, and the more we insist on the division between them, the more things stuck in the middle--quasi-objects, as he calls them--proliferate. We spend too much time on purifying concepts, and not enough time on mediating their hybrid forms. He spends a particularly long time on comparing social approaches and scientific approaches in the secondary chapter, through a comparison of Boyle and Hobbes, and long discussions on the concept of the air pump. There's also a very in-depth criticism of the humanities' tendency to constantly declare itself in a state of revolution, and in the process attacks some very cherished beliefs of semiotics, deconstruction, and Heideggerian Being. I came to Latour from some readings on Object Oriented Ontology, and in his demolishing of the other methods--on reasonably sound grounds--I can see why they favored him. The difference, however, is that for Latour, the solution to the failures of the previous attempts is to focus more on the networks and connections, a proposition most OOOists reject in favor of considering further the object. My personal problem with the book is that it is guilty of the same fault of many such "theory debunking" books of this type: it spends the majority of its pages on explaining just why the old methods fail, much less time on the details of the new method, and nothing at all demonstrating this new method in action. Too many theory books call for the abandoning of the old without really taking up anything new--Latour's book avoids that pitfall, in that it explicitly addresses what we can take and use from modernism, but I still would have liked to see what a "nonmodern" approach to a subject looked like.(less)

like · see review

Aug 09, 2012 Mary rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: rhetoric, pedagogy-wpa-composition

Don't get me wrong: I have nothing against Latour. He may even be right. I just don't think he's the French sociologist-philosopher for me. A large part of this is his obnoxious writing style: florid, even literary in places, then, suddenly, needlessly obfuscating. And then he (I can only charitably assume) tries to clear things up with diagrams that, I'm afraid, catch us up in their symmetry and balance rather than encourage critical exploration. In the end, I think this idea that Western, scie...more

like · see review

Jan 25, 2010 Michael rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: tech-studies-comps

This summary is probably going to be a bit flawed and definitely elides some of Latour's critical moves. I really enjoyed reading this, and thought it was very insightful.

Latour starts his book with 1989: the fall of the Berlin Wall marked the triumph of capitalism over communism, and conferences on global climate and environment in Paris, London, and Amsterdam showed that our domination of nature was harmful. How do we respond in these times—to, in some ways, the failures of modernism? If liber...more This summary is probably going to be a bit flawed and definitely elides some of Latour's critical moves. I really enjoyed reading this, and thought it was very insightful.

Latour starts his book with 1989: the fall of the Berlin Wall marked the triumph of capitalism over communism, and conferences on global climate and environment in Paris, London, and Amsterdam showed that our domination of nature was harmful. How do we respond in these times—to, in some ways, the failures of modernism? If liberation from the social (communism's goal) was a failure, and the domination of nature was a failure, to put it simply, how do we respond? Latour articulates three responses: 1) the anti-modern response, which claims we should no longer attempt to end domination of humans and we must no longer try to dominate nature; 2) the postmodern response, which is skeptical of both of these reactions, "suspended between belief and doubt"; and 3) the modernist response, which "decide[s:] to carry on as if nothing has changed"—a response that "seems hesitant, sometimes even outmoded" (9).

Latour then moves to rearticulate modernism in order to understand it. Modernism, he argues, works through two practices: purification of nonhuman nature and human culture (these two things are seen as separate) and translation, which "creates mixtures between entirely new types of beings, hybrids of nature and culture" (10). Modernism works by keeping these two processes separate. Chapter two chronicles part of the development of modernism, Hobbes's invention of politics and Boyle's invention of science ("invention" being my perhaps too simple word to summarize this). Latour argues that these should not be viewed as two separate inventions, but rather as "one, a division of power between the two protagonists, to Hobbes, the politics and to Boyle, the sciences" (25)—the invention of "our modern world" (27).

Latour outlines the paradoxical guarantees of modernism:
1) "even though we construct Nature, Nature is as if we did not construct it"
2) "even though we do not construct Society, Society is as if we did construct it"
3) "Nature and Society must remain absolutely distinct: the work of purification must remain absolutely distinct from the work of mediation" (32)
4) God does not intervene in Nature or Society, but is nevertheless there, personal, and useful (32-33)

Latour concludes that "the modern Constitution allows the expanded proliferation of the hybrids whose existence, whose very possibility, it denies" (34). Thus, modernism and modern critique becomes invincible through its paradoxes (37): it can critique any view and dismiss it as "premodern" by using "the six resources of the modern critique" without admitting that these resources are paradoxical (38).

Latour goes on to argue that "No one has ever been modern" (47) and proposes instead a "nonmodern" (not to be mistaken for antimodern) view that "takes simultaneously into account the moderns' Constitution and the populations of hybrids that that Constitution rejects and allows to proliferate" (47).

Chapter 3 introduces Latour's concept of "quasi-objects," those "strange new hybrids" that the modern Constitution denies exist (51). To just briefly summarize Latour's arguments in this chapter: we need to stop understanding modernism as some great, revolutionary break from the past; Nature and Society need to be explained together rather than used as explanatory terms (81); we should instead focus on the historicity of quasi-objects (85), which allow us to trace networks (89).

Chapter 4 proposes Latour's "principle of symmetry" that argues that both Nature and Society need to be explained, but that this "explanation starts from quasi-objects"—that is, we cannot use Nature and Society to explain things; rather, Nature and Society need to be explained through quasi-objects, through networks (95).

In Chapter 5, Latour proposes what we need to keep and what we need to jettison from various thoughts. From modernism, we can keep quite a bit, but we must leave behind the purification of Nature and Society. From "premoderns" we can keep their hybridization and multiplication of nonhumans (132-133). Latour then proposes that we view human as "A weaver of morphisms," a creator of hybrids or quasi-objects (137). Latour's discussion of nonmodern focuses largely on his important point, that we focus on hybrids, replacing the modern "clandestine proliferation of hybrids" and instead focus on regulating and agreeing upon certain productions of these hybrids in democratic ways (142).(less)

like · see review

Apr 25, 2013 Melissa rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: philosophy, sociology, science-studies

Apparently, we have never been modern ... but how we're different from Middle Ages European society, or anything else for that matter, is unclear. Latour never offers alternative categories. It feels more like he goes back and forth on the matter: we're somewhat modern, we think we're modern, we're not modern, but we act modern ... I don't even know how to put it. His writing is very convoluted and he waffles between arguments, even while there are very interesting ideas throughout the book abou...more

like · see review

Oct 20, 2011 Meghan Fidler rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: the-world-in-theory, venerated-brains

Moving further than the oft quoted introductory Ozone example, the continuity of Latour's analysis is stunning. Positioning the concept of 'modern' against history, progress, and science. Latour demonstrates this by including the agency of material objects alongside the founding formation of Western Science. Modernity becomes a paradox which was imposed upon colonized peoples around the globe:
“Whatevery they do, Westerners bring history along with them in the hulls of their caravels and their gu...more

2 likes · like · see review

Feb 16, 2009 Felix rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: theory

Latours Grundanliegen der Wissenschaftskritik und der Dekonstruktion des "Great Divide" teile ich aus ganzem Herzen. Warum aber dieser fürchterliche Stil, der einerseits den Gestus des ganz großen Wurfes inszeniert und sich andererseits einer unangenehmen "meine Freunde und ich" Rhetorik bedient (ganz schlimm auf S. 9-10)? Entweder ich habe Herrn Latour nicht richtig verstanden (was ja durchaus möglich ist) oder aber er plustert sich auf und tut so als würde er etwas völlig Revolutionäres und Ne...more

like · see review

Dec 13, 2012 M. Newton rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: academic

While extremely dense and difficult to read, Latour's ideas make sense. The precepts of structuralism restricted inquiry, creating blind spots in the progression of knowledge which could only be rectified by a new approach to inquiry. The theory presented in this book is widely accepted (at least in my small part of the social sciences), and I'm not about to critique it. Instead, my main complaint for this book pertains to the writing style. His dense prose and roundabout arguments made it very...more

like · see review

Dec 10, 2008 Lynn rated it 4 of 5 stars

This is a tough read for me as a sociologist, but I especially like the insight about how the divide between humanities and social sciences has led scholars to ignore obvious aspects of our social lives: specifically, that we can discuss the "agentive" nature of things like diseases and technologies, because they are part of the actor-network that drives social change and is often beyond the control of human agency while also producing results that could not have been predicted based on some tec...more

like · see review

Dec 13, 2011 Lyn rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: society, french

Latour blows my mind away. His theory regarding the founding principles of 'modernity' is intriguing indeed, nevertheless I am not 100% sure that I understand what he has to say in a coherent, overall mode. Anyway. What inspires me now the most is simply the way he is observing and generally thinking about things. Ways that have barely crossed my mind before. Another important thing that I, as a sociologist, take home from his lifelong work is his respect to the objects of 'our' scrutiny - respe...more

like · see review

Jan 05, 2012 Eric Steere rated it 5 of 5 stars

Bruno Latour has captured my attention with this 1991 release. In a kind of anthropology of science, Latour’s web links “networks” of the social sciences that have been deconstructed, naturalised, and socialised, marking epistemology, the social sciences, and the sciences of texts as being responsible for the compartmentalization of an off kilter intellectual life. It is impossible for an object of study to be understood across these established disciplines which intend to make it simultaneously...more

1 like · like · see review

Jan 09, 2011 Erdem Tasdelen rated it 4 of 5 stars

Brilliant stuff. Especially enjoyed the manifesto-like language.

Just one thing though - I'm not ENTIRELY convinced that the separation between Nature and Society instituted by modernity is/was so rigid. This is difficult to argue because Latour would actually agree with this point, what with the proliferation of quasi-objects and what not, but what I mean to say is that I think by delineating this separation so persistently he may be PRODUCING the said intention of total separation, which may no...more

like · see review

Feb 22, 2010 John Roberson rated it 5 of 5 stars

In this short book Latour analyzes the claim that we are "modern," expanding on the concept and profoundly challenging its presumptions. He manages to cover a whole lot of ground -- from science to politics, technology to language, Hobbes to Heidegger.

like · see review

Jul 28, 2012 Lizzy rated it 5 of 5 stars

Difficult reading, and absolutely worth the effort for anyone interested in the philosophy and history of science. I emerged changed after working through this book. As someone else mentioned, the insights are stunning.

like · see review

Jun 24, 2010 Georgina rated it 2 of 5 stars

I think I need to come clean and say that I probably didn't understand it. But I think that his writing is so full-of-himself it is hard to take.

like · see review

May 12, 2012 Julio César rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Latour desnaturaliza la llamada "Constitución moderna", basada en la separación radical de la naturaleza y la sociedad. Esta Constitución permitió, por otra parte, la proliferación ubicua de "híbridos" objetos-sujetos. La ciencia y el pensamiento político (personificados en la controversia entre Boyle y Hobbes sobre la bomba de vacío) se esforzaron por separar estos dominios incontaminados, en un trabajo de "purificación".
Pero Latour enfatiza la necesidad de pensar de manera no-moderna, atendien...more

like · see review

Dec 25, 2012 Samar Almossa rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: 2013-reading-list

The title struck me as YES we have never been modern . I read only a few pages related to postmodernism.

like · see review

Jul 02, 2012 Daniel Burton-Rose rated it 5 of 5 stars

A profound effort to dissolve the Us-Other dichotomy at the center of the European intellectual tradition.

1 like · like · see review

Jan 31, 2009 Gyewon rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: modernity, sts

my favorite latour ^^
having lots of diagrams, plates, and figures working in a fairly modern way

like · see review

Apr 10, 2013 Charles rated it 3 of 5 stars

Needs to be rewritten by someone who can better communicate the core ideas

like · see review

Mar 22, 2011 Gec2112 rated it 2 of 5 stars

I see what he's getting at. It doesn't mean I understand completely....

like · see review

Oct 13, 2009 Leigh rated it 2 of 5 stars

I found this semi-interesting, but very inaccessible

like · see review

Oct 28, 2008 Matthew Boehm added it

Latour unpacks our modernity, claiming that our current society - based on the purification, or separation, of nature and culture, the object and the subject, etc - is founded upon our common ignorance of the "proliferation of hybrids" that has allowed social growth on an unprecedented scale. (Boyle's air pump a good example). Ultimately, he argues for a new "nonmodern constitution" that takes into account our dependence on hybrids of nature-culture, a democracy that would extend rights not only...more

like · see review

Nov 25, 2007 Steven rated it 4 of 5 stars

I really like Latour's school of actor-network theory, so I really loved sections 4.5 and 4.6. I felt like he was a little self-indulgent with some sections. Specifically I'm thinking of the dive-bomb into Heidegger - seriously, that came out of nowhere for me and was practically meaningless since I haven't read any of ol' Marty's books. Overall an interesting read, though I did feel like some of his conclusions-solutions were more of a theoretical reinterpretation rather than a practical set of...more

like · see review

Apr 10, 2013 Bryanbannon rated it 5 of 5 stars

Best introduction to Latour's work.

like · see review

May 11, 2010 dead letter office marked it as remember

kiran asher 5/10

like · see review

May 01, 2008 emily rated it 4 of 5 stars

The ultimate anti-humanist manifesto! The language is kind of obnoxious unless your into french pomposity, and it contains lots of funny diagrams and made-up words like "natureculture." But despite its tone, the book is very important for thinking about interconnectedness between people and things, and the past and the present. And you'll definitely think the same way about global warming.

like · see review

Mar 25, 2010 Charlie rated it 5 of 5 stars

latour rules. true believers in the science of the Enlightenment are buffoons who've never developed the critical tools to understand their own discipline. Idealist philosophers who think they've deconstructed reality are delusional and self-serving. latour is innovative and audacious. calls people out and pointedly ridicules entire schools of thought. i like him. be my friend, bruno?

like · see review

Feb 12, 2013 Robert marked it as to-read

really interesting so far. he goes into more details on the scientific experiments and primary texts than I need (though def. I admire his rigor), but the overall arguments seem very interesting. more once I have finished it!

following up on some leads from Natalie Jeremijenko...

like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 36 37 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend it | Stats | Recent status updates

combine
Other Editions (9)

More editions...

Genres

Philosophy

30 users

Anthropology

17 users

Philosophy > Theory

13 users

Sociology

11 users

Non Fiction

9 users

Science

5 users

Academic

5 users

Reference > Research

3 users

Cultural > France

3 users

Politics

3 users

See top shelves...

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Bruno Latour

Bruno Latour is a French sociologist of science and anthropologist and an influential theorist in the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS). After teaching at the École des Mines de Paris (Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation) from 1982 to 2006, he is now Professor and vice-president for research at Sciences Po Paris (2007), where he is associated with the Centre de sociologie des organisa...more

More about Bruno Latour...

Books by Bruno Latour

Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory

Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society

Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts

Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies

Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences Into Democracy

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About Wir sind nie mode...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

title link	preview: We Have Never Been Modern
avg rating	preview: We Have Never Been Modern Goodreads rating: 3.92 (473 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/134569.We_Have_Never_Been_Modern?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1348835649l/134569.jpg[/img][/url] [url=https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/134569.We_Have_Never_Been_Modern?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]We Have Never Been Modern by Bruno Latour[/url]

We Have Never Been Modern

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website