With the rise of science, we moderns believe, the world changed irrevocably, separating us forever from our primitive, premodern ancestors. But ... read full description
reviews
Jan 25, 2010
Michael
rated it: 
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 moderni More...
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 moderni More...
Oct 20, 2011
Meghan
rated it:
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 the More...
“Whatevery they do, Westerners bring history along with them in the hulls of their caravels and the More...
0 comments
like
(1 person liked it)
Feb 16, 2009
Felix
rated it: 
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 R
More...
Dec 10, 2008
Lynn
rated it: 
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 o
More...
Dec 13, 2011
Lyn
rated it: 
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...
Jan 05, 2012
Eric
rated it:
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 simultaneous
More...
Jan 09, 2011
Erdem
rated it:
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, wh More...
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, wh More...
Aug 31, 2011
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...
following up on some leads from Natalie Jeremijenko...
Feb 22, 2010
John
rated it:
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.
Jun 24, 2010
Georgina
rated it:
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.
Jan 31, 2009
Gyewon
rated it:
my favorite latour ^^
having lots of diagrams, plates, and figures working in a fairly modern way
having lots of diagrams, plates, and figures working in a fairly modern way
Mar 22, 2011
Gec2112
rated it:
I see what he's getting at. It doesn't mean I understand completely....
Oct 28, 2008
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 ex
More...
Nov 25, 2007
Steven
rated it:
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
More...
May 01, 2008
emily
rated it:
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.
Mar 25, 2010
Charlie
rated it:
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?
Dec 25, 2007
Cacology
rated it:
A friend suggested this book as a a segue into critical theory from the empirical viewpoint that I normally maintain. It served this purpose well. Latour has some clear points to make, but intentionally makes them in his own style, for good reason.
Jun 13, 2011
thad.miller
rated it:
I would give this 4 stars but I found parts of this essay repetitive and other parts that could have been better supported. But all in all, I enjoyed it and think it's important to read.
Feb 11, 2012
Feb 09, 2012
Feb 09, 2012
Feb 08, 2012
Feb 08, 2012
Feb 07, 2012
Feb 04, 2012
Feb 03, 2012
