We Have Never Been Modern | 
 enlarge | Author: Bruno Latour
Creator: Catherine Porter
Publisher: Harvard University Press
Category: Book
List Price: $22.50
Buy New: $19.76
You Save: $2.74 (12%)
New (18) Used (8) from $15.55
Rating:  7 reviews
Sales Rank: 139057
Media: Paperback
Pages: 168
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.4
Dimensions (in): 8.8 x 6 x 0.6
ISBN: 0674948394
Dewey Decimal Number: 303.483
EAN: 9780674948396
ASIN: 0674948394
Publication Date: July 4, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: Brand new book! Delivered direct from our US warehouse by Expedited (4-7 days) or Standard (usually 10-14 days but can be longer). Expedited shipping recommended for speedier delivery. Over 1 million satisfied customers
| |
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
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? What difference does the scientific method make? The difference, Latour explains, is in our careful distinctions between nature and society, between human and thing, distinctions that our benighted ancestors, in their world of alchemy, astrology, and phrenology, never made. But alongside this purifying practice that defines modernity, there exists another seemingly contrary one: the construction of systems that mix politics, science, technology, and nature. The ozone debate is such a hybrid, in Latour's analysis, as are global warming, deforestation, even the idea of black holes. As these hybrids proliferate, the prospect of keeping nature and culture in their separate mental chambers becomes overwhelming--and rather than try, Latour suggests, we should rethink our distinctions, rethink the definition and constitution of modernity itself. His book offers a new explanation of science that finally recognizes the connections between nature and culture--and so, between our culture and others, past and present. Nothing short of a reworking of our mental landscape. We Have Never Been Modern blurs the boundaries among science, the humanities, and the social sciences to enhance understanding on all sides. A summation of the work of one of the most influential and provocative interpreters of science, it aims at saving what is good and valuable in modernity and replacing the rest with a broader, fairer, and finer sense of possibility.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 2 more reviews...
 The philosophy of coexistence November 30, 2008
Malvin (Frederick, MD USA)
"We Have Never Been Modern" by Bruno Latour is a brilliant interdisciplinary work that profoundly challenges our assumptions about the world we live in. Mr. Latour views the Enlightenment from an anthropological perspective to reveal how its multiple and contradictory ideals have conspired to lead humanity towards ever greater social and environmental crises. Mr. Latour's breakthrough analysis provides a philosophical road map towards a sustainable 'nonmodern' world wherein nature and society are more harmoniously joined together for the greater good.
Mr. Latour traces our modern confusion to a series of debates between Thomas Hobbes and Robert Boyle in the seventeenth century which led to divergences in the study of nature or ideologies on the one hand and science or facts on the other; modernity became defined by the knowing of what was previously unknown. Mr. Latour contends that the 'purification' or incontestability of scientific facts and ideologies has failed to account for the 'hybrid' ways in which society and nature actually respond to change. Indeed, the interjection of science into the real world has created a multiplicity of what Mr. Latour calls 'quasi-objects', or phenomena that are located in the midpoint between science and nature; examples of quasi-objects include global warming, genetic engineering, the AIDS epidemic, and so on. Mr. Latour believes that we are ill-equipped to address these problems inasmuch as the institutions built around Enlightenment ideals have failed to account for the nonseparation of social practices from nature.
In this light, Mr. Latour rejects the idea that humanity has ever really broken away from its premodern past. To begin with, Mr. Latour suggests that the premoderns' assignment of transcendence to inanimate objects is similar in kind to the transcendent powers assigned by moderns to sciences and ideologies. Mr. Latour goes on to contend that the modern experience is simply larger in scale than the premodern, with ever-more sophisticated but conflicting explanations about the meaning of the extended networks that bind our lived experiences undergoing constant flux. Mr. Latour states that 'morphism' better explains the nonmodern world we inhabity, in which humans must continuously adapt themselves to changing sociological and natural conditions. Mr. Latour argues that once we refute the idea that we have ever been modern, we can reclaim our sense of being ordinary and thereby express our solidarity with all peoples and the planet; at that point, we will be able to focus on the 'collective' challenge of addressing the critical problems that confront us. Crucially, this task requires that our conception of politics enlarges; the discourse must encompass the multitude of human and non-human subjects or 'things' alike if we wish to solve the problems that the 'quasi-objects' present to us. For example, Mr. Latour suggests that in the case of ozone depletion such a debate might be enjoined by representatives speaking on behalf of chemical companies, workers, the ozone hole itself, Antarctica, and so on.
Originally written in 1991, Mr. Latour's pathbreaking thought has proven to be highly influential, with many of his arguments in essence being echoed and enlarged by more and more similarly-minded progressive writers. To cite just a few: Robyn Eckersley's The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty articulates the juridical basis for the representation of non-human life forms in our democracy; Vandana Shiva's Earth Democracy: Justice, Sustainability, and Peace provides a moral argument for human rights and environmentally justice; and Steven Wise' Drawing the Line makes a compelling case for animal rights. Together, works such as these suggest that a new Enlightenment may well be forming around the recognition that humanity's fate is dependent upon, and not estranged from, the other life forms that coexist with us on planet earth.
This challenging but deeply rewarding book is highly recommended for all philosophically-minded and hopeful readers.
Good but Complex November 13, 2008
Tanya Phillips (Boulder, CO)
Unfortunately I have not finished the book yet due to time constraints, but I have completed the first few chapters. It is a complicated book that requires attention to detail and some discussion. I am a atmospheric scientists so the type of writing found is this book is new to me and required 100% concentration. Discussing the book with a group was essential for clarifying some points the author had. I don't feel knowledgeable enough in this field to comment on the validity of the paper, I'll leave that to the professionals.
Engaging discussion of our views of culture and nature December 6, 2007
mjp (Kristiansand, Norway)
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
For those readers familiar with Science in Action, Bruno Latour may not at first strike one as the ideal candidate to sort out the most pressing philosophical issues about human cultures. But that is exactly what this slim, easy to follow volume does: it sorts them out. Latour posits that our "modern" society (and this is taken as Western and/or industrialized society) is based upon a series of paradoxes whereby both nature and society are "constructed" (by humans) and at the same time "transcendent." This contradiction enables us to, among other things, appropriate huge chunks of the natural into the social without giving it so much as a thought because the "modern constitution" of our thought effectively prevents it. Nature can both intervene in society (e.g. by being transformed into manufactured items) and remain distinct, pristinely "natural." Through a series of carefully argued comparisons and contrasts between the "modern consistution," the "non-modern constitution," and (of course) the "postmodern constitution" Latour offers a way for Western society to achieve a responsible relationship to nature and society through a reconsideration of the affects of, for example, the implementation of a new technology on both the natural and the social. The many graphic illustrations and charts serve to provide visual explanations for his argument. I never would have ventured into this text without them. Regardless of your background or ideological leanings, be prepared to be challenged by We Have Never Been Modern in two areas. First, Latour is not shy about employing specific terms where he deems necessary, and that is absolutely everywhere. Many of the neologisms I have found quite helpful, but the reader's attention must never waver when they are trotted out. Furthermore, you should be prepared to follow Latour wherever he may list, in particular into the history of the vacuum pump. The second major area of challenge is in the nature of his solution to the modern quandary, what he terms "The parliament of things." This arrangement of otherwise distinct and dispersed voices from and about the same "quasi-object" will require major compromises all around. It is hard enough to give a voice to indigenous populations, Latour wishes to enlist others (even scientists!) to speak on behalf of the trees. The price is hefty, but well worth the money, the wait and the effort of what, in the main, is an exhilirating read.
of course some people wouldn't like this book July 18, 2003
the sparrowhawk (attending the carnival of surface)
16 out of 36 found this review helpful
i loved this book: it questions the idea of repeatability, which means that it questions the religion of science (as practiced by amateurs)and it shows you how language has served the impulse towards duplicity. the book also has a certain tongue-in-cheek wit about it, and that makes the ideas more interesting to read.i can see where latour would make people nervous if they were fully invested in a point of view not fully understood. but, until the government takes down the bill of rights, diversity in thinking is still allowed and maybe even encouraged. enjoy this book. it is fun.
 Interesting, but hard to read October 30, 2000
kent dahlgren (Portland, Oregon United States)
12 out of 69 found this review helpful
I'd like to think I'm not a dummy, but this was hard to read. It looks to me like the book was translated to English by someone who might know more about Anthropology than written communication. There were times when I felt that maybe it had been run through Babblefish.Dissing of the translator aside, the author assumes the reader is completely knowlegable of all the apparently pretty divisions and differences in opinions between one group of scientists and another. Man I could care less, unless it leads to an advancement of a science, and I wasn't convinced. But maybe because I didn't care. There were times where I felt that a greater service would have been done if the soap opera would have been skipped. That said, the book contains some insightful and thought provoking ideas on how societies view each other and themselves. I found some concepts a powerful catalyst in my design efforts.
|
|
|
