| ||||||||||||||||||
Product Details
|
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.
Tag this product(What's this?)Think of a tag as a keyword or label you consider is strongly related to this product.
Tags will help all customers organize and find favorite items. |
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most helpful customer reviews
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
a great, new work; serious social theory for scientists too,
By daum@socrates.berkeley.edu (Nicholas F. Daum, Berkeley, CA) - See all my reviews
This review is from: We Have Never Been Modern (Paperback)
For this reader, Bruno Latour's book is one of the most ambitious, original, and important reformulations of social theory since 1989. It is getting lots of attention among scholars, and deserves a wider public. The press reviews here don't do this book justice.Latour, for those of you who don't know him, has been at the forefront of the emerging field of "science studies", the history and sociology of science, for the past 15 years. He's also a rather bizarre fellow. His "Aramis" is a book of real sociology that is told in the form of a novel, in which the metro car of a failed Parisian public transportation project becomes one of a series of narrators. In "We Have Never Been Modern," he conscisely summarizes the theoretical basis of his work, and stakes out ground that is genuinely new. The book should excite humanisitic academics, scientists, and intellectually adventurous people from all walks of life with a taste for theory. The thesis -- the basis for the "we have never been modern" part -- is that the "great divide" between nature and human, subject and object, science and society, was never real. Instead, he says, this subject/object divide was the great dirty fiction of the "modern" world. To give you the gist of the argument as briefly as possible: the separation of nature and human, that has marked Western intellectual life since the 17th century, allowed both science and the humanities to make their own claims for absolute truth. This divide was the basis for our image of "modern western man." But these claims hid the fact that "hybrids" were springing up all the while. Modernity also spawned technological "quasi-objects" that blur the line between the natural and the human. The tremendous multiplication of these "quasi-objects" (Latour's neologism)in our times has finally forced us to the point where we are at a startling conclusion: the divorce of man from nature never really took place. What we thought of as scientific Western man was never real. Latour wants us, the generation left with the consequences of this revelation, to exhume this past of hybridity, and seek out a new relationship between nature and culture. In short, he wants to both humanize science and render the humanities more scientific. This brief bastardization does not do justice to the work. Latour elegantly and convincingly lays out his thesis, and the results are dazzling and compelling. He's also sharp and witty, and fans of the like of Baudrillard and Derrida will see their idols tossed about a bit. On the other hand, the book is immensely ambitious in its theoretical claims, and has a tendency to pretend that complex and difficult ideas are obvious truth. One wonders at times if he is practicing the French intellectual's habit of making our heads spin for the sheer thrill of watching the confusion. But he's not, and most readers, I think, will finish the book that Latour is ultimately both a sensible man and a humane one. As a graduate student in the humanities, I know that this book is getting a growing audience in academia. I hope that some non-academic visitors to amazon.com (especially science buffs who enjoy the likes of Steven Pinker and Daniel Dennet) will treat themselves to this intellectual adventure. It's a truly original book, not much over 100 pages, reasonably priced, and well worth the experience.
5.0 out of 5 stars
of course some people wouldn't like this book,
By the sparrowhawk (attending the carnival of surface) - See all my reviews
This review is from: We Have Never Been Modern (Paperback)
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.
1 of 6 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars
Falls short of the goals set by the author,
By
This review is from: We Have Never Been Modern (Paperback)
As a professional research scientist who has read extensively on broader issues concerning science and society, and who has developed courses in this area for graduate science students, I was looking forward to reading a book by Bruno Latour. As one other reviewer has stated, Latour is a prominent name in the area of science studies. Prior to obtaining this book I had only read short summaries of his ideas or short sections of his writing contained in other authors books.In the "Acknowledgements" section, which introduces the book, Latour states "I am trying here to bring the emerging field of science studies to the attention of the literate public through the philosophy associated with this domain. Unfortunately he does not even come close to his stated goal. If Latour considers this book to be written in a style that the literate public will be able to understand, then his definition of a literate public is quite unusual, in my opinion. Another reviewer was kind enough to lay some of the blame on the translator, but clearly the author has to take full responsibility for the final content. Richard Feynaman, one of the most famous physicists of the 20th century, was well know for his skill in expressing the physicists complex ideas of matter and energy in terms that ordinary people could understand. Feynaman felt that it was important to express ones knowledge in terms that the literate public could understand. If an experts goal is to produce a document that the literate public can understand, but fails to do this, then one has a right to question whether the author really understands his own field. Our Western noun-based languages can easily fool us into believing that our abstract concepts have some definite reality. This book is full of abstract concepts that are not explained. These concepts may have some reality in the mind of the author, but he has failed to explain these concepts so the literate public can understand them. Perhaps some expert who feels they understand the content of this book will be so kind to write a real translation. As the book now stands, it is clearly written for the expert, fails the goals set by the author, and is best avoided by the literate public. This is unfortunate because many of his ideas merit a wider distribution.
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
Want to see more reviews on this item?
|
Most recent customer reviews |
|