call for papers on poltics and the later Latour

Posted on by

Latour-lovers unite!

Object-Oriented Philosophy

My own view is clear: if you’re not assimilating Bruno Latour into your work in some way, then you’re probably stuck in some form of pseudo-novel modernism that wants to use ostensibly dark scientific or mathematical results to club other people over the head.

That’s one version of contemporary continental philosophy. But it’s not too late to go back and take the other fork in the road.

***

Call for Papers

 Politics and the Later Latour

 

Global Discourse:

An Interdisciplinary Journal of Current Affairs and Applied Contemporary Thought

 

Volume 4: Issue 4

November 2014

 

This August sees the publication of the English translation of Bruno Latour’s ‘An Inquiry into Modes of Existence’ (AIME), marking both a landmark in the long-collaborative AIME project and a significant development in Latour’s thought. This issue of Global Discourse will examine the political significance of Latour’s later work, which has seen important…

View original post 372 more words

6 thoughts on “call for papers on poltics and the later Latour”

  2. “The translation begins to stand in for the translated!”
    .
    Good insight; from that point of view, the book does something of a disservice to new scholars who don’t know any better.
    .
    I wonder who needs reassembling now?

    Like

  3. It’s interesting that this call for papers seems to reproduce Harman’s own chronology of Latour’s work that demarcates it into the ‘early’ ANT era and the ‘late’ modes era (he uses this demarcation in his Prince of Modes book). Harman’s chronology is one of the things that allows him to, I think, quite drastically misread Latour and turn his ANT into a general metaphysics. Latour says that it is the ‘modes’ that is the metaphysics and that ANT is and always has been just a sociological subcomponent of that. Because Harman makes a whole metaphysics out of ANT alone – and because he insists that this is what Latour himself is saying rather than just admitting that it is his own peculiar version of Latour’s words – he has to insist that they are different projects entirely and are marked by a definite temporal demarcation. The translation begins to stand in for the translated!

    Like

  5. hahahahaha … no doubt. Like Marx (the early and late Marx), Latour is elevated (the early and late Latour) … although, what about the Post-Latour-Latour when he transcends human form completely?

    Like

  6. Ha, finally! “The later Latour!” – I was waiting for that…the great thing about it is: if he comes up with a new idea from now on, we can refer to that as the “latest Latour”!

    Like

Comments are closed.