call for papers on poltics and the later Latour

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

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized by Nicholas. Bookmark the permalink.

About Nicholas

Associate Professor of Sociology, Environmental Studies, and Science and Technology Studies at Penn State, Nicholas mainly writes about understanding the scientific study of states and, thus, it is namely about state theory. Given his training in sociology and STS, he takes a decidedly STS-oriented approach to state theory and issues of governance.

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

  1. 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

    • “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

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s