It has been a weird, unproductive day at work. I had a hard time concentrating. I was thinking about how AI critique often makes a strong case for humans as opposed to non-human actors and I was wondering what somebody like Bruno Latour - an enormously important figure in my time as a student of history of technology and science and beyond - would say to that. Himself a staunch believer in the co-construction of scientific facts not only by humans but also by non-human actors.
I found out that he died:
“Latour died from pancreatic cancer on 9 October 2022, at the age of 75.”
And I hadn’t even known. At one point I knew a lot about Latour’s work. Closely reading it, applying to a field study of non-academic sociologists on twitter, way back when. That study failed to produce anything, really, but whatever: I spent almost five years positively swimming in “ANT” (actor-network theory) as my framework for describing my “subjects”.
I once saw Latour speaking in the Humboldt University in Berlin. I had to search for it a little, but I believe it happened on 2016-05-121:
- Bruno Latour † Philosoph, Paris On a possible difference between earth and the globe (12. Mai 2016)
I asked him, since he tried to abstain from criticism and instead engage in rediscription of what was more less established (the process of making science), why he wasn’t doing it for the humanities as well. And indeed he was a merciless critic of the epistemic practices and traditions in the humanities at large as well as in the social sciences. Whereas he would go out of his way redescribing the actual physical work that is done to produce a scientific fact, he would merely criticize the work in social fields and not look at how these fields construct knowledge. (And so on.)
I still remember how, in the middle of commenting I suddenly got very excited - there I was, commenting in front of a large audience - on a specific issue that - let’s be honest - had only tangentially to do with the main topic of his talk, but clearly showed that I had lived in this mans thoughts for many years. It was exciting. And the closest I ever came to talk to him.
I also remember his answer. I put my question in a way that asked for patience with the humanists: As “subjects” of an academic anthropology, why would we take what humanists do as the only expression of the humanists process? Why not take the time to look? Latour answered, that he felt, that he had given enough time to the humanists and related my comment to his then new project modes of existence. And that was it.
I still remember that there could’ve been a little more said and done. And I’m also sure that the a - possibly new? - field of an antropology of the humanities would be interesting - has anybody tried to do field work in this way? I’m sooo out of academia… - but I also remember how I somehow knew that this was possibly my only chance to actually make that small, human connection to a person that had opened up the world for me. I’ll always be grateful for his amazing ability to make me rethink everything and get excited about the process of doing the hard epistemic groundwork in the hard way, because that’s how you end up with new insights.
I think that Latour was… is so important to me is because I found him. During my studies we had read the Berlin Key essay, but it was me who took on the ANT head first, by myself, out of sheer intrinsic interest. And I guess because Reassembling the Social had recently become available for purchase and was a perfect entry point for me.
Thank you Bruno Latour.