Bruno Latour - Knowledge

1167:, arguing that "objects of belief" (e.g., religion, arts) are merely concepts created by the projected wishes and desires of the "naive believer"; the "fact position" argues that individuals are dominated, often covertly and without their awareness, by external forces (e.g., economics, gender). (p. 238) "Do you see now why it feels so good to be a critical mind?" asks Latour: no matter which position you take, "You're always right!" (p. 238–239) Social critics tend to use anti-fetishism against ideas they personally reject; to use "an unrepentant positivist" approach for fields of study they consider valuable; all the while thinking as "a perfectly healthy sturdy realist for what you really cherish." (p. 241) These inconsistencies and 1074:, or antimodernism. His stance was that we have never been modern and minor divisions alone separate Westerners now from other collectives. Latour viewed modernism as an era that believed it had annulled the entire past in its wake. He presented the antimodern reaction as defending such entities as spirit, rationality, liberty, society, God, or even the past. Postmoderns, according to Latour, also accepted the modernistic abstractions as if they were real. In contrast, the nonmodern approach reestablished symmetry between science and technology on the one hand and society on the other. Latour also referred to the impossibility of returning to premodernism because it precluded the large scale experimentation which was a benefit of modernism. 1032:

transportation system based on private cars in constant motion and the elimination of unnecessary transfers. This new form of transportation was intended to be as secure and inexpensive as collective transportation. The proposed system had custom-designed motors, sensors, controls, digital electronics, software and a major installation in southern Paris. But in the end the project died in 1987. Latour argues that the technology failed not because any particular actor killed it, but because the actors failed to sustain it through negotiation and adaptation to a changing social situation. While investigating Aramis's demise, Latour delineates the tenets of

33: 895: 1297:, Latour argues. The relativist researcher "learns the actors' language," records what they say about what they do, and does not appeal to a higher "structure" to "explain" the actor's motivations. The relativist "takes seriously what are obstinately saying" and "follows the direction indicated by their fingers when they designate what 'makes them act'". The relativist recognizes the plurality of metaphysics that actors bring into being, and attempts to map them rather than reducing them to a single structure or explanation. 853:. The prize committee stated that "Bruno Latour has undertaken an ambitious analysis and reinterpretation of modernity, and has challenged fundamental concepts such as the distinction between modern and pre-modern, nature and society, human and non-human." The committee states that "the impact of Latour's work is evident internationally and far beyond studies of the history of science, art history, history, philosophy, anthropology, geography, theology, literature and law." 1256:, etc. Latour's nuanced metaphysics demands the existence of a plurality of worlds, and the willingness of the researcher to chart ever more. He argues that researchers must give up the hope of fitting their actors into a structure or framework, but Latour believes the benefits of this sacrifice far outweigh the downsides: "Their complex metaphysics would at least be respected, their recalcitrance recognized, their objections deployed, their multiplicity accepted." 1115:" writing can be stimulating, fresh and at times genuinely moving, but it can also display a distractingly mannered style in which a rococo zeal for compounding metaphors, examples, definitions and abstractions can frustrate even readers who approach his work with the best of intentions (notwithstanding the inclusion of a nine-page glossary of terms and liberal use of diagrams in an attempt to achieve the utmost clarity)". 1374:

also shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the methods and insights of science studies. In fact, Latour has emphatically problematized the rise of anti-scientific thinking and so-called "alternative facts" For Latour, the recent attacks against climate sciences and other disciplines demonstrate that there is a real war on science going on requiring a more intimate cooperation between science and science studies.

1152:

in contemporary academia. He suggests that critique, as currently practiced, is bordering on irrelevancy. To maintain any vitality, Latour argues that social critiques require a drastic reappraisal: "our critical equipment deserves as much critical scrutiny as the Pentagon budget." (p. 231) To regain focus and credibility, Latour argues that social critiques must embrace

1277:

personal ambition, and so on). This objection manifests the most important difference between traditional philosophical metaphysics and Latour's nuance: for Latour, there is no "basic structure of reality" or a single, self-consistent world. An unknowably large multiplicity of realities, or "worlds" in his terms, exists–one for each actor's sources of

1107:

only way to understand the reality of science studies is to follow what science studies do best, that is, paying close attention to the details of scientific practice" (p. 24). Some authors have criticized Latour's methodology, including Katherine Pandora, a history of science professor at the University of Oklahoma. In her review of

1143:. In Felix Stalder's article "Beyond constructivism: towards a realistic realism", he summarizes Latour's position on the political dimension of science studies as follows: "These scientific debates have been artificially kept open in order to render impossible any political action against these problems and those who profit from them". 1134:"It is hard not to be caught up in the author's obvious delight in deploying a classic work from antiquity to bring current concerns into sharper focus, following along as he manages to leave the reader with the impression that the protagonists Socrates and Callicles are not only in dialogue with each other but with Latour as well." 1078:

approach towards knowledge, work, and circulating reference. Latour considered nonmoderns to be playing on a different field, one vastly different to that of post-moderns. He referred to it as much broader and much less polemical, a creation of an unknown territory, which he playfully referred to as the Middle Kingdom.

1036:. According to Latour's own description of the book, the work aims "at training readers in the booming field of technology studies and at experimenting in the many new literary forms that are necessary to handle mechanisms and automatisms without using the belief that they are mechanical or automatic." 1271:

If we call metaphysics the discipline inspired by the philosophical tradition that purports to define the basic structure of the world, then empirical metaphysics is what the controversies over agencies lead to since they ceaselessly populate the world with new drives and, as ceaselessly, contest the

1031:

PRT (personal rapid transit), a high tech automated subway, had been developed in France during the 70s and 80s and was supposed to be implemented as a personal rapid transit system in Paris. It combined the flexibility of an automobile with the efficiency of a subway. Aramis was to be an ideal urban

1011:

and his discovery of microbes, in the fashion of a political biography. Latour highlights the social forces at work in and around Pasteur's career and the uneven manner in which his theories were accepted. By providing more explicitly ideological explanations for the acceptance of Pasteur's work more

3249:

I had to switch interpretations fast enough to grasp both the monster he was seeing me as ... and the touching openness of mind he demonstrated in daring to address such a monster privately. It must have taken courage for him to meet directly with one of these creatures that threatened, in his view,

1373:

According to Latour, the originality of science studies lies in demonstrating that facts are both real and constructed. The accusation of a postmodern hostility to science, thus, not only fails to recognize that science studies aims at a more robust understanding how science is done in practice, but

1194:

The conclusion of the article is to argue for a positive framing of critique, to help understand how matters of concern can be supported rather than undermined: "The critic is not the one who lifts the rugs from under the feet of the naïve believers, but the one who offers the participants arenas in

1151:

In a 2004 article, Latour questioned the fundamental premises on which he had based most of his career, asking, "Was I wrong to participate in the invention of this field known as science studies?" He undertakes a trenchant critique of his own field of study and, more generally, of social criticism

1106:

in the Amazon rainforest, the development of the pasteurization process, and the research of French atomic scientists at the outbreak of the Second World War. Latour states that this specific, anecdotal approach to science studies is essential to gaining a full understanding of the discipline: "The

947:

In the laboratory, Latour and Woolgar observed that a typical experiment produces only inconclusive data that is attributed to failure of the apparatus or experimental method, and that a large part of scientific training involves learning how to make the subjective decision of what data to keep and

959:

within the laboratory—that they cannot be attributed with an existence outside of the instruments that measure them and the minds that interpret them. They view scientific activity as a system of beliefs, oral traditions and culturally specific practices—in short, science is reconstructed not as a

643:

approaches to the philosophy of science, Latour diverged significantly from such approaches. He was best known for withdrawing from the subjective/objective division and re-developing the approach to work in practice. Latour said in 2017 that he is interested in helping to rebuild trust in science

1077:

Latour attempted to prove through case studies the fallacy in the old object/subject and Nature/Society compacts of modernity, which can be traced back to Plato. He refused the concept of "out there" versus "in here". He rendered the object/subject distinction as simply unusable and charted a new

974:

Some of Latour's position and findings in this era provoked vehement rebuttals. Gross and Leavitt argue that Latour's position becomes absurd when applied to non-scientific contexts: e.g., if a group of coworkers in a windowless room were debating whether or not it were raining outside and went

1276:

A more traditional metaphysicist might object, arguing that this means there are multiple, contradictory realities, since there are "controversies over agencies" – since there is a plurality of contradictory ideas that people claim as a basis for action (God, nature, the state, sexual drives,

1293:. Actors bring "the real" (metaphysics) into being. The task of the researcher is not to find one "basic structure" that explains agency, but to recognize "the metaphysical innovations proposed by ordinary actors". Mapping those metaphysical innovations involves a strong dedication to 1191:: "Maybe I am taking conspiracy theories too seriously, but I am worried to detect, in those mad mixtures of knee-jerk disbelief, punctilious demands for proofs, and free use of powerful explanation from the social neverland, many of the weapons of social critique." (p. 230) 970:

in which he famously wrote his Second Principle as follows: "Scientist and engineers speak in the name of new allies that they have shaped and enrolled; representatives among other representatives, they add these unexpected resources to tip the balance of force in their favor."

1138:

Although Latour frames his discussion with a classical model, his examples of fraught political issues are all current and of continuing relevance: global warming, the spread of mad cow disease, and the carcinogenic effects of smoking are all mentioned at various points in

1920:—— (2015), "Les « vues » de l'esprit. une introduction à l'anthropologie des sciences et des techniques" [The "views" of the mind: An introduction to the anthropology of science and technology], in Emmanuel Alloa (ed.), 866:

criticised the conferment to Latour, by saying "The question is, does he deserve the prize. ... If the statutes had used new knowledge as the main criteria, instead as one of several, then he would be completely unqualified in my opinion."

3227:

Anyhow. We were at this conference. It was a bunch of primate field biologists, plus me and Bruno. And Stephen Glickman, a really cool biologist, took us apart privately. He said: 'Now, I don't want to embarrass you. But do you believe in

1102:. It uses independent but thematically linked essays and case studies to question the authority and reliability of scientific knowledge. Latour uses a narrative, anecdotal approach in a number of the essays, describing his work with 948:

what data to throw out. Latour and Woolgar argued that, for untrained observers, the entire process resembles not an unbiased search for truth and accuracy but a mechanism for ignoring data that contradicts scientific orthodoxy.

1248:", which calls "real" anything that an actor (one whom we are studying) claims as a source of motivation for action. So if someone says, "I was inspired by God to be charitable to my neighbors" we are obliged to recognize the " 1174:

The practical result of these approaches being taught to millions of students in elite universities for several decades is a widespread and influential "critical barbarity" that has—like a malign virus created by a

1267:—what really is—means paying close empirical attention to the various, contradictory institutions and ideas that bring people together and inspire them to act. Here is Latour's description of metaphysics: 1012:

easily in some quarters than in others, he seeks to undermine the notion that the acceptance and rejection of scientific theories is primarily, or even usually, a matter of experiment, evidence or reason.

1163:

Latour suggests that about 90 per cent of contemporary social criticism displays one of two approaches which he terms "the fact position and the fairy position." (p. 237) The fairy position is

1081:

In 1998, historian of science Margaret C. Jacob argued that Latour's politicized account of the development of modernism in the 17th century is "a fanciful escape from modern Western history".

1059:

Latour encouraged the reader of this anthropology of science to re-think and re-evaluate our mental landscape. He evaluated the work of scientists and contemplated the contribution of the

2551: 610:(2006–2017), where he was the scientific director of the Sciences Po Medialab. He retired from several university activities in 2017. He was also a Centennial Professor at the 1342:

in 1882? ... Before Koch, the bacillus has no real existence." He says that it is as much of an anachronism as it would be to claim that the pharaoh died of machine-gun fire.

1171:

go largely unrecognized in social critique because "there is never any crossover between the two lists of objects in the fact position and the fairy position." (p. 241)

920:

After his early career efforts, Latour shifted his research interests to focus on laboratory scientists. Latour rose in importance following the 1979 publication of

1345:

Latour noted that he had been asked "Do you believe in reality?", which caused a "quick and laughing answer". Reality, for Latour, is neither something we have to

975:

outdoors to discover raindrops in the air and puddles on the soil, Latour's hypothesis would assert that the rain was socially constructed. Similarly, philosopher

725: 2685: 2791:

Hvis statuttene hadde brukt ny kunnskap som hovedkriterium, i stedet for ett av flere kriterier, ville han etter min mening ha vært fullstendig ukvalifisert.

1950: 3250:

the whole establishment of science, one of these people from a mysterious field called 'science studies' ... which ... was another threat to science ... .

979:

argues that Latour's "extreme social constructivist" position is seriously flawed on several points, and furthermore has inadvertently "comical results".

1369:, will throb in the constant fear of losing reality; only such a bodiless observer will desperately look for some absolute life-supporting survival kit." 4659: 4544: 3470: 3039: 4664: 760:, which resulted in a brief monograph on decolonization, race, and industrial relations. In the 1990s, he engaged in a series of dialogues with 2430: 594:; 22 June 1947 – 9 October 2022) was a French philosopher, anthropologist and sociologist. He was especially known for his work in the field of 1361:

it entirely becomes plausible—and this fear itself has an intellectual history Only a mind put in the strangest position, looking at a world

1195:

which to gather. The critic is not the one who alternates haphazardly between antifetishism and positivism like the drunk iconoclast drawn by

875:

The Dutch "International Spinozaprijs Foundation" awarded the "Spinozalens 2020" to Bruno Latour on 24 November 2020. In 2021 he received the

757: 199: 4669: 4574: 4569: 569: 1179:"—thus far proven impossible to control. Most troubling, Latour notes that critical ideas have been appropriated by those he describes as 4639: 2607: 795:, Germany, including "Iconoclash" (2002) and "Making Things Public" (2005). In 2005, he also held the Spinoza Chair of Philosophy at the 2108:"Professor Bruno Latour's Lecture on Politics and Religion: A Reading of Eric Voegelin: Bruno Latour's lecture on politics and religion" 607: 211: 4624: 4559: 788: 4614: 4609: 2662: 1860:——; Akrich, Madeline (1992), "A summary of convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies", in 1130:

as a means of investigating and highlighting the distinction between content and context. As Katherine Pandora states in her review:

3201: 2574: 4351: 2200: 2803: 2364: 1252:

weight" of their claim, rather than attempting to replace their belief in God's presence with "social stuff", like class, gender,

4619: 772: 603: 203: 4654: 4384: 2394: 1199:, but the one for whom, if something is constructed, then it means it is fragile and thus in great need of care and caution." 3426: 3371: 3346: 3321: 3296: 3271: 3121: 1933: 1910: 1887: 1850: 1813: 1768: 1749: 1730: 1711: 1692: 1669: 1650: 1631: 1604: 1585: 1558: 1533: 1510: 1485: 1460: 1437: 1408: 3391: 2449:

I'm Catholic, which is a very important aspect of my interest in texts. I am also very sensitive to the misuses of religion.

3463: 944:, in which theories stand or fall on the outcome of a single experiment, are inconsistent with actual laboratory practice. 3065: 3316:. Princeton paperbacks science, sociology (1. Princeton paperback print ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. 2288: 4649: 4644: 3858: 2780: 2757: 2347: 1903:

Kultur und Gerechtigkeit (Kulturwissenschaft interdisziplinär/Interdisciplinary Studies on Culture and Society, Vol. 2)

4634: 4440: 3241: 3024: 2737: 2033: 1496: 1022: 967: 4594: 4539: 1898: 562: 446: 4584: 4549: 4346: 3456: 1028: 951:

Latour and Woolgar produced a highly heterodox and controversial picture of the sciences. Drawing on the work of

530: 184: 1119:

In addition to his epistemological concerns, Latour also explores the political dimension of science studies in

837:, on whom Latour has had an important influence. He held several other honorary doctorates, as well as France's 734: 84: 4604: 4589: 3184: 2714: 595: 382: 4579: 3698: 170: 1980: 4599: 4564: 4416: 4238: 1958: 1897:—— (1992), "Whose cosmos, which cosmopolitics? Comments on the peace terms of Ulrich Beck", in 999: 830: 283: 4534: 4193: 3996: 3095: 2735:

Holberg International Memorial Prize 2013: Bruno Latour. Citation of the Holberg Prize Academic Committee

2435: 1805: 876: 826: 555: 599: 4377: 4208: 4148: 4001: 3043: 2145: 1400: 1286: 1066:

Latour argued that society has never really been modern and promoted nonmodernism (or amodernism) over

611: 475: 215: 2518: 711:

As a student, Latour originally focused on philosophy. In 1971–1972, he ranked second and then first (

4432: 4283: 4213: 4074: 2492: 2038: 1471: 1052: 619: 304: 113: 1823:—— (1992), "Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts", in 4473: 4424: 4263: 4069: 1684: 1550: 1525: 1502: 1477: 1452: 1429: 1423: 1033: 962: 657: 635: 231: 189: 106: 3793: 1616: 4498: 4143: 796: 673: 470: 219: 153: 3833: 4629: 4333: 4298: 4258: 4183: 4168: 3658: 3479: 2339: 1865: 1828: 730: 653: 640: 179: 175: 4268: 3773: 1951:"When things strike back: a possible contribution of 'science studies' to the social sciences" 1879: 1869: 1842: 1832: 838: 4554: 4519: 4488: 4370: 4109: 4021: 4006: 3813: 3593: 1623: 1223: 1184: 1103: 787:. In recent years he also served as one of the curators of successful art exhibitions at the 545: 247: 1796:(1992), "Don't throw the baby out with the Bath School! A reply to Collins and Yearley", in 32: 4529: 4524: 2820: 1320: 1272:

existence of others. The question then becomes how to explore the actors' own metaphysics.

1180: 465: 3748: 3733: 2313: 2237: 1244:(2005), Latour continues a reappraisal of his work, developing what he calls a "practical 1007:

in 1988). In it, he reviews the life and career of one of France's most famous scientists

894: 8: 4173: 4033: 3868: 3828: 2833: 2659: 2240:, "Anthropologists biographies: Bruno Latour", Indiana University Anthropology Department 2208: 1290: 1214:

that seeks to find new forms of reading and interpretation that go beyond the methods of

1188: 909: 697: 541: 460: 332: 3838: 3738: 3011:

Jacob, Margaret C (1998). "Latour's Version of the Seventeenth Century," pp. 240–254 in

4455: 4233: 4153: 4084: 4011: 3788: 3673: 3603: 3553: 3002:

Critical Theory for Library and Information Science. Libraries Unlimited, 2010, p. 192.

2885:

Critical Theory for Library and Information Science. Libraries Unlimited, 2010, p. 190.

2400: 2255: 2135:

Critical Theory for Library and Information Science. Libraries Unlimited, 2010, p. 189.

2068: 2003: 1544: 1278: 1207: 1124: 1063:

to knowledge and work, blurring the distinction across various fields and disciplines.

933: 431: 299: 163: 120: 3743: 3693: 776: 4293: 4198: 4104: 3913: 3493: 3422: 3367: 3342: 3317: 3292: 3267: 3211: 3180: 3117: 3020: 2582: 2526: 2405: 2343: 2097:, trans. Michael Chase (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2011), x. 2094: 2007: 1971: 1929: 1906: 1883: 1846: 1809: 1764: 1745: 1726: 1707: 1688: 1665: 1646: 1627: 1600: 1581: 1554: 1529: 1506: 1481: 1456: 1433: 1416: 1404: 1060: 941: 810: 806: 693: 639:(1987). Although his studies of scientific practice were at one time associated with 520: 511: 505: 337: 3683: 2253:(2018). "'Science Wars' Veteran Latour Now Wants to Help Rebuild Trust in Science". 1310: 802:

Latour remained religious until the end of his life, reading the Bible "devotedly."

701: 677: 357: 3949: 3908: 3878: 3853: 3778: 3703: 3678: 3648: 3563: 3538: 3533: 3518: 2250: 2028: 2022: 1995: 1967: 1797: 1211: 1168: 952: 902: 665: 661: 649: 440: 392: 3202:"Feminist cyborg scholar Donna Haraway: 'The disorder of our era isn't necessary'" 2174: 4483: 4408: 4328: 4323: 4253: 4218: 4079: 3974: 3954: 3934: 3883: 3803: 3723: 3688: 3668: 3633: 3628: 3608: 3568: 3548: 3503: 3498: 3172: 3016: 2741: 2666: 1394: 1324:, criticized Latour's relativism by referring to an article written by Latour in 1219: 1156:, to insist on the "cultivation of a stubbornly realist attitude – to speak like 834: 625: 590: 322: 243: 207: 99: 2107: 4448: 4248: 4094: 4059: 4016: 3991: 3986: 3979: 3944: 3939: 3818: 3798: 3783: 3768: 3753: 3713: 3708: 3643: 3623: 3588: 3543: 3528: 3291:(2. print ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. pp. 3–4. 3096:"Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern" 3073: 1981:"Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern" 1196: 937: 809:

on 9 October 2022, at the age of 75. His papers were contributed to the French

481: 342: 3843: 2861: 1781:

Translated by Julie Rose. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. ISBN 978-1-5095-5946-6.

4513: 4313: 4278: 4203: 4038: 3873: 3823: 3758: 3718: 3578: 3558: 3508: 3366:(2. print ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. p. 17. 3266:(2. print ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. p. 15. 3215: 2586: 2530: 2488: 2409: 2201:"Bruno Latour // Events // Department of English // University of Notre Dame" 1793: 1390: 1176: 1157: 1067: 1008: 925: 913: 850: 784: 761: 681: 645: 630: 362: 133: 4138: 2336:

Conversations on Science, Culture, and Time: Michel Serres with Bruno Latour

718: 4243: 4128: 4114: 3964: 3863: 3728: 3653: 3583: 3573: 3523: 3513: 3206: 2464:"Ecological Mutation and Christian Cosmology (a Lecture) | bruno-latour.fr" 2463: 2431:"The Critical Zone of Science and Politics: An Interview with Bruno Latour" 1861: 1824: 1706:. Translated by Catherine Porter. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity Press. 1569: 1335: 1326: 1306: 1282: 1230:

has named Latour as an important precursor to the project of postcritique.

1203: 749: 644:

and that some of the authority of science needs to be regained. Along with

412: 402: 327: 251: 3242:"'Do you believe in reality?' —news from the trenches of the Science Wars" 2734: 1353:"'Do you believe in reality?' To ask such a question one has to become so 4493: 4478: 4318: 4228: 4133: 4028: 3959: 3903: 3893: 3888: 3848: 3663: 3638: 3613: 3598: 3448: 2785: 2762: 2686:"L'anthropologue français Bruno Latour reçoit le prix Holberg en Norvège" 2496: 1425:

Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society

1339: 1338:, Latour thought "How could he pass away due to a bacillus discovered by 1260: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1227: 990: 976: 963:

Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society

960:

procedure or as a set of principles but as a culture. Latour's 1987 book

929: 858: 780: 753: 490: 397: 352: 239: 138: 1048:

Nous n'avons jamais été modernes : Essai d'anthropologie symétrique

4273: 4178: 3618: 2632: 2395:"Bruno Latour, the Post-Truth Philosopher, Mounts a Defense of Science" 2199:

Dame, ENR/PAZ // Marketing Communications: Web // University of Notre.

2162: 1365:

and linked to the outside by nothing but the tenuous connection of the

1315: 1294: 1153: 863: 495: 407: 387: 367: 1451:. Translated by Alan Sheridan and John Law. Cambridge, Massachusetts: 1050:

was first published in French in 1991, and then in English in 1993 as

4308: 4303: 4288: 4158: 3929: 3898: 3808: 2338:. Studies In Literature And Science. Translated by Lapidus, Roxanne. 1875: 1871:

Shaping technology/building society: studies in sociotechnical change

1838: 1834:

Shaping technology/building society: studies in sociotechnical change

1577: 1331: 1164: 1071: 792: 669: 500: 455: 372: 347: 2804:"News – Spinozalens 2020 awarded to French philosopher Bruno Latour" 2152:, Acumen (UK) and McGill-Queens University Press (NA), 2007, p. 153. 4188: 4099: 4054: 2575:"Bruno Latour, French philosopher and anthropologist, dies aged 75" 2150:

The Knowledge book. Key concepts in philosophy, science and culture

1999: 1264: 1215: 955:, they advance the notion that the objects of scientific study are 705: 3392:"Bruno Latour, a veteran of the 'science wars,' has a new mission" 2552:"Mort de Bruno Latour, le philosophe qui a déconstruit la science" 1681:

An inquiry into modes of existence: an anthropology of the moderns

1281:, inspirations for action. In this Latour is remarkably close to 4089: 3969: 3341:(2. print ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 3013:

A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths About Science

1928:] (in French), Dijon: Les presses du réel, pp. 207–256, 1202:

Latour's article has been highly influential within the field of

1146: 905: 3145:

Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor–Network Theory

1597:

Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory

1027:

focuses on the history of an unsuccessful mass-transit project.

825:

On 22 May 2008, Latour was awarded an honorary doctorate by the

4362: 4122: 814: 743:

Exegesis and Ontology: An Analysis of the Texts of Resurrection

235: 56: 3443: 1330:

in 1998. In his reaction to research showing that the pharaoh

16:

French philosopher, anthropologist and sociologist (1947–2022)

4223: 4064: 3421:. Translated by Porter, Catherine. Harvard University Press. 2994: 2992: 2877: 2875: 2091:

Thinking with Whitehead: A Free and Wild Creation of Concepts

849:

On 13 March 2013, he was announced as the winner of the 2013

766:

Eclaircissements (Conversations on Science, Culture and Time)

692:

Latour was related to a well-known family of winemakers from

265: 2127: 2125: 1683:. Translated by Catherine Porter. Cambridge, Massachusetts: 1549:. Translated by Catherine Porter. Cambridge, Massachusetts: 1546:

Politics of nature: how to bring the sciences into democracy

1476:. Translated by Catherine Porter. Cambridge, Massachusetts: 922:

Laboratory Life: the Social Construction of Scientific Facts

739:

Exégèse et ontologie: une analyse des textes de resurrection

4163: 525: 2989: 2872: 2365:"The Spinoza Chair – Philosophy – University of Amsterdam" 3000:

Bruno Latour: Documenting Human and Nonhuman Associations

2900: 2888: 2883:

Bruno Latour: Documenting Human and Nonhuman Associations

2862:"Aramis or the Love of Technology | bruno-latour.fr" 2133:

Bruno Latour: Documenting Human and Nonhuman Associations

2122: 1779:

How to Inhabit the Earth. Interviews with Nicolas Truong.

771:

After spending more than twenty years (1982–2006) at the

3364: