This is a reading group - begun by faculty and graduate students in the department of Anthropology at Binghamton University - with the aim of reading and discussing the recent literature associated with the "Speculative Turn" in the humanities and social sciences.
Website: http://www.binghamton.edu/anthropology/
Location: Binghamton, New York
Members: 7
Latest Activity: Jan 10, 2014
This group does not have any discussions yet.
Comment
Thanks, Frederic. Stengers was totally off my radar before you pointed us to her. Returning the favour, I note that the latest issue of Hau contains a lot of material directly related to this conversation.
Hi all
The human connection between Latour and Whitehead is Isabelle Stengers.
She was inspired by Whitehead since a long time ago, and wrote "Thinking with Whitehead"
http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Whitehead-Free-Creation-Concepts/dp/...
for which Latour wrote a foreword.
Also, I must admit that I was confused when I first heard someone mention the title of Latour's We Have Never Been Modern and took him to be advocating some sort of return to medieval scholastic philosophy. Now I realise the force of his revelation that nothing is reducible to anything else. If you don't believe me, just try telling your wife or girlfriend that she is nothing but a particular configuration of atoms of which her feelings are only an epiphenomenon.
Jacobsen, I am no expert in this area, but my reading of Harman's Prince of Networks suggests that the most direct connection between Latour and Whitehead is that both reject the modern world's ontological bifurcation of the world into distinct material and mental components, the former regarded as primary and the latter as secondary effects. They thus pursue alternatives to reductionist explanations of the latter in terms of the former. Also, if Harman is right, Latour takes pains to distinguish his position from that of materialists (see above), idealists (who try to explain the material as a function of the ideal instead of vice versa), and the postmodernists, whom he sees as creating a total muddle in which everything is simulacrum and illusion and there is no reality, period. I'd be careful, then, before I went too far in tying Latour to any of the French thinkers you mention.
Hi John,
Thank you very much for your recommendation. I've been reading Whitehead, Latour, Harman and other Speculative realists recently. I think it is very productive to compare Latour with different philosophical resources, as Harman and you suggested. And for Whitehead, in regards with Science and the Modern World, I think it is very like authors in French epistemology tradition (e.g. Bachelard and Foucault) than the Latour represented in present Speculative turn. Especially when Whitehead is talking about modern science's presuppositions (of ultimate "facts"), Bachelard is talking about epistemological obstacles and Foucault is talking about epitemes. While Harman regarded Latour not just as a epistemological deconstructuralist but who brought new analytical tools (like his dissection of "fact" into ultimate relations) than aforementioned authors.
However, I'm also very curious about how to locate Latour in the "intermediary" of Science and the Modern World and French epistemologists and the result of it. Latour's relation to French epistemologist is obvious in first glance but not easily to find in texts. I'm considering Stengers and Serres as good "mediators" in this tracing.
Many thanks for the recommendations, John, the Tresch book in particular looks well worth a read.
I also would like to endorse your word of warning. Our goal as a group should not be to "test" these writers against the ethnographic record, but to appreciate their arguments and aims and, perhaps, rethink the ends of anthropology in the process.
First, a word of welcome and warm thanks for bringing this initiative to OAC. The reading list is already ambitious (keeping up will be a serious problem). Still, I would like to mention two additional works that may be of particular relevance. Grant Harman mentions Alfred North Whitehead as a precursor in Latour. I recently found myself re-reading Whitehead's Science and the Modern World. And while it was published in 1925 it is still, in my view, the best introduction to the issues with which speculative realists are now grappling. I would also like to mention once more John Tresch,The Romantic Machine, to which Keith Hart directed our attention in another context. For those who wish to explore the historical context in which ideas very similar those of today's speculative realists emerged,this book is very rich and stimulating, indeed.
I would also like to add a word about how we on OAC should respond to this project. The word is "ethnographically." Much that is said in the books on the reading lists clashes with familiar assumptions about self and society, nature and culture. But precisely for that reason, it is vital to suspend judgment and open our minds to the issues the authors raise and how they address them. To leap in too quickly with our own preconceptions and attempts at correction will ruin this opportunity to see the world in radically different ways and, just possibly, escape from constantly running around in the same conceptual circles.
What I write here is not an appeal for belief that assumes that other approaches more familiar to us are wrong. It is, instead, and appeal for the openness that, as professionals interpreting what alien others have to say, we see as necessary for understanding Nuer or Dinka ideas about spirit, Azande magic, Navajo witchcraft, or Daoist ritual, to listen and think carefully instead of rushing to judgment.
Peace and spirited debate be with us.
Welcome to
Open Anthropology Cooperative
© 2019 Created by Keith Hart.
Powered by
You need to be a member of Speculative Realism to add comments!