Bruno Latour

Opioid overdose is a growing issue in Australia. Programs to provide opioid consumers with ‘take-home’ naloxone to reverse overdose exist internationally and in some Australian cities, but uptake remains inconsistent. As an opioid antagonist, naloxone has the capacity to stimulate distressing withdrawal symptoms. These sensations are shaped by complex factors – including the quantity and intervals
of naloxone administration – and can contribute to conflict during, and immediately following, revival. This possibility of conflict is thought to negatively affect willingness to use naloxone. Researchers have not yet analysed this conflict in detail nor considered the potential positive social interactions that can occur in the context of take-home naloxone administration. We draw on interviews conducted as part of a broader Australian study of the use of take-home naloxone by people who consume opioids (or ‘peer administration’) to identify accounts of both conflict and appreciation. Additionally, we analyse the strategies people administering naloxone use to manage and avert potential conflict. Drawing on Science and Technologies Studies, we conceptualise take-home naloxone as a technology that takes shape in practice with effects that are produced through specific practices during particular administration events. Focussing primarily on titration and communication, we argue that those administering naloxone actively manage the potential for conflict during administration. We conclude that if efforts to increase the uptake of take-home naloxone highlight these strategies they have the potential to improve administration experiences and the reputation of take-home naloxone and, in the process, help challenge the stigma faced by people who consume opioids.

Over the last fifteen years, a new theoretical paradigm has emerged in anthropology, the so-called ontological turn. In order to properly understand the advent of the ontological anthropology, it must be studied in relation to the Writing Culture movement, which is the last great theoretical rethinking in the discipline. The paper will focus on a topic that was discussed in the famous Santa Fe seminar, namely the polyphonic and dialogical character of ethnographic knowledge. Postmodern anthropology detached from its own modernity in acknowledging “subjectivity” to the other. Thus, the classical notion of “alterity” had been rethought, or even fully rejected. On the other hand, ontological anthropology – as explained in Eduardo Viveiros de Castro's work – has stressed the heuristic value of alterity, basing the whole discipline on it. Furthermore, the ontological turn argues that the postmodern recognition of the subjectivity of the other is nothing but a trivial truth. Rather - in breaking the boundaries between anthropology and philosophy – it redistributes seamlessly subjectivity and objectivity through a dialectics without synthesis between the anthropologist's and the native's point of view. I will show firstly how the process of objectivation of the researcher's perspective, as elaborated by post-social anthropology, strategically prevents and neutralizes the violence inherent to the epistemological gap existing between natives and scholars, without indulging in a postmodern-like reflexivity. Secondly, I will demonstrate how the “cannibalizing effect” (Viveiros de Castro, 2009) resulting from exposing oneself to alterity can prevent epistemological violence. The intent is not to settle differences - it would lead us to a “false peace” (Latour, 2002) – but to recalibrate the violence and the tradimento which resides in every attempt of translation.

This article is available for free open-access download from the Wiley website (link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-9655.13025).

ABSTRACT

This article discusses the changes that activists have brought to Nepali society in relation to two key elements of Bruno Latour's actor‐network theory (ANT): (1) its account of modernity and (2) its radical downplaying of human agency. ANT, contrary to the way it tends to be understood, deserves to be seen, at least in Latour's treatment, as a major theory of modernity. As such, it is important and enlightening, even though its attack on human agency – at least when discussing activism – is unhelpful. On this point Ian Hacking's notion of ‘making up people’ provides a better guide. The main example explored is the new kinds of ethnic identity that have achieved state recognition and become politically influential in Nepal over the last thirty years. The case of one ethnic and religious activist, Dr Keshabman Shakya, is used to illustrate the argument. Based on notions of human rights, rather similar processes of ‘making up people’ have also occurred with other minority groups, most strikingly in the case of the ‘third gender’, a context in which Nepal is famously ‘progressive’ compared to other nation‐states in the region.

70 yaşındaki Fransız sosyolog Bruno Latour uzun bir süre bilimin baş belası olmuştur. Bununla birlikte, "alternatif olgular" çağında bilimi savunmaya geliyor. Paris'teki sosyal bilimler üniversitesi Sciences Po'daki (Paris Siyasi Bilimler Akademisi) resmi görevinden geçtiğimiz ay emekli olan Latour 1979'da Birleşik Krallıklı sosyolog Steve Woolgar ile birlikte yazdığı Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts'le [Laboratuvar Yaşamı: Bilimsel Olguların İnşası] ününe kavuştu. Latour bu araştırma için iki yılını, California'nın San Diego şehrinde bulunan Salk Biyoloji Çalışmaları Enstitüsü'nde işlerinin başındaki bilim insanlarını antropolog olarak gözlemlemekle geçirdi. 1987'de Latour ders kitabı Science in Action'da [Eylem Halinde Bilim] düşüncesinin ayrıntılarına girdi. Latour'un çalışmasının merkezinde, olguların bilim insanlarının oluşturduğu topluluklar tarafından inşa edildiği, bilimin toplumsal ve teknik unsurları arasında ayrım olmadığı fikirler bulunur. Latour yaklaşımı ve anlayışı bakımından övgü alsa bile, göreci ve "sosyal inşacı" görüşleri aynı derecede tepki görmesine sebep oldu. 1994 tarihli Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Quarrels with Science [Yüksek Hurafe: Akademik Sol ve Bilimle Münakaşaları] adlı kitaplarında biyolog Paul Gross ve matematikçi Norman Levitt, Latour'u ve diğer sosyologları, mesleklerini itibarsızlaştırmakla ve bilime duyulan güveni tehlikeye atmakla suçladı. Sonrasında başlayan ve "bilim savaşları" diye bilinen ateşli tartışma yıllarca sürdü. Son yazılarında Latour, bilim eleştirisinin bilim-karşıtı düşünceye temel oluşturduğunu, bilhassa şimdilerde kendisinin esas konusu olan iklim değişikliğinin inkarının önünü açtığını kabullendi. Şimdilerde ise bilime olan güveni onarmaya yardımcı olmayı umuyor. Fransa'nın başkentindeki dairesinde Latour ile konuştuk. Açık ve öz olmak adına söyleşide düzeltmeler yaptığımızı belirtelim. "Bilim savaşları"nı nasıl hatırlıyorsunuz? '90'larda olup bitmiş hiçbir şey "savaş" diye anılmayı hak etmiyor. Bilimin nasıl yapıldığı ve bu sürecin eleştirel olması üstüne çalışan sosyal bilimcilerin sebep olduğu bir münakaşaydı. Bizim tahlilimiz, topa tutulduğunu düşünen, bilime dair idealist ve sürdürülemez görüşleri olan insanların tepkilerine sebep oldu. Eleştirilerden bazıları hakikaten gülünçtü; postmodern göreci zırvasıyla birlikte anılıyor, başkaları tarafından alaya alınıyordum. Her ne kadar bilim

Qu’est-ce qu’un espace dépressif? Et en quoi la définition de celui-ci concerne-t-elle les processus de politisation du malaise existentiel hors des sentiers battus de la psychologie? De quoi est faite une vie qui parvient à se mettre à l’aventure et à accueillir plus ou moins sereinement sa part de futurité?

Teorie aktér-sítí v českých sociálních a humanitních vědách Časopis Sociální studia / Social Studies vyhlašuje výzvu k zasílání návrhů do monotematického čísla s pracovním názvem Teorie aktér-sítí v českých sociálních a humanitních vědách. Editory čísla budou Mgr. Petra Tlčimuková (Univerzita Hradec Králové) a Dr. Martin Švantner (Univerzita Karlova). Redakce vyzývá k zasílání příspěvků, které se zabývají tématem teorie aktér-sítí. Vítány jsou studie z oborů společenskovědních a humanitních oborů, jež přispívají do teoreticko-metodologické diskuze i konkrétní případové studie aplikující teorii aktér-sítí, přičemž právě empirické studie budou upřednostňovány. Vítány jsou i případné studie s transdiciplinárním přesahem. Abstrakty (250 slov) příspěvků zasílejte na emailovou adresu časopisu socstud@fss.muni.cz. Abstrakty přijímáme do 28. 4.2019. Plné texty očekáváme do 31. 8. 2019.

Another consideration of the work of Bruno Latour and the evolution of his position on critique. Reflecting on the ways in which critique is associated with destruction by Latour I also turn to the moderation of his anti-critique stance in the face of Donald Trump and global warning. While a welcome moderation, this new engagement with struggle stops short of more material engagements with critique.

The analogy has been used to establish relations between past and present since the birth of archaeology and ethnology as scientific disciplines.

The repeated incursions of archaeologists in the territory of ethnologists will lead, at the end, to the creation of an hybrid archaeological sub-discipline, ethnoarchaeology. In the last decades many archaeologists and anthropologists questioned the ability of analogy to connect past and present realities, advocating a more restrictive appliance, the use of analogy being now considered as the principal weakness of the ethnoarchaeological studies.

In this communication I propose to address why there is probably no future for ethnoarchaeology beyond analogy, trying to understand if there is any other suitable way to connect past to present. In the course of this paper, I will use the case study of ceramic vessel wine making tradition as example of how Actor-Network-Theory can offer an alternative to the use of analogy and why it will oblige first to reconsider what Tradition is.

Silva, A. J. M. da, “Does the Ethnoarchaeology have a future beyond the analogy?”, in Alarcón García,  Eva; Padilla Fernández, Juan Jesús, Arboledas Martínez, Luis  and Chapon, Linda (eds.), Something more than galbos and pots. Ethnoarchaeology and ceramic experimentation, Menga – Journal of Andalousian Prehistory (Monography 4), vol. 8  (nº4), 2018, p. 31-43.

In the Coils of the Snake: The Betrayal of Postcritique This article discusses postcritique as developed in particular by Rita Felski, Bruno Latour and Davina Cooper. While postcritique has recently become subject of debate also in Italy, the aim of this essay is to show the relation between critique and postcritique, which I propose considering as a "betrayal". Critique requires a suspicious attitude always prepared to discover and denounce a betrayal. On the contrary, postcritique acts like a traitor that is not ashamed of its misconduct, but that takes pleasure in following its immoral passions. Indeed, a postcritical attitude offers at least four 'instruments of pleasure' that this article outlines. It deals with a cartography of surface, an ontology of relation, a pragmatics of mediation and a politics of affection. These instruments allow postcritics to complete a metamorphosis of moles (zoopolitical figures suited to the depths) into snakes (animals of surface). In this way, postcritique could be considered as a new attitude able to make its concepts slither to the surface of singular networks and everyday practices. Allorché qualcuno domanda a che cosa serva la filosofia, dob-biamo rispondere in modo aggressivo, poiché la domanda vuole essere ironica e mordace. La filosofia non serve né allo Stato né alla Chiesa, che hanno altre preoccupazioni. Non serve ad alcuna potenza costituita. La filosofia serve a turbare. Una filosofia che non turba e non contraria nessuno non è una filosofia" (Gilles Deleuze, Nietzsche e la filosofia)

One of the most fruitful theoretical developments in the last quarter of a century within the humanities and the social sciences has been the work in nonhuman agencies (Latour 2005; Pickering 1995). Following Charles Taylor’s (2007) notion of the “construals of agency” I argue that changes in the sense and conceptualization of agency are bound to affect the secular outlook on the world. That shift towards the consideration of nonhuman agencies could be fittingly described as a form of (re)enchantment. In this chapter, (re)enchantment is understood not as a return to a pristine past but rather as a refashioning of religious sensibilities in response to the ecological emergency (taken to mean here both ‘crisis’ and ‘that which emerges’). Finally, the concept of the Anthropocene provides the bridge between the theoretical reflections over nonhuman agency and the ecological emergency. Here I will explore the irony of calling ‘the age of the humans’ what in fact is an uncanny awakening to the complex ways in which the human and nonhuman are entangled. Such understanding of the Anthropocene calls for a deconstruction and decentering of the anthropos that clears the way for a reappraisal of religion.

Performance scholar Una Chaudhuri observed in her keynote lecture at the Psi conference in Stanford in 2013 that the logic of climate change is a very complex one, having no clear spatial boundaries, and not even a spatial logic. It is dependent on numerous choices in numerous different parts of the world simultaneously. Indeed, current environmental crises have become so complex, and so multi-faceted, that a solution is undecideable from one perspective. Should the impossibility of a climate change whodunit leave us sceptical and indifferent? I don’t think so. A sceptical or hypocritical wait-and-see attitude is no option either. This essay explores how art can move us beyond the logic of crime and punishment by developing an aesthetic of ambivalence, without ending up in a nihilist dead lock. Precisely in negotiating an ecology of agential realism, art can probe us to accept our responsibility, or rather, response-ability.

In this essay, I observe how works created by the Portuguese-Belgian performance artist Maria Lucia Cruz Correia’s do not dictate moral conduct with regard to climate change. Tracing ecological matters of concern in close interaction with the visitor-spectators in her Urban Action Clinic (2015) and her Urban Action Clinic GARDEN (2015), she raises awareness of the impact of air pollution in the city of Ghent. However, the survival kits on display in these sites induce social activation instead of militant activism. Instead of putting forward one solution, Correia negotiates the ever-ongoing constitution or composition of the world and calls upon a critical and wider view of environmental thinking. Introducing agential realism as an alternative mode for the production of knowledge, she calls upon an ethics of accountability and response-ability, rejecting dictated moral conduct.

This article takes an actor-network theory approach to the elusive genre of microsound. The aim is twofold: to demonstrate what ANT’s sociology of associations can offer to the study of music, and to consider what aspects would need to be rethought in order for ANT to represent a credible approach to art histories and genres. The ANT analysis traces two lines of inheritance in microsound: a ‘weak’ line associated with ‘quiet’ or ‘small’ sounds, and with strong links to John Cage; and a ‘strong’ line associated with microtime, sonic materialism, and the ‘granular paradigm’, for which Iannis Xenakis is the primary antecedent. Through an analysis of the processes involved in reinforcing and attenuating these strong and weak lines of inheritance, some absences in ANT’s analytics of mediation are identified concerning temporal mediation. The last section of the article turns to the theorisation of time and genre found in Georgina Born’s extension of the work of Alfred Gell and to Michel Foucault’s account of authorship to analyse the bidirectional mediation of art and music corpuses, genres and genealogies as they extend through time.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07494467.2018.1577639

Looking at two versions of the Golden Fleece story, in Ovid’s Metamorphoses (8 A.D.) and in the anonymous Ovide moralisé from the fourteenth century, I explore the narrative possibilities that accompany an emphasis on the activity and the interventions of the nonhumans.

This paper presents three nested case studies. The first is an exposition of David Tudor’s experimentalism which was intertwined with the more well-known experimentalism centering around the discourse/practice of John Cage. Despite his extensive collaboration with Cage, Tudor’s focus was quite removed from his collaborator’s, concentrating on what he called the “nature of instruments,” which grounded his idiosyncratic practice as performer/composer of experimental music. The second case study problematizes the first by asking what the nature of a “case” is, and why, when scholars like myself investigate the history of experimental music, we end up focusing on “cases” to make our point, despite our well-meaning and well-funded efforts to indefinitely trace the potentially infinite network of actors. I connect the ontological status of “cases” to that of experiments in the natural sciences, depicting their necessarily biased and local nature as well as the form of closure which seems to block the otherwise endless flow of agencies in the network model. I argue that “cases” present a case of experimental objectivity that is not universal but situated, and thus related to the specific nature of objects assembled in the collective—the instruments involved. This experimental and instrumental nature of cases correlates to the biased and localized position of the particular observer of history who frames or fabricates cases as such. The third case study capitalizes on the implications of the above analyses to focus on a series of miniature expositions of more recent, relatively unknown endeavors in experimental music that I have been personally associated, including my own project, No Collective (http://nocollective.com). What arises through this meandering trajectory is the problem of who is tracing the network, with what interests, using what resources, and under what conditions, which also brings into question the seemingly neutral authority of our vista wishing to foresee what comes after experimental music.

(first presented at: "After Experimental Music" conference at Cornell University on February 8-11, 2018)