What do you think?
Rate this book
Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy
A major work by one of the more innovative thinkers of our time, Politics of Nature does nothing less than establish the conceptual context for political ecology—transplanting the terms of ecology into more fertile philosophical soil than its proponents have thus far envisioned. Bruno Latour announces his project dramatically: “Political ecology has nothing whatsoever to do with nature, this jumble of Greek philosophy, French Cartesianism and American parks.” Nature, he asserts, far from being an obvious domain of reality, is a way of assembling political order without due process. Thus, his book proposes an end to the old dichotomy between nature and society—and the constitution, in its place, of a collective, a community incorporating humans and nonhumans and building on the experiences of the sciences as they are actually practiced.
In a critique of the distinction between fact and value, Latour suggests a redescription of the type of political philosophy implicated in such a “commonsense” division—which here reveals itself as distinctly uncommonsensical and in fact fatal to democracy and to a healthy development of the sciences. Moving beyond the modernist institutions of “mononaturalism” and “multiculturalism,” Latour develops the idea of “multinaturalism,” a complex collectivity determined not by outside experts claiming absolute reason but by “diplomats” who are flexible and open to experimentation.
In a critique of the distinction between fact and value, Latour suggests a redescription of the type of political philosophy implicated in such a “commonsense” division—which here reveals itself as distinctly uncommonsensical and in fact fatal to democracy and to a healthy development of the sciences. Moving beyond the modernist institutions of “mononaturalism” and “multiculturalism,” Latour develops the idea of “multinaturalism,” a complex collectivity determined not by outside experts claiming absolute reason but by “diplomats” who are flexible and open to experimentation.
320 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1999
52 people are currently reading
1194 people want to read
About the author
Bruno Latour
163 books767 followersBruno Latour, a philosopher and anthropologist, is the author of Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory, Our Modern Cult of the Factish Gods, An Inquiry into Modes of Existence, and many other books. He curated the ZKM exhibits ICONOCLASH and Making Things Public and coedited the accompanying catalogs, both published by the MIT Press.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 29 reviews
January 6, 2010
UGH, Latour, you madden me with your dark and pregnant pronouncements, your penchant for neologism, your sacrifice of clarity on the alter of cleverness, and your seemingly feigned attempt to make yourself clear with a glossary and summary of the argument that are more puzzling than clarifying.
Still, I think that Latour is onto something here, and I think perhaps some of what is most puzzling about the book may be required in Latour's thoroughgoing attempt to reject certain trenchant and pernicious dichotomies (fact/value, subject/object, etc.) while nonetheless doing some constructive work.
If I had to struggle with this book on my own, I think I would have hated it. Luckily, I had to struggle with it in a seminar of graduate students who were mostly confused and often hostile to the book. In the attempt to figure out what the hell he was on about so that I could explain it to the students and get a discussion going that made spending two weeks on the book worthwhile, I actually came to like what I was finding. If I had been on my own I probably would have given up or given it a big 1-star.
---
Acquired 8/31/09 - desk copy
One of the last books for this semesters graduate course. I'm a bit worried about this one...
Still, I think that Latour is onto something here, and I think perhaps some of what is most puzzling about the book may be required in Latour's thoroughgoing attempt to reject certain trenchant and pernicious dichotomies (fact/value, subject/object, etc.) while nonetheless doing some constructive work.
If I had to struggle with this book on my own, I think I would have hated it. Luckily, I had to struggle with it in a seminar of graduate students who were mostly confused and often hostile to the book. In the attempt to figure out what the hell he was on about so that I could explain it to the students and get a discussion going that made spending two weeks on the book worthwhile, I actually came to like what I was finding. If I had been on my own I probably would have given up or given it a big 1-star.
---
Acquired 8/31/09 - desk copy
One of the last books for this semesters graduate course. I'm a bit worried about this one...
September 26, 2010
I've been thinking a lot latly about mr. latour and about the probability of me picking up these books are reading them again. This review is not so much for this specific book but for all latour's books and the movement that he represents.
I read all these books in a class with a gentleman named bradley lewis who wrote a book on postpsychiatry. And don't get me wrong brad is a fun guy. He has an adorable son and is super smart. But he is also a bit off as far as my intellectual inclinations are to be trusted. At one point in our class he brought in some alternative "medicine" (those are insulting quotation marks if you couldn't tell) practitioners who talked about how cancer was the bodies natural response to stress and should be allowed to take its course. I'm not inherently against alternative options, but this is not medicine and the problem with guys like latour is that they want to claim that this is as reasonable a solution as shooting poison into someone's heart. Yeah I know what chemo is but here's the thing chemo kills cancer, it kills other shit too but it kills cancer there is proof of this. And this is where brad and bruno go along and I walk off by myself, I like proof. I don't blindly believe in science and I hate doctors. I believe that context greatly effects knowledge (such as who paid for a scientific study). I don't believe that this somehow equates all forms of knowledge.
once upon a time I was writing my undergrad thesis on "Tolerance and Pluralism in Psychology" this was basically an attack on the current ideology of the field, because somehow that is what I learned in college (and I still have a tendency to do it, perhaps it is why my reviews come out so negative). I was taught you begin by believing what someone says then you tear them apart. There are two ways in which to do that wrong
1. you start criticizing before you understand the fundamental argument that you are criticizing.
2. you believe everything you read and forget to use any of the grey matter in your head to check if it makes any sense.
Well in writing this thesis I was in the lets believe Latour and attack science as a basis of knowledge phase (thankfully I got out of this before I finished it). I walked into my advisor's office, he was a sweet man named Bill caspary who wrote a book on Dewey which I believe I still own but never read. I handed him my book list and he responded "take Latour off the list". He isn't the kind of guy that usually made pronouncements, and since I'm a genius he basically never told me anything but how fantastic I was (half of that is true you pick which half).
We then proceeded to have a long conversation if latour should be included. Basically are all forms of knowledge equal? Can we know truth? Now Bill is not a crazy scientist and like me he believed in the problems inherent in all studies of science and medicine. He also believed in the importance of the social sciences (he changed from physics to politics after he received his undergraduate degree). Basically the man is not unlike myself. We both left the world of cold numbers for something that seemed to make more of a difference but we both still held some belief in truth. That is only partially true, I am a subjectivist, a post modernist. I don't believe we can ever know truth. but I believe there is an objective world outside my head. Basically I believe the barrier to truth is human perception. But I do believe we can judge relative levels of truth. I devised this from asimov here. Imagine truth is the sky it is always better to get taller even if you can't yet reach the sky you can have a better view.
I agree with latour that science doesn't have some fundamental relationship with truth that other fields can't have. But I don't agree that all field actively have the same relationship with truth. In fields like science the truth is a constant constriction on any study being done. I believe that commonly science is more respectful of the subjectivity of truth then other fields. And yes scientists lie but that is a problem with the scientist and they tend to be called on it eventually. When people in cultural or religious studies lie it never seems to have to come to the surface. It is a subjective belief, no one can know who's right... I call bullshit, and I'm willing to beat you over the head with Rorty till you agree with me, because while you can't change hitlers mind you can put him in a tiny room so he can't poison the rest of the world.
now we reach the true problem with these types of attacks on science they assume that all fields are trying to reach truth. This just isn't true. and it certainly isn't true of all people. There is a line from bones about respecting doubt. I believe that we need to respect facts and we need to respect doubt. I believe respect for any person should be based on the level with which they respect that doubt.
Now it is possible to read guys like latour in that way. Not as against science but as in favor of a new method of judging truth.(I'm about to get mean so if that bothers you stop reading) Guys like pinchbeck who ignore truth and talk about their dead grandmothers ruining their trips should be pushed aside in the attempt to understand the world in favor of others. But this is not the end of a conversation about how to understand truth but the beginning. For the american pragmatists truth was what worked in practice this is very different from the truths of einstein that on a daily basis are useless the the great majority of humanity. We need to decide what truths matter, what truths are worth fighting about?
These books could be helpful in this process, but there are certainly many problems of misuse with guys like this. There are people that want to ruin science and books like this become their battering ram. That does not make latour actually wrong but it does make him a problem.
on that note I don't recommend this book, unless you actually understand science. People who don't like science because they aren't smart enough to understand it should not be given an excuse to dismiss it. Read the structure of scientific revolutions instead.
the point being what is important is spreading carl rogers scientist practioner model to all fields, not demoting all of science.
I read all these books in a class with a gentleman named bradley lewis who wrote a book on postpsychiatry. And don't get me wrong brad is a fun guy. He has an adorable son and is super smart. But he is also a bit off as far as my intellectual inclinations are to be trusted. At one point in our class he brought in some alternative "medicine" (those are insulting quotation marks if you couldn't tell) practitioners who talked about how cancer was the bodies natural response to stress and should be allowed to take its course. I'm not inherently against alternative options, but this is not medicine and the problem with guys like latour is that they want to claim that this is as reasonable a solution as shooting poison into someone's heart. Yeah I know what chemo is but here's the thing chemo kills cancer, it kills other shit too but it kills cancer there is proof of this. And this is where brad and bruno go along and I walk off by myself, I like proof. I don't blindly believe in science and I hate doctors. I believe that context greatly effects knowledge (such as who paid for a scientific study). I don't believe that this somehow equates all forms of knowledge.
once upon a time I was writing my undergrad thesis on "Tolerance and Pluralism in Psychology" this was basically an attack on the current ideology of the field, because somehow that is what I learned in college (and I still have a tendency to do it, perhaps it is why my reviews come out so negative). I was taught you begin by believing what someone says then you tear them apart. There are two ways in which to do that wrong
1. you start criticizing before you understand the fundamental argument that you are criticizing.
2. you believe everything you read and forget to use any of the grey matter in your head to check if it makes any sense.
Well in writing this thesis I was in the lets believe Latour and attack science as a basis of knowledge phase (thankfully I got out of this before I finished it). I walked into my advisor's office, he was a sweet man named Bill caspary who wrote a book on Dewey which I believe I still own but never read. I handed him my book list and he responded "take Latour off the list". He isn't the kind of guy that usually made pronouncements, and since I'm a genius he basically never told me anything but how fantastic I was (half of that is true you pick which half).
We then proceeded to have a long conversation if latour should be included. Basically are all forms of knowledge equal? Can we know truth? Now Bill is not a crazy scientist and like me he believed in the problems inherent in all studies of science and medicine. He also believed in the importance of the social sciences (he changed from physics to politics after he received his undergraduate degree). Basically the man is not unlike myself. We both left the world of cold numbers for something that seemed to make more of a difference but we both still held some belief in truth. That is only partially true, I am a subjectivist, a post modernist. I don't believe we can ever know truth. but I believe there is an objective world outside my head. Basically I believe the barrier to truth is human perception. But I do believe we can judge relative levels of truth. I devised this from asimov here. Imagine truth is the sky it is always better to get taller even if you can't yet reach the sky you can have a better view.
I agree with latour that science doesn't have some fundamental relationship with truth that other fields can't have. But I don't agree that all field actively have the same relationship with truth. In fields like science the truth is a constant constriction on any study being done. I believe that commonly science is more respectful of the subjectivity of truth then other fields. And yes scientists lie but that is a problem with the scientist and they tend to be called on it eventually. When people in cultural or religious studies lie it never seems to have to come to the surface. It is a subjective belief, no one can know who's right... I call bullshit, and I'm willing to beat you over the head with Rorty till you agree with me, because while you can't change hitlers mind you can put him in a tiny room so he can't poison the rest of the world.
now we reach the true problem with these types of attacks on science they assume that all fields are trying to reach truth. This just isn't true. and it certainly isn't true of all people. There is a line from bones about respecting doubt. I believe that we need to respect facts and we need to respect doubt. I believe respect for any person should be based on the level with which they respect that doubt.
Now it is possible to read guys like latour in that way. Not as against science but as in favor of a new method of judging truth.(I'm about to get mean so if that bothers you stop reading) Guys like pinchbeck who ignore truth and talk about their dead grandmothers ruining their trips should be pushed aside in the attempt to understand the world in favor of others. But this is not the end of a conversation about how to understand truth but the beginning. For the american pragmatists truth was what worked in practice this is very different from the truths of einstein that on a daily basis are useless the the great majority of humanity. We need to decide what truths matter, what truths are worth fighting about?
These books could be helpful in this process, but there are certainly many problems of misuse with guys like this. There are people that want to ruin science and books like this become their battering ram. That does not make latour actually wrong but it does make him a problem.
on that note I don't recommend this book, unless you actually understand science. People who don't like science because they aren't smart enough to understand it should not be given an excuse to dismiss it. Read the structure of scientific revolutions instead.
the point being what is important is spreading carl rogers scientist practioner model to all fields, not demoting all of science.
May 27, 2021
Latour is one of the more readable of ecotheorists, and while his work can be a bit daunting in its relentless self-reference, as if we are reading another installment in a kind of theoretical Marvel universe in which we might never stop tracing backstories of ideas, this book is particularly admirable for how sound and clear the reasoning, and how vividly he renders abiding political and ecological problems. A great follow-up to his early work "We Have Never Been Modern," this is at once more thorough, more relevant, and more lucid.
August 24, 2023
Nieuwe kijk op Gaia, echt heel interessant voor iedereen die geïnteresseerd is in de dynamiek tussen politiek en klimaat. Rustig opgebouwd, grondig uitgewerkt.
April 9, 2025
Wanneer de Gaia theorie steeds belangrijker wordt in de tijd van het Antropoceen, en in grote mate serieus genomen moet worden, is dit boek misschien niet het beste begin om jezelf te verdiepen in het onderwerp. Latour doet een goede uiteenzetting van de Gaia theorie aan de hand van Lovelocks originele theorie, en legt in veel gevallen de stof zelfs beter uit in toegankelijker termen, maar gaat hierbij soms te vaak in op feiten die niet van belang zijn. Er staan hele passages zin waarbij ik me af vroeg wat ik überhaupt aan het lezen was en er niet echt een terugkoppeling te vinden was aan eerdere stof, of het was een uiteenzetting van iets banaals.
Toch zou ik het boek aanraden als je al kennis hebt over Gaia vanwege de inzichten van Latour. Het is een beetje als naar goud zoeken met een zeef: heel veel zand, maar als je iets vindt is het zeker de moeite waard. Vooral de nieuwe politieke dimensie die Gaia kan bieden is zeer interessant.
Toch zou ik het boek aanraden als je al kennis hebt over Gaia vanwege de inzichten van Latour. Het is een beetje als naar goud zoeken met een zeef: heel veel zand, maar als je iets vindt is het zeker de moeite waard. Vooral de nieuwe politieke dimensie die Gaia kan bieden is zeer interessant.
August 27, 2025
Tot i que conté idees i propostes molt interessants (probablement necessàries per a l'ecologisme) el llibre se'm ha fet farragós.
August 31, 2020
In the beginning it was a struggle to read the text, as there were references and definitions after every single word almost, and going back and forward to look up for the definitions was really annoying. But then you get the concept in general, and you start truly appreciating his style and philosophy. He raises a lot of groundbreaking and thought-provoking issues.
January 28, 2009
Most accessible of Latour's writing (other than his casestudy chapters from _Pandora's Hope_) that I have read yet...so far... (but I haven't gotten too far...seem to be on pause...)
Returned for a bit; back on pause. Definitely NOT one of his more readable writings...
Returned for a bit; back on pause. Definitely NOT one of his more readable writings...
April 21, 2015
Latour is full of original, provocative and highly interesting ideas, but his dense philosopho proze is so bloody inaccessible that it will be a hard task to actually find and appreciate them. That is a great pity. Latour's opaque style does not do justice to his original thoughts.
October 26, 2007
some interesting stuff... but i just can't stand Latour's writing....
Read
October 23, 2008Extremely helpful / played a big role in my master's thesis.
August 26, 2011
Interessante aplicação das propostas de Latour à questão da política global, no sentido da construção de uma Ecologia Política simétrica.
July 15, 2013
Very perplexing (unbelievably complicated -Warning!) but fascinating and has stimulated a lot of thinking for me
November 13, 2020
Um livro essencial para repensar a nossa sociedade e sua relação com a natureza.
Latour continua a proposta teórica iniciada em seus livros anteriores (Principalmente o "Jamais Fomos Modernos") e agora foca em como construir uma nova sociedade, praticamente um novo contrato natural, superando os limites da modernidade.
Ele constrói seu argumento em cima da Ecologia Política, mostrando porquê ela não funciona atualmente e como ela poderia funcionar. A análise de nosso mundo, principalmente dos limites que a modernidade impõem a ecologia política, é maravilhosa. É impossível pensar os conceitos de natureza, sociedade, fatos, sujeitos e de ecologia política da mesma maneira após terminar a leitura desse livro.
A proposta teórica dele, para superar o modernismo, também é bem interessante. Um modelo sólido, sustentado em bases sociológicas e filosóficas amplas, que propõe uma cosmopolítica inovadora. A Ecologia Política, agora com uma nova separação dos poderes, mais atores sociais em um mundo comum, coletivo dinâmico e construindo por todos, superando a separação moderna de ciência, política, economia e administração.
É uma proposta complexa, um livro que fica ruminando na cabeça por muito tempo. Até o momento que sentei para escrever essa resenha, ainda tentava testar os limites da minha compreensão dessa nova teoria. Minha única certeza: No meu processo de (des)construção como Terrano Descarbonário, esse livro é uma das pedras fundamentais.
É um "faitiche": livro elegantíssimo e assaz funcional.
Tragam os atores e suas proposições, pois é hora de colocar nosso bicameralismo para funcionar: Que arregacemos as mangas e comecemos a construção de nosso coletivo.
Latour continua a proposta teórica iniciada em seus livros anteriores (Principalmente o "Jamais Fomos Modernos") e agora foca em como construir uma nova sociedade, praticamente um novo contrato natural, superando os limites da modernidade.
Ele constrói seu argumento em cima da Ecologia Política, mostrando porquê ela não funciona atualmente e como ela poderia funcionar. A análise de nosso mundo, principalmente dos limites que a modernidade impõem a ecologia política, é maravilhosa. É impossível pensar os conceitos de natureza, sociedade, fatos, sujeitos e de ecologia política da mesma maneira após terminar a leitura desse livro.
A proposta teórica dele, para superar o modernismo, também é bem interessante. Um modelo sólido, sustentado em bases sociológicas e filosóficas amplas, que propõe uma cosmopolítica inovadora. A Ecologia Política, agora com uma nova separação dos poderes, mais atores sociais em um mundo comum, coletivo dinâmico e construindo por todos, superando a separação moderna de ciência, política, economia e administração.
É uma proposta complexa, um livro que fica ruminando na cabeça por muito tempo. Até o momento que sentei para escrever essa resenha, ainda tentava testar os limites da minha compreensão dessa nova teoria. Minha única certeza: No meu processo de (des)construção como Terrano Descarbonário, esse livro é uma das pedras fundamentais.
É um "faitiche": livro elegantíssimo e assaz funcional.
Tragam os atores e suas proposições, pois é hora de colocar nosso bicameralismo para funcionar: Que arregacemos as mangas e comecemos a construção de nosso coletivo.
August 16, 2024
Door en door Latour, maar hier wel op het randje. De verschillende teksten zijn van ongelijk niveau. Het stuk over de honderd aspecten van Gaia is niets meer dan een spielerei.
Ik onthou vooral twee dingen. Latour borduurt verder op het Gaia-concept. Hij verwijt - terecht naar mijn zin - wetenschappers, politici en journalisten dat ze het concept willen vereenvoudigen. De kracht van Gaia ligt echter in de beschrijving van een zeer grote complexiteit. Gaia is geen systeem met eenvoudige inputs en outputs en interne processen die homeostase bewerkstelligen. Het is ook geen teleologisch organisme, het 'moet' nergens naartoe evolueren. Er spelen zich veel feedback processen in af, maar Gaia is iets anders dan de som of de samenstelling van die processen. De klassieke cybernetica is niet in staat om het te karakteriseren. (Voor de lezer die niet vertrouwd is met Gaia raad ik ten stelligste aan de oorspronkelijke teksten van Lovelock en Margulis te lezen. Met wat zoeken vind je zeker een vertaling.)
Het tweede en veel moeilijker te beschrijven idee betreffende de 'representatie van de dingen'. L pleit voor een radicale herverdeling van verantwoordelijkheden tussen politiek, wetenschap en samenleving. De belangen van niet-menselijke entiteiten kunnen volgens hem bewaakt worden in een hybride machtsdeling. Ik waag me hier (nog) niet aan een echte samenvatting, laat staan een kritiek. Maar wees verzekerd dat dit een boek is waar je op moet kauwen.
PS: De Belgische wetenschapper en filosoof Isabelle Stengers verschijnt voortdurend ten tonele. Haar rol in de ontwikkeling van L's denken kan moeiijk overschat worden. Dixit L zelve.
Ik onthou vooral twee dingen. Latour borduurt verder op het Gaia-concept. Hij verwijt - terecht naar mijn zin - wetenschappers, politici en journalisten dat ze het concept willen vereenvoudigen. De kracht van Gaia ligt echter in de beschrijving van een zeer grote complexiteit. Gaia is geen systeem met eenvoudige inputs en outputs en interne processen die homeostase bewerkstelligen. Het is ook geen teleologisch organisme, het 'moet' nergens naartoe evolueren. Er spelen zich veel feedback processen in af, maar Gaia is iets anders dan de som of de samenstelling van die processen. De klassieke cybernetica is niet in staat om het te karakteriseren. (Voor de lezer die niet vertrouwd is met Gaia raad ik ten stelligste aan de oorspronkelijke teksten van Lovelock en Margulis te lezen. Met wat zoeken vind je zeker een vertaling.)
Het tweede en veel moeilijker te beschrijven idee betreffende de 'representatie van de dingen'. L pleit voor een radicale herverdeling van verantwoordelijkheden tussen politiek, wetenschap en samenleving. De belangen van niet-menselijke entiteiten kunnen volgens hem bewaakt worden in een hybride machtsdeling. Ik waag me hier (nog) niet aan een echte samenvatting, laat staan een kritiek. Maar wees verzekerd dat dit een boek is waar je op moet kauwen.
PS: De Belgische wetenschapper en filosoof Isabelle Stengers verschijnt voortdurend ten tonele. Haar rol in de ontwikkeling van L's denken kan moeiijk overschat worden. Dixit L zelve.
March 7, 2024
Latour was right -- this is a slow burn. It took a lot of effort to maintain faith in his promise, that the road he paves indeed leads to political ecology. This doesn't create just a problem just in pacing, but in structure too. The first several chapters largely discuss (experimental) metaphysics and (political) epistemology, with the ostensible goal of applying it to political ecology. Though, since he largely avoids these applications, it feels like pointless abstraction; the literary equivalent of pure category theory, isolated hedonistic arrow-pushing. Once he wraps up these foundations and begins discussing political ecology, the earlier chapters suddenly clarify, and are much easier to understand in reflection. The initial pass, however, is toiling.
His experimental metaphysics and political epistemology leading to the Markovian two-house structure is convincing. However, he fails to sell me on the details of its implementation. Vaguely, I understand the role, say, the diplomat plays. However, overall, it feels like something which may be conceptualized, though is wholly impractical. This problem is not unique to Latour, and is a symptom overall of political philosophy. Nonetheless, I think he succeeded in his primary goal -- communicating that nature is, indeed, not real.
His experimental metaphysics and political epistemology leading to the Markovian two-house structure is convincing. However, he fails to sell me on the details of its implementation. Vaguely, I understand the role, say, the diplomat plays. However, overall, it feels like something which may be conceptualized, though is wholly impractical. This problem is not unique to Latour, and is a symptom overall of political philosophy. Nonetheless, I think he succeeded in his primary goal -- communicating that nature is, indeed, not real.
December 15, 2019
This book makes some important insights and arguments. The most compelling to me was the re-integration of politicians, scientists, economists, moralists, and administrators. Rather than seeing each of these as having different domains (as Gould would have it), Latour seems to argue for each of these disciplines engaging the same domains, but each brings a different skill set. This creates a need for engagement across domains and negotiation across the disciplines. It is compelling, if only we could get the disciplinarians to actually listen to one another.
While my overall take away is positive with respect to the ideas, the text was extremely complex, probably unnecessarily so. Hence, the relatively low rating.
While my overall take away is positive with respect to the ideas, the text was extremely complex, probably unnecessarily so. Hence, the relatively low rating.
September 12, 2020
The Good: Latour makes a compelling case to overcome the division between the sphere of politics, dealing with values, and that of nature, dealing with facts, which is fraught with smuggling either way.
The Bad: Sometimes it seems like that division is not as strong in current society as Latour would have it - so he is assailing a man at least partially made of straw. A stronger empirical grounding would have helped both his description of what is now and what should be according to him.
The Ugly: The writing is atrocious. Conversational, but highly theoretical with nary an example. Latour will always go for the (presumed) clever over the concise and, sadly, the clear.
The Bad: Sometimes it seems like that division is not as strong in current society as Latour would have it - so he is assailing a man at least partially made of straw. A stronger empirical grounding would have helped both his description of what is now and what should be according to him.
The Ugly: The writing is atrocious. Conversational, but highly theoretical with nary an example. Latour will always go for the (presumed) clever over the concise and, sadly, the clear.
Read
December 18, 2024Este es un libro difícil, llenísimo de contenido, con muchos terminos en constante redefinición y una propuesta tan amplia y tan ambiciosa que cuesta seguirla a la primera. Aun así, Latour despliega aquí todos sus trucos y pasos prohibidos y combina su potente capacidad reflexiva sobre la ciencia con una naciente preocupación ecológica que se irá consolidando a lo largo del siglo XXI (este es de 1999).
Para cualquier persona interesada en la articulación político-filosófica de la crisis ecosocial Políticas de la naturaleza es una parada imprescindible.
Para cualquier persona interesada en la articulación político-filosófica de la crisis ecosocial Políticas de la naturaleza es una parada imprescindible.
March 12, 2023
Que confuso e repetitivo!! O que vale é que já tenho o Facing Gaia e nota-se a diferença.
June 21, 2023
Difícil pra caramba, definitivamente preciso reler
November 23, 2018
Was very funny, I loved it
March 20, 2017
It's latour, and it's not "we have never been modern" so it's ok but zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Read
February 8, 2011Dense...and surprisingly, most of it is common sense. He provides a ridiculously abstruse framework to call for a synthesis of disciplines, and offers no prescription in how to fulfill this--just his unhelpful glossary for when he needs to redefine words too integrated into the bicameral political/Science epistemological model that he rallies against.
January 14, 2022
Dit zou verplichte kost moeten zijn voor iedereen! Een filosofisch kader dat handelingsperspectief biedt in deze donkere tijden, wie wil dat nou niet? Mooi doorwrocht denken, helder beschreven en prettig vertaald. Jammer dat het zo kort was!
March 9, 2009
Everything.
Displaying 1 - 28 of 29 reviews