Shashi on Latour

Latour, Bruno. "Why Has Criticism Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern" Critical Inquiry 30 (Winter 2004): 225--248.

––––––––

Ray,

Here are some initial thoughts on Latour.

The article is very provocative and should be taken seriously despite its tendency to advertise "science studies" as a solution to the problems he raises. 1) Constructivism and indeterminacy is being used by our enemies. 2) Critics attempt to de-fetishize the world by pointing out how things are not in-themselves imbued with value but are imbued with our own projections and fantasies. 3) This process of debunking "facts" is contradicted by another critical tool, namely the use of 'objective' realities to point out how our actions and relations are not freely willed but overdetermined. 4) The contradiction between these two critical methods is not clearly seen because they are used on different objects and different times–––and the critic is always right!

This is all very smart but I have serious objections to it:

1) Criticism isn't about "taking away," about destroying as Latour argues it is currently. Rather, critiques already do what he asks fo them, add to the objects more perspectives and information to see how and why they have come to exist in the world. This is a part of my larger objection to the notion that criticism removes pleasure from, say, reading. On the contrary, I think critiques *add* a great deal of pleasure by pointing how the thing is produced, and all the (artistic) intricacies needed to make that production possible.

The same, I think, is true in the realm of politics. Radically historicizing a particular event, to point out only method of critique, isn't meant to destroy the event, to rob of its tragedy or joy, but to understand how it has come to be. The process, I think, is less about debunking as creating a pause, an opening call, one that hopefully delays the trigger pull, to think *more* deeply about the situation.

2) English studies is already called the "imperial discipline" because we feel nothing based in language is outside of our scope; that is, everything is fair game. Disciplinarity has its value especially when negotiating highly complex topics that require, to borrow my own phrasing, years of immersion. There is, of course, a need for (more) conversation among the disciplines; however, like the tokenism that has come to define "Diversity" in practice, much greater institutional support and infrastructure would be necessary.

Latour calls for something like this when he argues that any given "matter of fact" requires "a multifarious inquiry launched with the tools of anthropology, philosophy, metaphysics, history, sociology to detect" all that goes into making its existence possible (246). For any given individual to take this on is ridiculous.

But perhaps I am missing something crucial to his larger argument. I'm not sure. Another friend also sent me an article to push thinking through these issues. I have attached it and would love to hear your thoughts on it. I'd definitely like to keep this conversation going.

much love,

Shashi