Bruno Latour, the Post-Truth Philosopher, Mounts a Defense ...
13
Bruno Latour, the Post-Truth Philosopher, Mounts a Defense of Science He spent decades deconstructing the ways that scientists claim their authority. Can his ideas help them regain that authority today? By Ava Kofman New York Times Magazine Oct. 25, 2018 In the summer of 1996, during an international anthropology conference in southeastern Brazil, Bruno Latour, France’s most famous and misunderstood philosopher, was approached by an anxious- looking developmental psychologist. The psychologist had a delicate question, and for this reason he requested that Latour meet him in a secluded spot — beside a lake at the Swiss-style resort where they were staying. Removing from his pocket a piece of paper on which he’d scribbled some notes, the psychologist hesitated before asking, “Do you believe in reality?” For a moment, Latour thought he was being set up for a joke. His early work, it was true, had done more than that of any other living thinker to unsettle the traditional understanding of how we acquire knowledge of what’s real. It had long been taken for granted, for example, that scientific facts and entities, like cells and quarks and prions, existed “out there” in the world before they were discovered by scientists. Latour turned this notion on its head. In a series of controversial books in the 1970s and 1980s, he argued that scientific facts should instead be seen as a product of scientific inquiry. Facts, Latour said, were “networked”; they stood or fell not on the strength of their inherent veracity but on the strength of the institutions and practices that produced them and made them intelligible. If this network broke down, the facts would go with them. Still, Latour had never seen himself as doing anything so radical, or absurd, as calling into question the existence of reality. As a founder of the new academic discipline of science and technology studies, or S.T.S., Latour regarded himself and his colleagues as allies of science. Of course he believed in reality, he told the psychologist, convinced that the conversation was in jest. From the look of relief on the man’s face, however, Latour realized that the question had been posed in earnest. “I had to switch interpretations fast enough to comprehend both the monster he was seeing me as,” he later wrote of the encounter, 1
Transcript of Bruno Latour, the Post-Truth Philosopher, Mounts a Defense ...
BrunoLatour,thePost-TruthPhilosopher,MountsaDefenseofScience
Hespentdecadesdeconstructingthewaysthatscientistsclaimtheirauthority.Canhisideashelpthemregainthatauthoritytoday?
ByAvaKofmanNewYorkTimesMagazineOct.25,2018
Inthesummerof1996,duringaninternationalanthropologyconferenceinsoutheasternBrazil,BrunoLatour,France’smostfamousandmisunderstoodphilosopher,wasapproachedbyananxious-lookingdevelopmentalpsychologist.Thepsychologisthadadelicatequestion,andforthisreasonherequestedthatLatourmeethiminasecludedspot—besidealakeattheSwiss-styleresortwheretheywerestaying.Removingfromhispocketapieceofpaperonwhichhe’dscribbledsomenotes,thepsychologisthesitatedbeforeasking,“Doyoubelieveinreality?”
Foramoment,Latourthoughthewasbeingsetupforajoke.Hisearlywork,itwastrue,haddonemorethanthatofanyotherlivingthinkertounsettlethetraditionalunderstandingofhowweacquireknowledgeofwhat’sreal.Ithadlongbeentakenforgranted,forexample,thatscientificfactsandentities,likecellsandquarksandprions,existed“outthere”intheworldbeforetheywerediscoveredbyscientists.Latourturnedthisnotiononitshead.Inaseriesofcontroversialbooksinthe1970sand1980s,hearguedthatscientificfactsshouldinsteadbeseenasaproductofscientificinquiry.Facts,Latoursaid,were“networked”;theystoodorfellnotonthestrengthoftheirinherentveracitybutonthestrengthoftheinstitutionsandpracticesthatproducedthemandmadethemintelligible.Ifthisnetworkbrokedown,thefactswouldgowiththem.
Still,Latourhadneverseenhimselfasdoinganythingsoradical,orabsurd,ascallingintoquestiontheexistenceofreality.Asafounderofthenewacademicdisciplineofscienceandtechnologystudies,orS.T.S.,Latourregardedhimselfandhiscolleaguesasalliesofscience.Ofcoursehebelievedinreality,hetoldthepsychologist,convincedthattheconversationwasinjest.Fromthelookofreliefontheman’sface,however,Latourrealizedthatthequestionhadbeenposedinearnest.“Ihadtoswitchinterpretationsfastenoughtocomprehendboththemonsterhewasseeingmeas,”helaterwroteoftheencounter,
�1
“andhistouchingopennessofmindindaringtoaddresssuchamonsterprivately.Itmusthavetakencourageforhimtomeetwithoneofthesecreaturesthatthreatened,inhisview,thewholeestablishmentofscience.”
Latour’sinterlocutorwasnottheonlypersonwhofeltthattheestablishmentofsciencewasunderattack.Themid-1990sweretheyearsoftheso-calledsciencewars,aseriesofheatedpublicdebatesbetween“realists,”whoheldthatfactswereobjectiveandfree-standing,and“socialconstructionists,”likeLatour,whobelievedthatsuchfactswerecreatedbyscientificresearch.Tohintatanyofthecontentionandcompromisethatwentonbehindthescenes,therealistsfeared,wouldgivesuccortotheenemiesofprogress:creationists,anti-vaxxers,flat-earthersandcranksofallstripes.Ifscientificknowledgewassociallyproduced—andthuspartial,fallible,contingent—howcouldthatnotweakenitsclaimsonreality?Attheheightoftheconflict,thephysicistAlanSokal,whowasundertheimpressionthatLatourandhisS.T.S.colleaguesthoughtthat“thelawsofphysicsaremeresocialconventions,”invitedthemtojumpoutthewindowofhis21st-floorapartment.
Atthetime,thesciencewarsstruckmostpeopleoutsidetheacademy,iftheynoticedthematall,asanoverheatedscholasticsquabble.Lately,however,thesedebateshavebeguntolookmorelikeapreludetothepost-trutherainwhichsocietyasawholeispresentlycondemnedtolive.Thepastdecadehasseenaprecipitousrisenotjustinanti-scientificthinking—lastyear,only37percentofconservativeRepublicansbelievedintheoccurrenceofglobalwarning,downfrom50percentin2008—butinallmannerofreactionaryobscurantism,fromonlineconspiracytheoriestothemuch-discusseddeathofexpertise.TheelectionofDonaldTrump,apresidentwhoinventsthefactstosuithismoodandgoesafterthecredibilityofanyonewhocontradictshim,wouldseemtorepresenttheculminationofthisepistemicrot.“Doyoubelieveinreality?”isnowthequestionthathalfofAmericawantstoaskthepresidentandhislegionofsupporters.
“Ithinkweweresohappytodevelopallthiscritiquebecauseweweresosureoftheauthorityofscience,”Latourreflectedthisspring.“Andthattheauthorityofsciencewouldbesharedbecausetherewasacommonworld.”Wewereseatedatthedining-roomtableofhisdaughter’sapartmentinthe19thArrondissementofParis,whereLatour,whois71,wasbabysittingforhis8-year-oldgrandson,Ulysse.Theapartment,hetoldmeproudly,waspurchasedwiththemoneythatcamewiththeawardofthe2013HolbergPrize,knownastheNobelofthehumanities,forwhatthejuryheraldedashis“reinterpretationofmodernity.”Hewaswearingapurpleturtlenecksweater,hisfavoriteburgundyslacksandsensibleblackwalkingshoes.Hehasafullheadofdark,disheveledhair,andhisvigorouslyovergrowneyebrowssweepseveralunsettlingcentimetersupbeyondtherimofhisroundspectacles,likeanun’scornette.“Eventhisnotionofacommonworldwedidn’thavetoarticulate,becauseitwasobvious,”hecontinued.“Nowwehavepeoplewhonolongersharetheideathatthereisacommonworld.Andthatofcoursechangeseverything.”
ThosewhoworriedthatLatour’searlyworkwasopeningaPandora’sboxmayfeelthattheirfearshavebeenmorethanborneout.Indeed,commentatorsontheleftandtheright,possiblyoverstatingthereachofFrenchtheory,haverecentlyleveledblameforourcurrentstateofaffairsat“postmodernists”likeLatour.Byshowingthatscientificfactsarethe
�2
productofall-too-humanprocedures,thesecriticscharge,Latour—whetherheintendedtoornot—gavelicensetoaperniciousanything-goesrelativismthatcynicalconservativeswereonlytoohappytoappropriatefortheirownends.Latourhimselfhassometimesworriedaboutthesamething.Asearlyas2004hepubliclyexpressedthefearthathiscritical“weapons,”oratleastagrotesquecaricatureofthem,werebeing“smuggled”totheotherside,ascorporate-fundedclimateskepticsusedargumentsabouttheconstructednatureofknowledgetosowdoubtaroundthescientificconsensusonclimatechange.
ButLatourbelievesthatiftheclimateskepticsandotherjunkscientistshavemadeanythingclear,it’sthatthetraditionalimageoffactswasneversustainabletobeginwith.“ThewayIseeit,Iwasdoingthesamethingandsayingthesamething,”hetoldme,removinghisglasses.“Thenthesituationchanged.”Ifanything,ourcurrentpost-truthmomentislessaproductofLatour’sideasthanavalidationofthem.Inthewaythatapersonnoticesherbodyonlyoncesomethinggoeswrongwithit,wearebecomingconsciousoftherolethatLatouriannetworksplayinproducingandsustainingknowledgeonlynowthatthosenetworksareunderassault.
This,inessence,isthepremiseofLatour’slatestbook,“DowntoEarth,”anilluminatingandcounterintuitiveanalysisofthepresentpost-truthmoment,whichwillbepublishedintheUnitedStatesnextmonth.Whatjournalists,scientistsandotherexpertsfailtograsp,Latourargues,isthat“factsremainrobustonlywhentheyaresupportedbyacommonculture,byinstitutionsthatcanbetrusted,byamoreorlessdecentpubliclife,bymoreorlessreliablemedia.”Withtheriseofalternativefacts,ithasbecomeclearthatwhetherornotastatementisbelieveddependsfarlessonitsveracitythanontheconditionsofits“construction”—thatis,whoismakingit,towhomit’sbeingaddressedandfromwhichinstitutionsitemergesandismadevisible.Agreaterunderstandingofthecircumstancesoutofwhichmisinformationarisesandthecommunitiesinwhichittakesroot,Latourcontends,willbetterequipustocombatit.
Philosophershavetraditionallyrecognizedadivisionbetweenfactsandvalues—between,say,scientificknowledgeononehandandhumanjudgmentsontheother.Latourbelievesthatthisisspecious.Manyofhisbooksareattemptstoilluminate,ashehaswritten,“boththehistoryofhumans’involvementinthemakingofscientificfactsandthesciences’involvementinthemakingofhumanhistory.”Inaformulationthatwasgallingtobothsociologistsandscientists,heoncearguedthatLouisPasteurdidnotjust,asiscommonlyaccepted,discovermicrobes;rather,hecollaboratedwiththem.
Latourlikestosaythathehasbeenattunedfromanearlyagetothewaysinwhichhumanbeingsinfluencetheirnaturalenvironment.Hisaffluentfamily,proprietorsoftheprominentwinemakingbusinessMaisonLouisLatour,hadbeencultivatingthesameBurgundyvineyardsformorethan150yearswhenBruno,theyoungestofeightchildren,wasborntherein1947.Anolderbrotherwasalreadybeinggroomedtorunthefamilyfirm,soLatourwasencouragedtopursueaclassicaleducation.At17,hewassenttoSaint-LouisdeGonzague,oneofthemostprestigiousschoolsinParis,wherehemingledwithotheryoungmembersoftheFrenchelite.Althoughhewasawealthyandwell-readCatholic,hefoundhimselfcompletelyunpreparedforthevirulentsnobberyofthecapital.Hewas
�3
madetofeelliketheproud,provincialheroofaBalzacnovelwhoarrivesinParisandsoondiscovershowlittleheknowsaboutthewaysoftheworld.ItwasatSaint-LouisdeGonzaguethathebegantostudyphilosophy,acompulsorysubjectinthefinalyearofFrenchhighschool.ThefirsttexthewasassignedwasNietzsche’s“TheBirthofTragedy”;unlike“alltheconfusionofmathematics,”itimmediatelystruckhimasclearandperfectlyrational.
In1966,hebeganhisundergraduatestudyattheUniversityofDijon,wherehedevelopedaninterestinepistemology—thebranchofphilosophyconcernedwithhowknowledgeismade—buteventhenhehadstartedtosuspectthatmostofwhathewaslearningwas“probablywrong.”Philosopherstalkedaboutscienceasthoughitwereapurelycognitiveenterprise,amatterofsheerintellectualvirtuosity,andaboutscientists(whentheytalkedaboutthematall)aslogical,objective,heroic.
Thesesuspicionsonlydeepenedoverthefollowingyears,whichLatourspentintheIvoryCoast,undertheauspicesofasortofFrenchPeaceCorpstoavoidmilitaryservice.Ashewrotehisdoctoraldissertation,hetaughtphilosophyatatechnicalschoolinAbidjanandvolunteeredtoworkonastudycommissionedbytheFrenchgovernment.HistaskwastofindoutwhyFrenchcompanies,whichstillownedandoperatedmanyofthefactoriesinpostcolonialAbidjan,werehavingsuchdifficultyrecruiting“competent”blackexecutives.IttooklessthanadayforLatourtorealizethatthepremisewasflawed.“Thequestionwasabsurdbecausetheydideverythingnottohaveblackexecutives,”hetoldme.IntheFrench-runengineeringschools,blackstudentsweretaughtabstracttheorieswithoutreceivinganypracticalexposuretotheactualmachinerytheywereexpectedtouse.Whentheyweresubsequentlyunabletounderstandtechnicaldrawings,theywereaccusedofhaving“premodern,”“African”minds.“Itwasclearlyaracistsituation,”hesaid,“whichwashiddenbehindcognitive,pseudohistoricalandculturalexplanations.”
InAbidjan,Latourbegantowonderwhatitwouldlookliketostudyscientificknowledgenotasacognitiveprocessbutasanembodiedculturalpracticeenabledbyinstruments,machineryandspecifichistoricalconditions.Wouldthemindofascientistoranengineerfrom,say,Californiaseemanymore“modern”or“rational”thanthatofonefromtheIvory
�4
Coastifitwerestudiedindependentoftheeducation,thelaboratoryandthetoolsthatshapeditandmadeitsworkpossible?
BeforeleavingDijonforAbidjan,LatourmetRogerGuillemin,abiologistwhowouldsoongoontowintheNobelPrizeforhisworkonhormoneproductioninthebrain.GuilleminlaterinvitedhimtostudyhislaboratoryattheSalkInstituteinSanDiego,andsobeginningin1975,Latourspenttwoyearsthereasasortofparticipant-observer,followingscientistsaroundastheywentabouttheirdailywork.PartofLatour’simmersioninthelabinvolvedconductingactualexperiments,andhisco-workerswouldoftengatheraroundtowatch.Theycouldn’tbelievethatsomeonecouldbe,asheputit,“sobadandclumsy.”Hefoundpipettingespeciallydifficult.Anytimetheslightestthoughtcrossedhismind,hewouldforgetwhereheplacedtheinstrumentandhavetostartalloveragain.Helaterrealizedthatitwaspreciselyhislackofaptitudeforlabworkthatledhimtopaysuchcloseattentiontotheintricate,mundanelaborinvolvedinthemanufactureofobjectivity.
WhenhepresentedhisearlyfindingsatthefirstmeetingofthenewlyestablishedSocietyforSocialStudiesofScience,in1976,manyofhiscolleaguesweretakenabackbyaseriesofblack-and-whitephotographicslidesdepictingscientistsonthejob,asthoughtheywerechimpanzees.Itwasfeltthatscientistsweretheonlyoneswhocouldspeakwithauthorityonbehalfofscience;therewassomethingblasphemousaboutsubjectingthediscipline,supposedlytheapexofmodernsociety,tothekindofcoldscrutinythatanthropologiststraditionallyreservedfor“premodern”peoples.Noteveryonefeltthesameway,however.Thepreviousyear,inCalifornia,LatourmetSteveWoolgar,aBritishsociologist,whowasintriguedbyhisunorthodoxapproach.WoolgarturnedLatourontotheworkofothersociologistsandanthropologists,likeMichaelLynch,SharonTraweekandHaroldGarfinkel,whohadalsobeguntostudyscienceasasocialpractice.Latour,inturn,invitedWoolgartospendafewweekswithhimstudyinghisprimatesattheSalkInstitute.
Thetwomencollaboratedon“LaboratoryLife,”whichafteritspublicationin1979becameafoundingtextinthenascentfieldofscienceandtechnologystudiesand,byacademicstandards,abreakthroughsuccess.Thebookcontinuestochallengesomeofourmostdeeplyheldnotionsabouthowknowledgeismade.Noonehadevercontestedthatscientistswerehumanbeings,butmostpeoplebelievedthatbyfollowingthescientificmethod,scientistswereabletoarriveatobjectivefactsthattranscendedtheirhumanorigins.Adecadeandahalfearlier,inhisbestseller,“TheStructureofScientificRevolutions,”thephysicist-turned-philosopherThomasKuhnhaddonemuchtoweakentheWhiginterpretationofsciencebyshowinghowhistoricaladvancesweregovernedbycontingencyanddebate.WhatLatourobservedfirsthandinGuillemin’slabmadethetraditionalviewofsciencelooklikelittlemorethanaself-servingfiction.
Day-to-dayresearch—whathetermedscienceinthemaking—appearednotsomuchasastepwiseprogressiontowardrationaltruthasadisorderlymassofstrayobservations,inconclusiveresultsandfledglingexplanations.Farfromsimplydiscoveringfacts,scientistsseemedtobe,asLatourandWoolgarwrotein“LaboratoryLife,”“inthebusinessofbeingconvincedandconvincingothers.”Duringtheprocessofarguingoveruncertaindata,scientistsforegroundedtherealitythattheywere,insomeessentialsense,always
�5
speakingforthefacts;andyet,assoonastheirpropositionswereturnedintoindisputablestatementsandpeer-reviewedpapers—whatLatourcalledready-madescience—theyclaimedthatsuchfactshadalwaysspokenforthemselves.Thatis,onlyoncethescientificcommunityacceptedsomethingastrueweretheall-too-humanprocessesbehinditeffectivelyerasedor,asLatourputit,black-boxed.
Inthe1980s,LatourhelpedtodevelopandadvocateforanewapproachtosociologicalresearchcalledActor-NetworkTheory.Whilecontroversialatthetime,ithassincebeenadoptedasamethodologicaltoolnotjustinsociologybutalsoinarangeofdisciplines,likeurbandesignandpublichealth.Fromhisstudiesoflaboratories,Latourhadseenhowanapparentlyweakandisolateditem—ascientificinstrument,ascrapofpaper,aphotograph,abacterialculture—couldacquireenormouspowerbecauseofthecomplicatednetworkofotheritems,knownasactors,thatweremobilizedaroundit.Themoresocially“networked”afactwas(themorepeopleandthingsinvolvedinitsproduction),themoreeffectivelyitcouldrefuteitsless-plausiblealternatives.ThemedicalrevolutioncommonlyattributedtothegeniusofPasteur,heargued,shouldinsteadbeseenasaresultofanassociationbetweennotjustdoctors,nursesandhygienistsbutalsoworms,milk,sputum,parasites,cowsandfarms.Sciencewas“social,”then,notmerelybecauseitwasperformedbypeople(this,hethought,wasareductivemisunderstandingoftheword“social”);rather,sciencewassocialbecauseitbroughttogetheramultitudeofhumanandnonhumanentitiesandharnessedtheircollectivepowertoactonandtransformtheworld.
Inthefallof2016,thehottestyearonrecord,LatourtookaplanefromParistoCalgary,Canada,wherehewasduetodeliveralectureon“thenow-obsoletenotionofnature.”Severalhoursintotheflight,abovetheBaffinicesheetstothewestofGreenland,hepeeredoutthewindow.Whathesawstartledhim.ThatyeartheNorthPolewasmeltingatanacceleratedpace.Thetundrabelow,rentwithfissures,remindedhimoftheagonizedfacefromEdvardMunch’spainting“TheScream.”
“Itwasasthoughtheicewassendingmeamessage,”LatourrecalledinMarch.Dressedinastrikingsuit(straw-coloredtie,bluewaistcoat),hewasspeakingtoasold-outtheaterofsome200peopleinStrasbourgaspartofthecity’sbiennialpuppetryfestival.AlthoughLatourisafigureofinternationalrenownontheacademiccircuit,hislecture—asortofanti-TEDTalkonclimatechangefeaturinganarrayofsurrealimagesandacousticaleffects—wasanythingbutatraditionalconferencepaper.Throughouttheperformance,Latour’sloomingfigurewashiddenbehindimagesprojectedontoascreen,sothatitseemedasthoughhewerebeingswallowedbyhisownPowerPointpresentation.Theeffectwasabitlikewatching“AnInconvenientTruth,”ifAlGorehadbeenacoltishFrenchphilosopherwhosaidthingslike“Scientists,artists,andsocialscientistslikemyselfarebeginningtoproposewhatwecall—andmaybeit’stooexaggerated—anewcosmology.”
Theideathatwecanstandbackandbeholdnatureatadistance,assomethingdiscretefromouractions,isanillusion,Latoursays.Thiswasthemessagethatthemeltingicesheetsweresendinghim.“MyactivityinthisplanegoingtoCanadawasactuallyhavinganeffectontheveryspectacleofnaturethatIwasseeing,”hetoldhisStrasbourgaudience.
�6
“Inthatsense,thereisnooutsideanymore.”Appropriatelyenough,theshow,whichhehasperformedinseveralcitiesacrossEuropeandwillbringtoNewYorkthisweek,iscalled“Inside.”Inourcurrentenvironmentalcrisis,hecontinued,anewimageoftheearthisneeded—onethatrecognizesthatthereisnosuchthingasaviewfromnowhereandthatwearealwaysimplicatedinthecreationofourview.WiththeadventoftheAnthropocene,awordproposedbyscientistsaroundtheturnofthecenturytodesignateanewepochinwhichhumanityhasbecometantamounttoageologicalforce,Latour’sideathathumansandnonhumansareactingtogether—andthattheearthreactstothoseactions—nowsoundsalotlikecommonsense.“HeisreallythethinkeroftheAnthropocene,”PhilippePignarre,Latour’sFrenchpublisherof40years,toldme.“AlotofscientistsinFrancedidn’tlikehimoriginallybecausehetreatedthemlikeotherworkers,andtheybelievedinhavingaspecialrelationshiptothetruth.Butnowtheyareusinghiswork.Heisatthecenterofpeoplewhowanttothinkabouttheworld.”
“Inside”drawsheavilyon“DowntoEarth,”hisnewbook,whichhasbeenhighlypraisedinFrancesinceitsreleasetherelastfall.Scientists,hewrites,havelargelylookedattheproblemofclimate-changedenialthroughthelensofrationalempiricismthathasgovernedtheirprofessionforcenturies;manylimittheirdomaintoscience,thinkingitinappropriatetoweighinonpoliticalquestionsortospeakinanemotionalregistertocommunicateurgency.Eventhoughtheevidenceinsupportofglobalwarminghaslongbeenoverwhelming,somescientistscontinuetobelievethattheproblemofdenialismcanbesolvedthroughevermoredataandgreaterpubliceducation.Politicalscientists,meanwhile,haveshownthatso-called“irrational”individuals,especiallythosewhoarehighlyeducated,insomecasesactuallyholdontotheiropinionsmorestronglywhenfacedwithfactsthatcontradictthem.InsteadofaccusingTrumpsupportersandclimatedenialistsofirrationality,Latourarguesthatitisuntenabletotalkaboutscientificfactsasthoughtheirrightnessalonewillbepersuasive.Inthisrespect,“DowntoEarth”extendsthesociologicalanalysisthathebroughttobearonfactoryworkersinAbidjanandscientistsinCaliforniatothemindsofanti-scientificvoters,lookingatthewaysinwhichthereceptionofseeminglyuniversalknowledgeisshapedbythevaluesandlocalcircumstancesofthosetowhomitisbeingcommunicated.
Latourbelievesthatifscientistsweretransparent
�7
abouthowsciencereallyfunctions—asaprocessinwhichpeople,politics,institutions,peerreviewandsoforthallplaytheirparts—theywouldbeinastrongerpositiontoconvincepeopleoftheirclaims.Climatologists,hesays,mustrecognizethat,asnature’sdesignatedrepresentatives,theyhavealwaysbeenpoliticalactors,andthattheyarenowcombatantsinawarwhoseoutcomewillhaveplanetaryramifications.Wewouldbeinamuchbettersituation,hehastoldscientists,iftheystoppedpretendingthat“theothers”—theclimate-changedeniers—“aretheonesengagedinpoliticsandthatyouareengaged‘onlyinscience.’”Incertainrespects,neweffortsliketheMarchforScience,whichhassoughttounderscoretheindispensablerolethatscienceplays(oroughttoplay)inpolicydecisions,andgroupslike314Action,whicharesupportingthecampaignsofscientistsandengineersrunningforpublicoffice,representanimportantifbelatedacknowledgmentfromtoday’sscientiststhattheyneed,asoneoftheMarch’sslogansputit,tostepoutofthelabandintothestreets.(TothisLatourmightaddthatthelabhasneverbeentrulyseparatefromthestreets;thatitseemstobeismerelyaresultofscientificculture’sattempttopassitselfoffasabovethefray.)
Ofcourse,theriskinherentinthisembraceofpoliticsisthatclimatedenierswillseizeonanyacknowledgmentofthesocialfactorsinvolvedinsciencetodiscredititevenfurther.InaNewYorkTimesOp-Ed,acoastalgeologistarguedthattheMarchforSciencewould“reinforcethenarrativefromskepticalconservativesthatscientistsareaninterestgroupandpoliticizetheirdata,researchandfindingsfortheirownends.”Thiswaswhathappenedintheinfamous2009incidentnowknownasClimategate,whenemailstoandfromscientistsattheUniversityofEastAnglia,aleadingcenterforclimateresearchinBritain,werehacked,revealingexactlythekindsofmessydebatesthatLatourdocumentedin“LaboratoryLife.”Climateskepticscitedthisasproofthatthescientistsweren’treallydiscoveringclimatechangebutsimplymassagingthedatatofittheirpreconceptions.Certainlytheincidentdidnot,asscholarsofscienceandtechnologystudiesmighthavehoped,leadthepublictoadeeperunderstandingofthecontroversyandnegotiationthatgovernallgoodscienceinthemaking.
Somemightseethisdiscouragingepisodeasareasontobackawayfromamoreopenlypugnaciousapproachonthepartofscientists.Latourdoesnot.Aspleasingasitmightbetoreturntoaheroicvisionofscience,attackslikethese—whichexploitourculture’slongstandingdivisionbetweenapoliticsupfordebateandascience“beyonddispute”—arenotgoingaway.Afterall,whenclimatologistsspeakaboutthefactsinameasuredtone,acknowledgingtheirconfidenceinterval,theskepticsclaimthemantleofscienceforthemselves,declaringthatthefactsaren’tyetcertainenoughandthattheirownjunksciencemustalsobeconsidered.Andyetwhenprominentclimatescientistspresenttheirfactswithpassionateconviction,climateskepticsaccusethemofpoliticalbias.ThistoxiccyclehasfurthercorrodedtheclassicalviewofsciencethatLatourhaslongconsideredindefensible.
“It’sanimportantpoliticalmoment,”saysDonnaHaraway,aleadingfeministS.T.S.scholarandphilosopherofscience,describingtheriseofanti-scientificthinkingandthepro-sciencemobilizationithasinspired.“Butit’salsoanimportantmomentnottogobacktoveryconventionalandverybadepistemologiesabouthowscientificknowledgeisput
�8
togetherandwhyandhowitholds.Brunohasbeenincrediblycreativeandstronginmakingthesearguments.Weneedtoshowthebankruptcyofthisclimatecontroversywithoutclosingdownthefactthatscienceisasetofsituatedpracticesandnotcapital-Sscience.”
Astheassaultsontheirexpertisehaveincreased,somescientists,Latourtoldme,havebeguntorealizethattheclassicalviewofscience—theassumptionthatthefactsspeakforthemselvesandwillthereforebeinterpretedbyallcitizensinthesameway—“doesn’tgivethembacktheiroldauthority.”Inaninterviewlastyear,RushHoltJr.,aphysicistwhoservedfor16yearsinCongress,describedtheMarchforScienceasaturningpoint:People,hesaid,wererealizing“thattheyneedtodefendtheconditionsinwhichsciencecanthrive.”
Whethertheyareconsciousofthisepistemologicalshift,itisbecomingincreasinglycommontohearscientistscharacterizetheirdisciplineasa“socialenterprise”andtopointtothestrengthoftheirscientifictrackrecord,theirlaborsofconsensusbuildingandthecrediblereputationsoftheirresearchers.Somehaveevenbeguntoacceptthattheirfactualstatementsabouttheworldareladenwithjudgmentsandwarnings—that,inLatour’swords,“tostatethefactandtoringthebellisoneandthesamething.”ThealarmisttoneofthemostrecentreportfromtheUnitedNationsIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange,whichspokeoftheneedfor“rapid,far-reachingandunprecedentedchangesinallaspectsofsociety,”marksasignificantdeparturefromtheI.P.C.C.’spreviouswork,becauseitshowsthescientificcommunity,asthejournalistDavidWallace-WellswroteforNewYorkmagazine,“finallydiscardingcautionindescribingtheimplicationsofitsownfinding.”
AtameetingbetweenFrenchindustrialistsandaclimatologistafewyearsago,Latourwasstruckwhenheheardthescientistdefendhisresultsnotonthebasisoftheunimpeachableauthorityofsciencebutbylayingouttohisaudiencehismanufacturingsecrets:“thelargenumberofresearchersinvolvedinclimateanalysis,thecomplexsystemforverifyingdata,thearticlesandreports,theprincipleofpeerevaluation,thevastnetworkofweatherstations,floatingweatherbuoys,satellitesandcomputersthatensuretheflowofinformation.”Theclimatedenialists,bycontrast,thescientistsaid,hadnoneofthisinstitutionalarchitecture.Latourrealizedhewaswitnessingthebeginningsaseismicrhetoricalshift:fromscientistsappealingtotranscendent,capital-TTruthtotoutingtherobustnetworksthroughwhichtruthis,andhasalwaysbeen,established.
ThegreatparadoxofLatour’slife—onethatisnotlostonhim—isthathehasachievedakindofgreat-manstatusevenassomuchofhisworkhassoughttoshowthatintellectuallaborisanythingbutasoloendeavor.Inthelasttwodecades,hehasbecomewidelyrecognizedasoneofthemostinventiveandinfluentialofcontemporaryphilosophers,notjustforhisradicalapproachtosciencebutalsoforhisfar-ranginginvestigationsofmodernlife.HisdozensofbooksincludeanethnographyofoneofFrance’ssupremecourts,apaeantothedifficultyofreligiousspeech,amixed-media“opera”aboutthestreetsofParisandapolyphonicinvestigationintothefailureofanautomatedsubwaysystem—narrated,inpart,bythesubwayitself.Thisworkhasinspired—or,dependingonyour
�9
pointofview,infected—everyonefromliteraryscholarsandobject-orientedphilosopherstomanagementtheoristsandseminarians.
Unlikemostphilosophers,forwhomthinkingisasedentaryactivity,Latourinsistsontestingourtaken-for-grantedideasabouttheworldagainsttheworlditself.Ineffect,hehasbeenrunninga50-yearexperiment,duringwhichhehascollecteddataattheSalkInstituteinSanDiego,intheAmazonrainforestandintheKenyansavanna.Thecurrentphaseofthisnever-endingresearchhasfoundhimtakingonaregioncommensuratewithhisglobalambition.Latourhasrecentlybeentravelingtheworldtoobservethescientistswhostudytheeffectsofclimatechangeonwhat’sknownasthecriticalzone—thethinlayerofearththatstretchesfromtheloweratmospheredowntothevegetation,soilandbedrock.Itis“critical,”accordingtogeologists,becauseitistheonlyplacewhereterrestriallifecanflourish.AsLatourputitinhislectureinStrasbourg,“Everythingwecarefor,everythingwehaveeverencountered,ishereinthistinycriticalzone.”Muchofhisinterestinthecriticalzonestemsfromhisconvictionthatgreaterpublicunderstandingofitwillmoreaccuratelyshowhowclimatescienceismade,beforeitshecticsocialdimensiongetsblack-boxed.
OneafternoonduringtheweekbeforehistriptotheStrasbourgpuppetryfestival,LatourmetJérômeGaillardet,asoft-spokengeochemist,andAlexandraArènes,alandscapearchitectwhomLatourhasdescribedasalatter-dayCopernicus,attheInstitutdePhysiqueduGlobedeParis,oneofthecountry’stopresearchuniversitiesforearthandplanetarysciences.LatourhadpairedhisusualaquaLacostemessengerbagandburgundyslackswithabrownsuedejacket,pumpkinscarfandflattweedcap,whichgavehimtheappearanceofaWesAndersoncharacter.ThethreeofthemweregatheringtodiscussapapertheyhadwrittenforTheAnthropoceneReview,atransdisciplinaryjournal.
LatourfirstmetGaillardetandArènesthroughSciencesPo,oneofFrance’sleadinguniversities,whereheisanemeritusprofessorandservedasthedirectorofresearch.UndertheguidanceofGaillardet,whodirectsthenetworkofcritical-zoneobservatories,orC.Z.O.s,inFrance,Latourhastraveledtointerviewscientistsatahandfulofthemorethan200sitesthatinformallyconstitutetheinternationalC.Z.O.network.Hehasbecomesomethingofacelebrityonthecritical-zonecircuit,attendingmeetingsatwhichprospectiveresearchisdecided,givingtalksaboutthis
�10
highlyheterogeneousregionoftheearth,publishingpaperswithenvironmentalscientists(mostrecentlyinScience)andencouragingscientiststoincludehumansasavariableintheirstudies.
TheauthorssataroundacirculartableinGaillardet’soffice.Itwasfunctionallydecoratedwithanequation-strewnwhiteboard,pedagogicrocks,geochemistrytextbooksandaperpetuallyspinningdeskglobe.TheideaforthepaperemergedafterLatourtoldGaillardetthatthestandardrepresentationsofthecriticalzonewere“atotaldisaster.”Incontrasttothestandardimageoftheearth,inwhichthecriticalzoneisrepresentedmerelyasathinlayer,theirpaperproposedanewrepresentationinwhichthecriticalzone,themostfragileandthreatenedareaoftheearth,isthecenterofattention.
Theytackledthecommentswithplayfulself-deprecation.Arènesrealizedtheyhadtochangetheword“concrete,”whichhadamorematerialconnotationforgeologiststhanforphilosophers.Gaillardetwonderedwhetherarockcouldbedescribedasanagent,andpointedoutseveralotherflourishesthatwere“veryrare”inscientificarticles,suchastheliteraryepigraphandthefactthatawholesentencewasinparentheses.LatourproudlynotedthattheirswasmostlikelytheonlyscientificpaperevertohavecitedPeterSloterdijk.Astheywentthroughandmadelineeditstothetext,LatoursawIwastakingnotesandturnedtomewithawrysmile.“Don’tsaywearemanipulatingfacts!”hesaid.“Thisisnormalscience.Thereisnothinguntowardhere.”
Anhourintothediscussion,duringateabreak,GaillardetpresentedLatourwithathickstackofbooksongeochemistry,severalofwhichcontainedequationsandproblemsets.Latourconsideredhishomeworkwistfully.Thebooksseemeduseful,buthewasn’tsurewhenhewouldfindthetimetogivethemtheattentiontheydeserved.HewasespeciallyinterestedinthemonographbyLinusPauling,whoseworkhehadrecentlybeenrevisiting.ImpressedbyLatour’sdedication,GaillardetremarkedthatLatourcouldhavebeenascientist.Theideaseemedalmosttoomuchforhimtobear.
“Icouldhavebeenascientist,”Latoursaidwitharchgravity.“I’vewastedmylife.”
“Oh,Bru-no!”Gaillardetsaid,inthewayinwhichonemightcomfortawoundedbird.
“Toproduceonefact!”Latoursighed,andpointedafingerintheair,asthoughtodemonstrateitsindisputablesolidity.Therewasanacheinhiseyes.“Canyouimaginethepleasureofproducingonefact?”
TheweekafterwemetinParis,LatourtraveledtotheVosgesmountainrangeinAlsace-Lorraine,twohourssouthwestofStrasbourg,toobserveGaillardetandotherscientistsatworkattheStrengbachCriticalZoneObservatory.Itwasaclear,coldmorning,andafteraweekofintermittentsnow,thelandscapewasdrapedinwhite.Inadditiontoseveralsweatersandacoat,Latourwaswearingabrightlypatternedredascot,whichseemedtobehiswayofsubtlyacknowledgingthesignificanceofthebusinessathand.Strengbach,oneoftheoldestC.Z.O.sinFrance,wasoriginallyestablishedin1986tomeasuretheeffectsofacidrain.Inrecentyears,the200-acrehillsideforest,equippedwithsensorsandanarray
�11
ofhigh-techdevices,hasbecomeasiteforstudyingtheimpactofclimatechangeonwaterchemistry,soilcontentandvegetation.
Nearthetopofawindingmountainpath,GaillardetexplainedtomethatsomeofthequestionsLatourhadbeenaskingthegroup,inparticularabouttheinfluenceoflivingorganismsongeologicalprocesses,weredifficulttoanswerbecausetheyforcedscientiststoreckonwithknowledgeoutsidetheirspecializedfields.Partofthetroublewithclimatechangehasbeenthatitsbreadthandcomplexitydefydisciplinaryboundaries,makingitdifficultforspecialiststoconveytheimplicationsofatmosphericpatternsfromtheirdataalone.Whatthecritical-zoneobservatorieshaddone,Gaillardetsaid,wastodrawtogetherscientistsworkinginBalkanizeddisciplinestodescribeminuteenvironmentalchangesthatmoregeneralmodelsofearth-systemssciencecouldnotdetect.Buteventhoughhumanbeingswerethecauseofthesechanges,earth-systemssciencehaduntilrecentlyfocusedonthenaturalworldtotheexclusionofthesocial.
WithLatour’sappearanceonthescene,labslikeGaillardet’shavestartedtostudyenvironmentalchangeswithathoroughrecognitionthathumansandnonhumans,societyandnature,areinseparable,boundtogetherinawebofreciprocalinfluence.Thisisnotsimplyphilosophicalconjecture.AsLatourhaslongmaintained,critical-zonescientiststhemselves—likemanyenvironmentalresearchers—playapartinthecyclicalprocessestheystudy:Othersusetheirresearchtomakechangestotheveryenvironmenttheyaremeasuring,inturnchallengingthetraditionalimageofscientistsasdisinterestedobserversofapassivenaturalworld.“Ithinkwhatwe’vedonewithBrunogoesfurtherthansimplecombination,”Gaillardettoldme.“Itchangesthewaythatsocialscienceandearthsciencethink.”
Aswecontinuedtoclimb,aviewbegantoemergeofthecopseofGermany’sBlackForestdottingtheedgesoftheRhinePlain.Recentstormshadblownseverallargetreesoverourpath,andatonepoint,wetookaprecariousshortcut,clamberingoverfallenbrancheswhiletrekkingdownhillthroughthicksnow.
Shortlyafternoon,wereachedthesummitofthemountain,wherewediscoveredalowconcretebunker.Insidewastheobservatory’sgravimeter.Abluecylindricalmachine,itmeasuresdifferencesinthemassofthewatercollectedinacatchmentfartherdownthemountainbytrackinginfinitesimalchangesingravitationalforce.TheoldDellcomputertowhichitwasattachedwastakingawhiletoturnon.Aswewaited,JacquesHinderer,anamiablegeophysicist,explainedsomeofthedifficultiesinobtainingprecisedata.GaillardetkepthiseyeonLatour,whoworeanexpressionofbeatificdelight,tomakesurehewasunderstandingthetechnicaldetails.
Whenthecomputerfinallycametolife,itsscreendisplayedasimpleanimation—greenwavesofvaryingthicknessundulatingagainstabluebackground.Strictlyspeaking,theyrepresentedthegravitationaleffectsoftheoceanwavesandthetide.ButthesetremorsalsoremindedmeofLatour’sdescriptionoftheearthintheAnthropoceneas“anactive,local,limited,sensitive,fragile,tremblingandeasilyirritatedenvelope.”Hestoodbeforethesmallmonitor,rapt.“It’sbeautifulthatoceanwavescanactuallybeheardinthemiddle
�12
oftheVosges,”hesaid.“Thewholeearthismadesensitivehere.It’sverymoving.”
Hadtheybeenamongourcircusthatday,Latour’scriticsmighthavefeltthattherewassomethingoddaboutthescene—theoldadversaryofscienceworshiperskneelingbeforethealtarofscience.Butwhattheywouldhavemissed—whattheyhavealwaysmissed—wasthatLatourneversoughttodenytheexistenceofgravity.Hehasbeendoingsomethingmuchmoreunusual:tryingtoredescribetheconditionsbywhichthisknowledgecomestobeknown.
Crowdedintothelittleconcreteroom,wewereseeinggravityasLatourhadalwaysseenit—notasthethinginitself,norasamentalrepresentation,butasscientifictechnologyallowedustoseeit.This,inLatour’sview,wastheonlywayitcouldbeseen.Gravity,hehasarguedtimeandagain,wascreatedandmadevisiblebythelaborandexpertiseofscientists,thegovernmentfundingthatpaidfortheireducation,theelectricitythatpoweredupthesluggishcomputer,thetruckthattransportedthegravimetertothemountaintop,thegeophysicistswhotranslateditsreadingsintocalculationsandlegiblediagrams,andsoon.Withoutthisnetwork,theinvisiblewaveswouldremainlosttooursenses.Forafewmoments,Latourstoodreverentlybeforetherollingwavesonthescreen.Thenhesaidtotheassembledscientists,asthoughhewereadmiringanewbornchild,“Beautiful—youmustbereallyproud.”
AvaKofmanisacontributingwriterforTheIntercept.Thisisherfirstarticleforthemagazine.
�13
