Precis: A Plea for Earthly Sciences

This public oration was and still is addressing the current mode of our scientific/technological stage of modernism. More specifically, Latour speaks to a general audience (scientists, engineers, lawyers, professors, philosophists, laymens, or any citizen) and the modern sociologists. I separate out sociologists because Latour entreats the current sociologists to gain a new perspective to what sociology should be addressing in the new era of technological progressivism.
The introduction of his speech is carried by a reference to the book The Revenge of Gaia and the Retreat of Dunkirk. This science fiction narrative enlightens and alerts Latour of “another war, the one that humans, as a whole, wage, without any explicit declaration, against Gaia” (Gaia being Earth). And through this novel Latour speaks of his greater concern that humans currently living in this urgent predicament, or rather Earthlings, need to reevaluate the definition of “social connections.”

Latour argues that today’s idea of the social science is linked to the moment in history of “modernization and emancipation.” He takes the polemical stance that as much as humans have been concerned about progression (modernizing or emancipating), we have become blinded to our distancing from the very source that lets us live—Earth. And through our hastiness, we have unveiled, rather made “explicit,” the contingent and cumbersome ties we blindly ignored. Eventually he begins to define what social science is and has been, then argues for what social scientists should focus on in the rapidly changing era.

He defines the current “social” as, “a domain among others non-social ones,” and poses the social in which, “establishes connections, associations, collections, whatever the name, between all sort of heterogeneous domains, none of them being “social” in the first meaning of the word.” Then he bluntly states that duty as a sociologist is not only to limit themselves to the first definition (which he derides), but also include the associations that bind all non-social ties together. He argues that sociologists have become content with the first definition because they have shirked off responsibilities to understand and bring forth the causal connections from one scientific discovery to “non-social” ties. In effect, “by failing to give a social explanation of science and technology, we got rid of social connections altogether.”

After laboriously elaborating his definition of “durable associations,” Latour suggests that the new objective for the modern-day sociologist is to pay attention to the, “shifting attachments offered by various non-social modes of connections.” Essentially his argument for the redefining of sociology lies in the adverb. He stresses that, “that there are no independent domains,” rather everything is relational and should be carried out in a relational manner; legally, scientifically, religiously, technically, etc. Basically, any field should not only stress itself without relating to another.

Latour further exhorts the social sciences to free themselves from the jaded idea of empiricism and adopt the empiricism that also includes the undeniable part of pure experience—sensory inputs that creates relations in the human mind. Latour denotes that, “For reasons that are due to the Modernist settlement, the social sciences, as a rule, accepted to limit experience to the incredibly narrow confines of objects without relations.”

Latour finishes his piece by connecting the desperate and urgent need for sociologist to encumber themselves with a new task. Sociologists must become critics of this age and notify other Earthlings of the, “strange modernist utterly archaic globe.”
While this oration is specifically catered to the community of sociologists, this speech is oriented to all individuals who live in this technologically advancing world. It’s true that Latour realizes the sociologist’s dichotomy: to have a field of its own and transfer the burden of giving the social explanation of science and technology to scientists. Hence, the speech in which he has clear exhortations for sociologists to have a more critical, intensive, and new perspective of the importance of sociology. However, when Latour solicits his audience for the 2nd definition of social, “connections, associations, collections, whatever the name, between all sort of heterogeneous domains, none of them being “social” in the first meaning of the word,” he is ultimately soliciting every individual to have a more wholistic and relational approach to whatever they are studying; hence the “associativeness” he endlessly argues for in any domain of study.

In conclusion, Latour has highlighted that while science and its hope in empiricism has shed considerable light onto human lives, it has put into shadows and obscurity relations that every advancement has on every non-human object. Although science has had a grip on society as the “truth-teller,” it has also nurtured many individuals who solely believe in narrow empiricism as the guide for social explanations. However, through my own experience, I have reconciled the necessity for the individual to evaluate technological advancements in relation to any other field or domain. Because without this type of critical individual, the narrative of Gaia’s wrath is bound to happen sooner than we can say, “it was just a metaphor.”


Samuel Oh