Clio Frigoli - Entry 3 - (Latour)

In The Pasteurization of France, Bruno Latour analyses the paradigm shift in the 19th century attributed to Louis Pasteur. Latour rejects this “great man” theory, in which an entire scientific revolution is attributed to Pasteur. Pasteur is recognized for his contribution in the science of microbes that have affected the causes and preventions of diseases. At the time of this shift, there was a great deal of confidence in Pasteur, and Latour is questioning the source of this confidence, and how an entire movement was credited to solely one person. In reference to Tolstoy’s War and Peace, Latour agrees that “a crowd may move a mountain. A single man does not” (Latour, 22). He is thus arguing that for an idea to take force, it requires a society to seize it and move it. Pasteur inserted himself into a social movement that was put into action by hygienists, and was able to take credit for what became this scientific revolution.

Through the example of this scientific revolution, Latour is examining how politics and science cannot be separated. He argues that they are inevitably linked to one another, and further, that science can revolutionize the concept of society. For example with Pasteurians, microbes redefined society as it made individuals interdependent on one another, given that individual hygiene is dependent on public hygiene. These agents, the microbes, created new sources of power and of legitimacy. I would argue that this concept complements Foucault’s analysis of the micromechanics of power. Latour’s examination of the different sources of power within society can be considered a decentralized understanding of power relations. It therefore adheres to Foucault’s bottom up approach to power. Power is therefore an example of one way in which politics and science are intertwined.

In War and Peace in an Age of Ecological Conflict, Latour continues this examination of the extension of politics into science. Latour examines different climate controversies, one in which being: “are we at war with one another, or just in the usual normal disagreement that can be settled by appealing to some Universal State?” (Latour, 12) This is one of the most important divisions, as it asks us to question whether or not we believe in Science, or in scientific institutions that we must choose to align behind. He argues that Science can now be understood as multiple sciences that are indefinitely divisible. His conclusion was therefore arguing for the inevitability of this division. Science has evolved into a field in which there are no longer natural laws to fall back on; but is it possible that agreements within Science can exist, regardless of this void? Can compromise exist within Science or are we necessarily at war with one another if we align behind different scientific institutions? Latour is suggesting that an agreement cannot be found by appealing to a “universal human interest” (Latour, 12); I am internally conflicted at this point, because although I see the rationale behind Latour’s argument, I do not want to accept the cynicism of his conclusion.