Georgina Kilborn- Entry no. 3

Entitled “War and Peace of Microbes”, Bruno Latour’s first section of The Pasteurization of France offers a historical philosophy of science and an incisive exploration of power relations in the laboratory. He analyses Pasteur’s scientific revolution and it’s engineering as a key social transformation in France. Latour conceptualises force and reason, society and science, and human and natural science and argues against the mere reduction of these elements. In this section, Latour draws on Tolstoy’s writing as the foundation for an extended analogy between war and science. Nevertheless, this predominantly insightful account on the social nature of scientific innovation can itself be criticised for being reductive.

Whole movements cannot be reduced to individuals. Latour concurs with Tolstoy to the extent that, in the context of the Pasteurian revolution, ‘great men’ were not the sole actors in history. Where Tolstoy merits the aspirations and actions of many individuals in the development of the 1812 campaign, Latour furthers this idea, asserting Pasteur conquered France as a result of innumerable actors and their interactions. So, as Napolean is not the central figure in Tolstoy’s work on Russian society, nor is Pasteur the central character in his masterpiece. As pronounced by Latour, in Pasteur's science, the relation between science and society is found by following the man and his networks. So, he claims, there exists no boundary between science and society. Nonetheless, critique can be found in the addition of little new material and a direct development from the writings of Tolstoy. The obscure and dense style of his account is also reminiscent of Tolstoy’s, rendering it difficult to follow in parts.

Nevertheless, there do exist novel aspects in his account, one being the concept of “actants”. Actants, according to Latour are those who play a role in history, but they are not merely humans. It is an all-encompassing term, attributing even microbes to the progression of history. Actants associate with other actants to increase their power and in doing so, define their own interests as well as establish relationships and associations with others. Latour contends that as a result of not recognising the microbe as an actor, the sociology of science has failed to satisfactorily explain Pasteurism from a social or political perspective.

Moreover, Latour reasons that the hygiene movement was a necessary precondition for Pasteur’s success. And as such, the microbiological revolution of the nineteenth century was not the creation of Pasteur, instead; Pasteur was a product of it. Latour is particularly interested in understanding the associations between these agents or forces. He refutes the notion that Pasteur conquered France as a result of sheer brilliance of his scientific ideas, instead proclaiming Pasteur’s genius to be the result of a military or political quality due to his skill in making alliances with people who could advance his interests while furthering their own. So, science and history must be taken together.

While Latour offers an insightful analysis of how Pasteur transformed social relations in France through his introduction of a new actor, the microbe, critique can also be found in his abstract perspective of society and science.  According to him, self-interest is the force behind actions, power relations are the only form of relations and, war is intrinsically linked to science. All of which are reductive ideas. What’s more, in negating reductionism as a means to understanding science, he paradoxically reduces both society and science to the establishment of networks and trials of power. Moreover, he refers to a mere three journals in his writing, all of which are from the nineteenth century.

So, rather than the genius or virtue of a single man, a whole network of forces and the operation of these forces produced, according to Latour, the Pasteurian revolution. Yet, his account can be criticised for being inconsistent, in initially eschewing reductionism, Latour subsequently reduces society and science to ‘trials of strength’ and the creation of associations.