Sara Gormley - Entry No.3 (Latour)

Latour opens Pasteurization of France by introducing the notion of “great men” remembered in history for their efforts, citing Tolstoy’s recollection of Napoleon’s conquests in War and Peace. Latour quickly makes the argument of instead a shared effort to create a great impact, making the point of Pasteur’s victory over microbes as not destiny but science. It is here that we find the essence of anti-anthropocentrism in that all forces have contributed to advancement, and not just a few men endowed with greatly abilities than any other species or force. This is then where Latour states “we would like sciences to be free of war and politics.” He hopes to find stability amidst chaos and rationality amidst uncertainty in the form of science. Despite the existence of power relations, Latour believe science to provide rational relations. The Enlightenment saw wars of science and religion, resulting in loss of faith. As a result, epistemologies have a history of defending sciences against religion, restrictions on free science, and abuse of sciences by politicians or corporations. 

Greatness has been attributed to a few men in history, but this should not be applied to scientists according to Latour. It is not individual men who create greatness, but rather “forces” that make scientists great. It is true that scientists face great moments in history alone in a laboratory, but it is simply untrue to deny the impact of other forces surrounding this moment. Thought Pasteur’s idea was no less genius, it needed collaboration to move, or diffuse, this idea throughout the world. Latour utilizes Tolstoy’s theory in attributing greatness to contributing factors in society and not just a few great men.  

Latour continues on to discuss the division between science and war, or lack thereof, as he describes the two as “intermingled.” As Tolstoy said, we do not know how to explain war and politics any more than we know how to explain science. Sciences can also be used to explain war by using sciences such as strategy, history, sociology, theology, or economics. This shows that “society” and “science” are better explained when they’re together. 

Pasteur faced two main opponents in the form of two physicians, Peter and Koch. While they had differing practices, they both opposed Pasteur for his generalizations and lack of extensive explanations. Where it could be called a “general method,” Peter called it “hasty generalization.” Peter did not want a singular miracle in history like the ones we read about in history books, but rather something that could be analyzed and proven. Here we see Pasteur is now an immoveable force, the “spokesman” an a vast social movement that simply wanted Pasteur to be correct. Pasteur’s success was founded in trust, that his foundings were correct without ever having been analyzed.  Even when something is attempted with the aim to only provide a positive impact, it can go awry as Latour states “This corruption of the best intentions, a corruption that was all the more disturbing in that it did not always occur, had one serious inconvenience. It encouraged skepticism. Steps could be taken, of course, but against what? Against everything at once, but with no certainty of success.

Finally, Latour notes the uncertainty of these agents in our society. It was during this time that many new agents were being uncovered, and how many more are still left to be found. Latour states that “There are not only ‘social’ relations, relations between man and man. Society is not made up just of men, for everywhere microbes intervene and act.” It would be anthropocentric to think otherwise. A laboratory and a world full of agents are not separate entities, they both impact and are impacted by the other.