Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 14:51:18 -0400
From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." <bradmcc-AT-cloud9.net>
Subject: Bruno Latour's _Pandora's Hope_ -- Some thoughts.... (long)


I have recently read Bruno Latour's book,
_Pandora's Hope_.  Following are some thoughts
I have chosen to share with you....

Actually, I did not read the whole book, but rather
tried to read the first few chapters several
months ago, and then in the past few weeks more
or less read most of the last 2/3 of the book, more or
less "backwards".  I found that, almost everywhere,
Latour's sentences seemed to not quite "hit the mark".
Or, perhaps more accurately: I could not find in his
sentences the resources to enable me to hit the mark --
despite very much wanting to accomplish this!

That said, I think _Pandora's Hope_ points
us in the direction of a very important target, and
can be useful in helping us to hit the target.

What is the target?  (1) Correctly understanding our social life, 
without which we would not exist as "humans" nor, a fortiori, 
have any thoughts about anything (e.g., about "science studies"
and "science wars"...).  So that, (2) we can do a better
job of preserving and nurturing that social life (i.e., preserving and
nurturing *ourselves*).

Latour's argument starts with
an appreciation of the remarkable classical Greek
accomplishment of the Polis -- a social organization
in which persons cooperatively manage their life rather
than some governing (giving orders) and other being
governed (obeying orders).  [In _The Human
Condition_, Hannah Arendt celebrated this accomplishment
by calling it true "anarchy", i.e., absence of 
life dominated by hierarchical power relations; and
I think it's what Marx hoped for when he spoke of
"the government of men being replaced by the
administration of things"; etc.]

Then Latour asks why don't *we* *have* this great
achievement as our form of social life?  Obviously
there is no one answer to this question, but Latour
focuses on one item: Starting with Plato, the 
dichotomization of human understanding into
*knowledge* (episteme) and *opinion* (doxa).
To be very brief: Since political activity cannot
be epistemic, and "tertium non datur", then politics
is mere opinion and therefore power must 
reign over social life, either as more or less
brute power, or as brute power in the service of
a few who "know".

Latour's proposed resolution surely is mot original,
but I don't see where that makes it not worth
repeating, since it is heard so seldom: The
form of political deliberation, aiming at consensus
based on necessarily insufficient information
(which is the general predicament of social life)
requires a third kind of activity, which is
neither episteme nor doxa, but rather -- he does not
use this word in the book -- what I believe the
Greeks called: phronesis -- the endeavor to be
reasonable, as opposed to being rational -- which latter
aspiration is ultimately not transparent to itself
unless it attempts to situate itself in a larger,
ultimately all-encompassing (cosmological?) context,
and thus ceases to be strictly *rational* but 
changes itself into the reasonableness and the
quest to become ever more reasonable (i.e.,
to take into account ever more of the world,
including all three: episteme, doxa and
reasonableness itself).

I haven't tried to use Latour's words, but I think
the above (excuse if I have been too longwinded
in trying to be as succinct as possible!) is what
Latour's argument "nets out to": Democracy is
a conversation aimed at reaching consensus,
where proof cannot be had and not everybody
shares the same beliefs.

--- Pandora's <what> ---

Latour seems very hopeful about this ideal of real
democracy.  I am less hopeful.  It's a great ideal,
but how can it be applied in Zimbabwe?

But I have posted this to an academic audience, so
I shall end with an academic fantasy (Latour describes
his own exposition as a kind of "myth" -- I can't find his
exact word at the moment, but he certainly contrasts it
with Plato's myth of the cave!).  I read in the 
newspapers that medical interns work exhausting
hours, often well over 80 hours per week, and that
this regimen is imposed on them by the doctors who
run the medical education system, in the name of
"continuity of patient care", even though the
interns themselves see the issues more as cheap
labor, rites of passage, and risking making
medical mistakes due to fatigue.  The senior doctors,
of course, work somewhat different hours.  How about
experimenting with some democracy among the physicians
(from intern to most "senior" -- oh yes, and the
nurses, et al, too...) organizing the
care of patients?

Or, lets even get closer to home, or, rather, 
the classroom: What about exploration of
democracy in schooling?  Curiously, this happens
to some extent anyway -- when education works well,
and "requirements" somehow get met without 
getting in the way --> and here's my closing
thought on the matter:

I would propose that, even today, phronesis plays a
far greater role in our social life than we *acknowledge*,
and, wherever it fails, neither episteme nor doxa
("reason" or *power*) generally are able to 
produce relatively felicitous (<-- Latour does use
that word!) conditions of social life.  Why
don't we do more to emphasize what is most 
important?

"Yours in discourse...."            

+\brad mccormick

-- 
   Let your light so shine before men, 
               that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)

   Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)

Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / bradmcc-AT-cloud9.net
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua NY 10514-3403 USA
-------------------------------------------------------
<![%THINK;[XML]]> Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/


     --- from list technology-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---