Latour On Critique.

Latour On Critique.

Bruno Latour’s article is lamenting the current state of critique and critical discussion. He argues that critique, in particular, his critical theory, should be used to “emancipate the public from prematurely naturalised facts.” [1]Latour believes, however, that critique is now being used to create a climate of “instant revisionism.”[2] It seemed to me that Latour is arguing although critique should be used as a way of discussing and challenging pre conceived notions; it should not be used to tear down new concepts before they have a chance to be established. As a contemporary example he points to climate change sceptics, who criticize the scientific validity of climate science, arguing that any uncertainty in the science is proof that climate change is not occurring or is not the result of human actions. Inaction is the result. Similarly with critical discussion, Latour argues that the current approach of “instant revisionism means it cannot move forward unless a new approach is adopted.

Latour argues that the key to moving critique forward it to adopt a realist attitude. He makes it clear that he is not calling for the adoption of an attitude, which assumes, even for the purpose of discussion, that the topic or theory at hand is a matter of fact. Rather he suggests that, for the purpose of productive critical discussion, the realist presumes that the topic at hand is a matter of concern. The realist allows the subject to become an object that is to be considered. It is a more concrete approach to critical thought. This is, I believe what Latour means when he writes about things becoming things again[3]. Upon adopting Latour’s realist attitude, critique can be used, not to deconstruct the matter at hand, but as a tool to construct a new way of engaging with the matter of concern.

---

[1] Pg. 227.

[2] Pg. 228.

[3] Pg. 236.