Latour – Semiotics and Science Studies
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Science Studies 2/2005 Latour – Semiotics and Science Studies Roar Høstaker The aim of this article is to study the relationship between Bruno Latour’s theories and semiotics. In particular the article compares Latour’s concepts to those of the linguist A.J. Greimas. From Latour’s earliest texts in science studies onwards, semiot- ics has been a basic theoretical tool. As the article will show, Latour privileges the autonomy of language in order to avoid the ascription of substance to human and non-human actors. It is within this autonomous field that his general associology based on trials of strength can come into play. Furthermore, the article analyses Latour’s theories concerning the gradual emergence of actors, circulation of refer- ences and technical mediation. Finally, the article tries to show how Latour’s approach reaches a limit when it comes to the study of the settings of social action. A way out of this problem is sketched while at the same time remaining within a semiotic uni- verse. Key words: Bruno Latour, science studies, semiotics It is well known that Bruno Latour’s an- Latour’s concepts: A.J. Greimas and his thropology of science is to some extent Paris school of semiotics. From his ear- influenced by semiotic theory. The use liest texts on science studies (Latour and of concepts like actant, inscription, Fabbri, 1977) to his most recent ethno- translation, modalities, shifting in, shift- graphic study of a court of law (Latour, ing out and regime of enunciation attest 2002a), Latour always maintains semiot- to this fact. The aim of this article is to ics as a basic theoretical tool. Greimas’s show how most of Latour’s theoretical works usually constitute a majority of his views can be connected to semiotics, al- semiotic references, hence my interest though this should not exclude other in this article to study this connection. readings of his work. As I will show be- In a way, we might say that I am trying low, many of his analyses give actor-ori- to read Latour’s texts in the light of ented or political explanations, as well Greimasian theory in order to analyse as semiotic ones. On the other hand, some of the presuppositions of Latour’s agency has a central place in the semi- theories and to assess their strength and otic theory with which I will compare weaknesses. Science Studies, Vol. 18(2005) No.2, 5–25 Science Studies 2/2005 The place of Latour’s anthropology of limitations of his approach when it science within the general framework of comes to discussions concerning the science studies is, to a considerable de- convergence and divergence of action. gree, taken for granted in this article. I Latour’s anthropology of science tends will, however, refer to some of his disa- to encapsulate itself around case stud- greements with his colleagues. The sym- ies in order to avoid the ascription of metrical principle of explanation of sci- substance or competencies to human or entific facts introduced by Bloor (1976) non-human actors. Finally, I try to and Barnes (1977) gave impetus to much sketch some ways out of these problems, of the work in this field during the 1980s but without leaving the world of semi- (cf. Cussins, 2000 for a general survey), otics. but Latour has expressed much unhap- piness about this principle. He main- Latour and Semiotic Theory tains that it introduces a new asymme- try by giving priority to social explana- In a few texts Latour has himself com- tions and hence underrates the agency mented upon the relationship to semi- of non-humans. Latour’s solution is to otics and its importance for his theories. introduce a principle of a general sym- Structural semiotics established lan- metry by which both objects/nature and guage as a middle-field between nature society are explained simultaneously. and society, and Latour is critical of the When a new scientific fact enters the tendency in much (French) theory to world, not only has nature changed, but isolate this area completely from the also society and the social actors (Latour world. Discourses do not speak them- 1987; 1993a). Over the years this view has selves or texts do not write themselves. led to much controversy (Schaffer, 1991; Nonetheless, he maintains that the au- Collins and Yearley, 1992; Callon and tonomy of language must be respected Latour, 1992; Bloor, 1999a; 1999b; Latour since this area is the only place where we 1999a). can avoid the twin perils of naturalism This is not the occasion to follow up and social context (Latour, 1993a: 62-65; this polemic, but one of the subjects of 1993b: 130-131; Crawford, 1993: 264). this article is to show how Latour him- Actors, both non-human and human, self privileges the autonomy of language can more freely be constructed on a joint in order to be able to conceptualise a plane of immanence. Within this au- general symmetry. This opens the way tonomous conception of language natu- for a fusion of actor-theory and semiot- ral and social entities can never be given ics in a general ‘associology’. This situa- a specific substance. To do so would be tion of semiotics in his theoretical to interfere in the realm of the actors project is then followed by a close read- themselves. A general symmetry is thus ing of his texts and especially the version possible, and it is on this plane that of his ‘translation model’ from the 1990s. Latour’s general ‘associology’ can come The notion of a ‘translation model’, how- into play (cf. Crawford, 1993: 264). The ever, is used only as a form of shortcut latter is described in some detail in the to summarise some of his anthropology philosophical précis Irreductions, of science. I will then try to show the printed as the second part of The Pas- 6 Roar Høstaker teurization of France (Latour, 1988a: 153- oriented explanations in his texts, while 236). At the outset, Irreductions presents at other times his explanations are semi- a principle of irreducibility: “nothing is, otics-oriented. Many of Latour’s most by itself, either reducible or irreducible read texts from the 1980s emphasised to anything else” which is meant as a actor-oriented explanations (cf. Latour, forewarning that there are no inherent 1983; 1987) and his associology based on truths. The second major principle is trials of strength has been much criticised. “whatever resists trials is real” (Latour, It was claimed that Latour portrayed sci- 1988a: 158). Everything can increase or ence as though it were composed of ex- decrease in reality through the force pressions of political processes: a sort of gained or lost by trials of strength. generalised Machiavellianism or even ‘Trials of strength’ was a central theme worse – for Latour everything is war! of the laboratory studies within the field (Haraway, 1997: 33-34). In the 1990s of science studies in the 1970s and 1980s, Latour tried to accommodate his views and the ambition of Irreductions was to to some of this critique by introducing generalise this principle to an ontologi- concepts inspired by Whitehead (Latour, cal level. Basic entities (often called 1996a; 1999b), and some of his dissatis- actants) gain strength by associating faction with Irreductions in the early with other entities. In this way they 1990s came from the dangers of estab- might resist some entities and form joint lishing a new meta-language (Crawford, vectors of force with others (Latour, 1993: 265). Scientific concepts, either 1988a: 160). This is the basis of Latour’s from the social or the natural sciences, constructivism. But this ‘associology’ usually form an observation language comes from a ‘crossing’ not only with that in many ways ‘replaces’ the entities semiotics but also with actor theory; it studies. Latour wanted to form an in- the actor-based social theory Latour fra-language, whose role is to indicate most frequently refers to is ethno- only the relationship between entities, methodology. Although it may sound without ‘touching’ the objects them- otherwise, it is not far from Greimasian selves. Nonetheless, he seems to proceed semiotics because Greimas’ theory of in a way that is faithful to the essence of narratives contains its own theory of the principles of Irreductions (Crawford, agency (cf. below). Furthermore, Latour 1993:266). During the 1990s and on- points to a common research stance be- wards, semiotics has continued to hold tween semiotics and ethnomethodol- a central place in his theoretical formu- ogy: “Semiotics is the ethnomethodol- lations. ogy of texts. Like ethnomethodology, it What form of semiotics does Greimas helps replace the analysts prejudiced represent? Greimas’s school was one of and limited vocabulary by the actor’s several different attempts in the 1950s activity at world making” (Latour, 1993a: and 1960s to develop a scientific ap- 131). proach to the analysis of language and Both semiotics and actor theory seem texts. This usually included a rigorous to fuse into Latour’s associology, and theoretical apparatus in order to unveil something that may be bewildering is the underlying structure of texts, or even the fact that he sometimes gives actor- of the wider discourse. This could be 7 Science Studies 2/2005 done through a systematic reduction of themselves and the social collective the diversity of texts into a small number (Latour, 1987; 1988a; 1996b; 1999b; of functions or elements. A major aim Latour and Woolgar, 1986). Many of the was to make the structure of the texts studies from the 1980s described these plain without any recourse to the intui- processes in the idiom of agency or tion of the reader or the intentions of the rather in terms of political or military author.