After the Postmodern? | Bruno Latour and NonModern Anthropology
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.ค. 2024
- Based on Bruno Latour's We Have Never Been Modern: After the Postmodern? What is postmodernism?
Explaining "Non Modern Anthropology" using Bruno Latour's 1993 book: We Have Never Been Modern (monoskop.org/images/e/e4/Lato...)
Have you recently heard an uptick in the use of "modern" and criticisms of "post modern"? We have! These arguments come from a somewhat long tradition (since at least the 1970s) within science and science studies of battles between scientific realists and post moderns.
These conversations have bled into the public sphere with scholars now putting out videos on these really dense concepts. But that doesn't mean that they have been explained accurately or faithfully enough.
In this video, we explain the origins of Modernism, what it entails, and why modernism logically led to post-modernism. Post modernism isn't inherently bad-like any conceptual framework, it's all about how it's utilized.
We also explain terms like pre-modernism and anti-modernism, explaining how they all relate back to modernism.
1. Modernism
2. Pre-Modernism
3. Anti-modernism
4. Post-modernism
Understanding these four can help understand the scholarly conversations now being conducted over the web.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This video uses Philosopher Bruno Latour's book: We Have Never Been Modern (1993), to explain these concepts. Find the book for FREE here:
monoskop.org/images/e/e4/Lato...
Latour, Bruno. 1993. We Have Never Been Modern, translated by Catherine Porter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Tags: bruno latour, bruno latour we have never been modern, modernism vs postmodernism, anthropology, what is modernism and postmodernism, what is the difference between modernism and postmodernism, modernism vs postmodernism crash course, postmodernism crash course, introduction to modernism, anthropology of science, nonmodern anthropology, what is the difference between modernism and postmodernism art, postmodern social theory, postmodern social theory definition, bruno latour we have never been modern summary - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[페이스캠4K] 베이비몬스터 치키타 'FOREVER' (BABYMONSTER CHIQUITA FaceCam) @SBS Inkigayo 240707](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/x9VRNTV4VDI/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for this great introduction on Latour. I really appreciate this!
You’re very welcome. Thank you for watching!
“the problem is not the categories, the problem is when we believe in them too much” nice message
So well done, helps me understand this book so much more for my class, thanks!
Great video, thanks for this! Nice to ease myself back into the new year at university.
Really good introduction to the topic! Please keep it up :)
This is life-savingly helpful, thanks
Epic introduction, thank you brother.
Very clear explanation, thank you!
Thank you, your explanation is tottaly excellent. Greetings from Colombia.
By the way, I also think that the idea of modernity is a European concept, since in the rest of the world unique problems exist and have existed in its sociocultural context, outside the Eurocentric sphere.
I am French and I had a hard time finding videos about this book. Interesting that the only one is made by an American dude. Good job though. You nailed it
Thank you very much. You have superb skills in clarifying complex ideas.
I’m happy you enjoyed the video! :) thanks for watching. 🙏
wow! this was so good! thank you.
Thank you for this! Love all your videos
Thank you for the kind words. :) And I’m happy to hear that you like the videos we put out!
Nice voice, great editing, entertaining examples and interesting content... Thank you
And thank you for watching. It’s our honor. 🙏
This is brilliant! Thanks a lot!
Great video! Thanks for such a good content. Greetings from Mexico.
Very good man!
This was very useful! Thank you for your efforts.
I’m happy you found it useful!
Great video. Thank you!
Thank you. It’s our pleasure. Glad it brought some value to you.
Excellent job!
Thanks for watching! 🙏
It makes one look very clever to conclude we have never been modern after all, except that history (two world wars; innovation of modern science with the greatest example chemistry being born out of alchemy, the copernican revolution; our metropolitan environments; domestic equipment; artistic objects; and so on and so on) carry a heavy load of evidence that humans have most certainly gone through an entire cycle of modernization on a global scale.
I haven't read the book upon which this video is based yet, so I will get into it when the time's appropriate (still diving deep into modernism and poststructuralism atm because they are very important to me) but I find this position highly debatable, if not *just* a position to "question" modernity and its role in contemporary society. Might as well just stick with postmodernism, which doesn't claim the same thing but many people certainly seem to believe it does.
I'm also gonna take a critical note for myself that this is posed by a French philosopher who is influenced by Peter Sloterdijk and they both seem to take interest in pop philosophy like Zizek, with the exception that they want to be hyperbolic in their statement.
It's not so much about looking clever so much as it is about dealing with some of the contradictions that modernism inevitably creates. Many scholars have addressed this fundamental phenomenon involved with social science research and empirical data. Eric Wolf referred to it as "turning names into things." Latour defines modernism as a perspective more than any given action (since you brought it up, his "modern constitution" and what he attempts to do with it is conceptually borrowed from Sloterdijk).
Latour does distinguish modernism from postmodernism and the kind of modern project he engages with in the book. His "actor-network theory" jumps off of these ideas, and mainly tries to get at how, the way we view networks encompasses much more than we realize. Regarding modernism, no, "we have never been modern," but modernism is useful and necessary. Science is the project of separating and testing: fully compatible with modernism (btw, he also illustrates his disgust of postmodernism, which is interesting to engage with). But in the end, he argues for getting away from some of the assumptions that modernism implies (like linear time; linear progress; human : nature separations; etc.) and he argues more for "reassembling" these bits that looks a lot more like reality. So, he doesn't question modernism, like you suggest, but he actually describes the issues with it and how modernism itself created a postmodernism, anti-modernism, and those things I discuss in the video. Overall, the issue is more conceptual. By separating things, we risk leaving them that way, but these separations have to be reconstituted into the coherent wholes that they are.
Latour isn't everyone's tea. But if you take what he discusses to its end point, I think there's a lot to be gained from it.
I’m happy that you got something out of it!
Postmodernism is a post, not an ism. Once one has been made aware of limitations of thinking in a modernist way, it's difficult, no, impossible, to think in those ways again: one has become postmodern.
Isms that have grown up post modernism can be loosely grouped together and labelled postmodern, or part of postmodernism, but they're defined by something they're not, not something they (all) are.
Non modernism sounds really similar as a concept to Metamodernism? Have you looked into it?
Thanks for the comment! I hadn’t looked into metamodernism at all, but it’s definitely a “post-postmodernist” position that Latour takes, which is precisely what metamodernism is (according to my minute-long google query). I have some more reading to do. :)
I've heard that corn was closer in height to wheat when Europeans arrived, but the corn plant was able to be domesticated to be taller by Europeans, who helped on that aspect.
I cannot confirm. I found too many contradictory claims on that.
For the most part, corn was in its current form. Some archaeological evidence and semi-preserved corn husks have been able to give us a rough timeline of corn and its current form. That said, I wouldn’t doubt that when Europeans came, corn could have taken on a slightly different form from before. I think I’ll explore this a bit. :)
@@apartialperspective Regardless, the contribution of the Native Americans to the world's diet is vast: Tomatoes, Potatoes, Corn... as Asian and Europeans domesticated animals, Native Americans domesticated many sources of food.
I believe this is what Latour is trying to say: It is logically flawed to project present-day information to the past. That is why ex post facto laws are unethical.
Excellent thinking, I would suggest looking past the label post-modern or meta whatever and speaking of their actual, post/critique which started in 1789, or meta/integral which started in 1948. Modern should be expanded to mean the three phases of power within a global world: continental/isolationist east 1520-1789, British(Industrial Rev.)/western hegemony over east 1789-1948, USA vs USSR Hyper Modernity, 1992 New World Order and the return of China, India, and Islam - and the digital revolution of the WWW. So are we Post modern? NO we are very Modern but things always change. In 1500 China was THE most Modern and Civilized of worlds while Europe was modernizing and experiencing renaissance, so things change - isn't that so very a modern notion?
Isn't Latour the guy who claimed there's no way Ramses II could possibly have died of tuberculosis, because humanity hadn't conceived of the germ theory underpinning tuberculosis until the 1800's?
Not quite. He states that it is possible of course that TB could be found to have caused Ramses II’s death, but that the new fact that “Ramses II died of TB” is built within a network of the presence and not one of the past. The idea is that we usually conceptualize the present in light of the past-historicizing it. But what we unthinkingly do is contextualize the past in light of the present, which brings along with it a lot of anachronistic baggage so that when we say something like, “Ramses II died of TB,” it’s not only a diagnosis, but also a transportation of our own conception of what that means onto the past.
As an example, we know how TB spreads, we also live in a time where there have been ravages of TB in prison populations both in Russia and in New York. More than anything, I’ve interpreted that piece as calling for us to appreciate that a load of baggage is carried along with such a diagnosis, and we need to pay attention to that.
Latour definitely sounds more provocative than he really is. Haha.
@@apartialperspective that sounds like a gigantic waste of time (no pun intended), TB is TB regardless of what baggage our brains carry on the subject, and will kill people just the same; anachronism isn't even a factor when describing what a disease does on a human body. You can say "this population was more at risk of disease because they didn't have germ theory yet" and make a lot more sense while seeming less controversial. I honestly don't see what Latour is trying to accomplish by saying it the way he did, it seems wordy and poorly thought out. Thanks for replying though.
It’s an epistemological issue. But maybe one with specious applications to the real world. I think that’s fair enough.
Very well said! 👏👏👏 I also make videos and content on anti-modern and traditional living and it's a fresh breath of air to see another video similar to it. I'm definitely not modern, I'm very much an old soul.👍 Thanks for sharing! ❤
Awesome! We’ll check them out soon. There definitely isn’t much content out on these topics, so it’s important to have other creators speaking out and delivering their own perspectives on it. Thanks for the love. 🙏🙏
@@apartialperspective You're welcome! Keep up the amazing work! 👍 Yes true, not many creators on this topic - I always try to connect with others who share this understanding also 😊
Where are the critical comments?