What Does it Mean to Be a Latour? ‘Work of Translation’ and Modernity

I decided to take a more comprehensive approach to the Blog this week, as I struggle with Latour’s concept of what it means to be modern. I will compare Latour’s point on Actor Network Theory to his critique of modernity.

Latour introduces the article by listing off apparent modern difficulties, discoveries in sciences and decisions of what to make public. These instances lend themselves to setting the scene for Latour’s definition of modern life-or modernity. Latour is listing off daily occurances that are published in newspapers and on the News, this serves as a segue into modern living: “ if reading the daily paper is modern man’s form of prayer, then it is a very strange man indeed who is doing the praying today while reading about these mixed-up affairs” 2.

Latour suggests that analysts, journalists and thinkers compartmentalize or mix up these affairs that are meant to ‘weave our world together’ as a sort of Actor Network Theory. Latour attempts to ‘retie the Gordian Knot’ by reconnecting or recreating a network that reconnects culture and nature. Latour’s example of mixed up affairs in the news or journalist’s compartmentalization of nature and culture all help display the problematic nature of the word ‘modern’. The adjective of modern suggests that there is a ‘revolution in time’ and the word modern designates a break in the regular passage of time or a conflict between Ancient and Modern.

The confusion of the word modern is based in the idea that modern “designates two sets of entirely different practices which must remain distinct if they are to remain effective” pg. 10. ‘Work of Translation’ is a set of practices that mixes hybrids of nature and culture into new ‘beings’. This practice lends itself most to Actor Network Theory as it defines the interrelationship between nature and culture.

However, contradictorily the second practice is purification, which creates distinct zones of information like human and nonhuman. Latour suggests that the ‘Work of Purification’ best lends itself to the ‘modern man’s daily paper’ as it creates a separation between the natural world and a current society. These practices are interrelated because without both a person could not be modern. They must consider that the present world is separate from, but informed by the natural world in a network.

Who defines “better”? Modernity as a constructed progress

Truth is always constructed; freedom only belongs to those who produce truths. (Hardt & Negri, 2000)

It is not uncommon that people firmly believe that modernity is the right and only passage to the better life of human beings. However, every progress pays price; modernity is not an exception.

After reading the chapter two "Pasages of Sovereignty" of the book "Empire", I began to understand the tactics used in the expansion of imperial powers. In the name of “civilization” (or "modernization"), colonization is always “an adequate justification for imperialist conquest and domination” (Hardt & Negri, 2000, p. 175). As such, there is no difference between the past Europe imperialists and the new Empire, the United States, both with selfish agenda. Sadly enough, the colonized people were convinced by a network of power that the cultural, economic and technological modernization and the possibility of democracy were good for them. Some even extol the developments truthfully. What's worse, colonization often creates discrepancies between the past and the present; going back is impossible.

Yes, with the expansion of capitalism into every corner of the world, modernity brought about tremendous economic developments. However, “capitalism is based ideologically and materially on free labor”, which resulted in “new systems of slavery on an unprecedented scale” (Hardt & Negri, 2000). This is the real agenda behind imperialists' actions. As is stated in both "Empire" (Hardt & Negri, 2000) and “Black Atlantic” (Paul Gilroy, 1993), black people were incessantly exacted to the most extent as modernization process unfolded. Even when post-modernists are singing the “politics of difference” and embracing hybridities, black people are still suffering unequal treatments as we can see in modern society. Is this new system of slavery really different from before? Or, should I say, modernization is only a progress for certain amount of people?

However, those people who were luckily free of slavery suffered from other kinds of latent tortures. Nationalism, as the revolt of colonization, was “from the beginning set down on the road to the totalitarian overcoding of social life” (Hardt & Negri, 2000); as it does in countries such as Cuba, where freedom only belongs to the dictator. Actually, everyone is implicated by accepting modernity without question. According to Latour’s book, we have never been modern (1993), modern world is abstractly defined as discrete, fragmented and separatable units whereas it is hybrid in reality; the formation of social groups is based on abstractions rather than supposedly real or biological relationships. For one thing, the first deconstructed and then reconstructed relationships can function more productively than before; for another, people have to choose between socially constructed dichotomies, e.g. religious, race, sexual preferences, which lead to anxiety and identity crisis. (Here, media, with the ability to reorganize time-space relations, fixed the constructed reality and also placated the anxiety to some extent, as what religions did in the past.)

Every change by nature has two sides. Modernity, as the "progressive" passage in human evolution, is shown to the world its desirable side. But questions are: whose desire it is? Is it not merely a constructed truism and seduction?

Past, Present, Future, Modern

Latour sates that we have never been modern, indicating that neither a pre-modern, post-modern or modern exists. This is one of the main points that struck me when reading his chapter about the crisis of modernity. We seem to be stuck somewhere between a fear of reverting to the difficulties presented in the past, and a longing for the future, when things will be better than they are now. Both of these fears seem to include romanticized notions. In the past we see a simpler time, and in the future we see a better world for our children and ourselves (renditions of a post-apocalyptic future not included). This negotiation of the past and the future leaves us somewhere in the middle, but in each case, not a “modern” era. While I generally agree with Latour’s argument, in that we fear the past, look to the future but never see the present, I think there are certain aspects of humanity that are overlooked in this broad generalization. Possibly I am missing the point of his explanation, but it seems to me that it has been human nature to always strive for something better. Maybe I am the one romanticizing the ideas of humanity, but this has been a fundamental aspect to moving human civilization forward. While we may never be able to call ourselves modern, or place a label on where we are in the grand scheme of civilization, this might not be that important. What is important is to strive to better ourselves and others. Perhaps the only way to accomplish this is to romanticize both the notions of the past and present. We look at the past and think about how simple it was, but also how hard it was, and for such reasons are glad to have moved beyond such difficulties as disease, physical labour, and the complications of basic engineering. But we always want to move further than we are now, so we romanticize the idea of the future, and how much better it will be than what we have now. In both these senses we are not modern, just moving through the grand scheme of humanity. Maybe the point is not to be modern, but to negotiate the ideas of past and future as best as we can. Perhaps I have looked too narrowly at a single aspect of his argument, but this particular idea of modernity stuck with me. Any thoughts?

Po-Mo and the American Dream

In discussing the difference between modernism and postmodernism I was reminded of a Simpson’s episode wherein Moe describes Postmodernism. Moe’s comment of postmodernism being “weird for the sake of weird” may not be too far off. For many the ideals of postmodernism, the notion that our entire culture is the product of social construction, can be unsettling. If everything is constructed by the culture around us, do we really have the capability to achieve something like the American Dream?

While researching postmodernism, I came across the novel, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1971), by Hunter S. Thompson. The novel’s journalistic and reflexive nature is a great example of a literary commentary on modernist thought. A quote that I find most fitting to our discussion on modernism is spoken by Raoul Duke, the character personifying Hunter S. Thompson which says:

“But our trip was different. It was to be a classic affirmation of everything right and true in the national character. A gross physical salute to the fantastic possibilities of life in this country. But only for those with true grit”.

If you have not had the opportunity to read this novel, I would definitely recommend that you skim through the first few chapters. If anything the film, featuring Johnny Depp, will be well worth your time. The vulgarity and realness of modernism which Thompson describes is without question continuing today. The war may be different and the circumstances more technologically-driven, but behind these actions is the belief that anything is possible. The problem with this belief is recognized by Gilroy in his writing on the Black Atlantic. Oftentimes that which is made possible for some, causes others to be subjected to less. The quest for the American Dream therefore excluded and continues to exclude many of the people living in America, including women and racial minorities.

The ideas presented by Bruno Latour in his book, We Have Never Been Modern (1993), can be used to critique the American Dream. Although first appearing in the 1930’s, the 'dream' that success and wealth can be attained through hard work is something most Western nations have adopted. I would agree with Latour that we have never been modern, just like we have never been post modern or post human for that matter. Whereas modernism can be defined as rational, hierarchical, centered and having a definite belief in progress. postmodernism is defined as irrational, anarchical, and dispersed and holds a belief that no progress is possible.

I believe it is fair to say that both modernism and postmodernism establish criteria that are unattainable to achieve. We may have striven to be modern, just as some of us are currently striving to be postmodern, but to say that we have been one or the other is hard for me to accept. The reality for these two competing camps is best summed up by Latour: while the moderns will remain standing in “a break in the regular passage of time” (10) the postmoderns will continue to “remain suspended in belief and doubt, waiting for the end of the millennium” (9).

Ambiguous Terms & Their Implications

Of the assigned readings this week, Gilroy’s excerpt, “The Black Atlantic as a Counterculture of Modernity” left me asking the most questions. Although there are a variety of concepts I would like to discuss, I will focus my post on the term African-American and its connection to ethnicity, diaspora, and nationalism. Before I begin, I want to list a few definitions from the Merriam-Webster site.

African-American: an American of African and especially of black African descent

Diaspora: the movement, migration, or scattering of a people away from an established or ancestral homeland

Ethnic: of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background

After reading Gilroy’s excerpt, the term African-American really struck me. I want to say it took on a whole different meaning but it actually did the opposite; it brought to light the plethora of meanings I had already associated with the term but had never really thought about. I have been trying to formulate my thoughts, but even as I continually revise, they become more difficult to logically and coherently explain – please bear with me!

As a self-proclaimed multicultural nation, I understand there are people living in Canada who have “descended” from other countries around the world (in fact, technically all of us have). Though these people sometimes describe themselves with hyphenated terms that signal what their family background is, such as “Irish-Canadian”, we do not associate these terms with race; these terms simply indicate origin – where someone came from.

However, when I think of the term African-American, and I do not believe I am the only person to whom this assumption applies, the first definition that enters my mind is colour – not someone from African descent. I tried to think of other terms (i.e. Irish-Canadian) that also had a double meaning of origin and race, but could not think of any as readily as I thought of African-American (and even then, it was not origin that first related itself in my mind to the term, rather race).

After wrestling with this conundrum, I decided to look up the definition of “African-American” online. It was fascinating that within the simple ten-word definition, the colour black was explicitly stated. Moreover, no other abbreviated term relating to origin made an overt reference to skin colour. I still do not know how to interpret this…

Additionally, the terms diaspora and ethnicity revealed interesting definitions (as listed earlier) as well. It was particularly interesting to note the synonyms for ethnicity, which include nationality and race, support Gilroy’s assertion of the symbiotic relationship between nationalism and ethnicity.

To process all of this, I had to create a mind map, which took me from African-American as having a double meaning of origin and race, to diaspora meaning a group of people moving from their homeland, to ethnicity meaning a group of related people, to nationalism and its relation to ethnicity. After trying to tie everything together, I came up with this question: if an ethnic diaspora of African-Americans crossed borders and settled into a new nation, then how can a multicultural nation like Canada have any sense/definition of nationalism if it is simply comprised of multiple diasporas that simply coexist and do not share much in common other than living within the same territorial boundaries? I know this sounds pessimistic, but it is a thought I am still trying to figure out…

"If we're going to build a time machine, why not do it with some style?": Modernity and Going "Back to the Future"

Bruno Latour argues that we have never been modern – “modernity” is nothing more than a story that we tell ourselves. As the story goes, modernity presents: a discontinuity with the past, a neat and tidy separation between science and nature, faith in technology and progress. As Latour goes on to explain, modernity is characterized by contradictions, for example denying its own hybridity. I would like to expand on another of modernity’s inconsistencies, that being how moderns seemingly negotiate the passage of time.

For moderns, the past represents a time when technology wasn’t as strong, and therefore when things weren’t as great as they are today. Improvements in technology bring moderns closer and closer to greatness, which lies in the future. Moderns are different, are better, than the past thanks to progress. Just as moderns deny the hybridity that surrounds them, so too do they conceal their true obsession with the past.

In our society there is, and always has been, a strong desire to return to the past, to “the good ol’ days”, as they say. Nostalgia permeates our lives. It’s the reason why our parents took photos and diligently filled up family albums, it’s the reason why television networks like Deja View feature the shows from years past, it’s the reason why Disney World has perfect Main Street USA streets. If moderns are too good for the past, then why do they continually evoke it, romanticize it and long for it?

On the same note, moderns have an obsession with the future and the promise it holds, as evident through the popularity of sci-fi films, for example. And while moderns do long for the simpler times of the past, they obsessively continue to move forward in attempts to reach what I can only assume is some sort of "ultimate modernity", but what is really an endless journey.

The films that best characterize the point that I am trying to make is my own personal childhood favourite (nostalgic moment!) – The "Back to the Future" Series. In Back to the Future Part 1, teenager Marty and his kooky scientist friend Dr. Brown are of the “modern 80s”, so modern in fact that the Doc has invented a time machine - a pimped out Delorean . Dr. Brown’s mission, like all moderns, is to travel into the future, but when things don’t go as planned, he and Marty end up in 1955. While the viewers – and Marty – are certainly presented a picture perfect view of the squeaky clean 50s, most of the film is spent trying to get back to the future, therefore there is a strong rejection of the past. In Back to the Future Part 2, Marty and Doc make it to the future – 2015, a world of flying cars, holograms and hover boards (4 more years you guys, it’s gonna be awesome!!). Unfortunately, the future – while technologically advanced - is equally as alienating to Marty as the past (1955). Back to the Future Part 3 is most interesting as Marty and Doc travel even further into the past, the 1800s aka – the Wild West (or Wild Wild West, if you’re a Will Smith fan…). The Wild West of course, is perhaps the ultimate romanticization of the American past. Doc Brown becomes so caught up in this simple life that he opts to stay there, sending Marty back to the future alone.

What Marty and more specifically Doc prove is that modernity is characterized by a simultaneous obsession with and estrangement from the past and the future. Until Doc decides to settle down in the Old West (interesting, how it is his technological achievements and his own belief in progress that allow for him to live in the past, where these things do not “exist”), Marty and the Doc prove that as “moderns”, they are extremely uncomfortable with the present. Even when the past and the future become their new present, they long to return to the future (or the past) only to depart once again into a different decade.

In response to Latour’s question “What does it mean to be modern?” – it means to be unhappy and uncomfortable with the present, and to depend on the past or the future to feel at home.

Corporations as Empire

I liked the way Marie connected concepts of Empire with the idea of McDonalds to illustrate aspects of globalization. I think that such large, globally recognized corporate chains might come to stand in for any previous imperialist state. While imperialism may be over, corporations remain to exploit third world nations and rule the lives of people around the globe. This is why I believe the concept of Empire is represented in trans-national corporations. Empire is a form of global sovereignty, “decentered and deterritorializeing apparatus of rule that progressively incorporates the entire global realm within its open, expanding frontiers” (xii). If global sovereignty is Empire, it is easy to see that the most predominant global sovereignty is that of corporations. Corporations such as McDonalds use brand identity to unite people in a global society. As previous distinctions of cultures and peoples (such as language, customs, or national pride) disappear, global brand identities remain.

Hardt and Negri use four characteristics of Empire in their introduction that apply particularly well to the idea of corporations as a metaphor for Empire. I will stick with Marie’s example of the McDonalds Corporation to demonstrate the idea. First, Empire has no territorial boundaries. Corporations exemplify the processes of globalization. With various stages of production located around the world, no one country can be self-dependent. McDonalds will establish a chain in any location around the globe, no matter what the culture, customs, etc., and produces products in various locations around the globe. Second Empire presents itself as outside of history or at the end of history. This one is a bit trickier but McDonalds is seen as an inevitable chain of fast food restaurants. It is just assumed there will be one, wherever you go, and that it will always be there or has been there for a very long time. Third, Empire creates its world, seeking to “directly rule over human nature” (xv). Some might argue that McDonalds tries to “rule over human nature” by the addictiveness of their food, and by the promise of comfort and familiarity when traveling abroad. The brand recognition creates patterns of behaviours. Fourth Empire always tries to maintain peace, even when it may be bathed in blood. Often the means of producing any product within a global society are not carefully examined. The production of beef for McDonalds takes a great environmental toll on nature and humans. We often do not see the deaths that happen because of actions taken along the line of production. This can often have devastating effects on the people living in the areas where production is taking place. Thus in my opinion, corporations can be seen as an excellent representation of what Hardt and Negri term Empire.

What is "Just war"?

What I found most intriguing in the Hardt and Negri “Empire” reading was the discourse surrounding the traditional concept of “just war” and I tried to relate this concept within today’s society. According to Saint Augustine, in order for there to be “just war” the fight must be fought for the right reasons and it must be waged under rightful authority, the war is waged in order to establish peace.


In the reading it says, “These two traditional characters have reappeared in our postmodern world on the one hand war is reduced to the status of police action and on the other hand the new power that can legitimately exercise ethical functions through war is sacralised." I found this to be really insightful as I reflected on past political world events that have used the act of “just war” in justification for their action. In many cases today “just war” is no longer used as an act of defence or for battle to create peace, rather it is used to exercise and establish authority and power over another country. An example of this is when the United States felt there was need for “just war” in Iraq after 911 attacks on the Twin Towers. Iraq didn’t attack nor did they take any peace away from the United States. The president at the time said the reason for the invasion and attack against Iraq was because the country had amassed weapons of mass destruction, but many other unfriendly nations have weapons of mass destruction and there was no attack on them.


Americas “just war” was unjust and immoral for many reasons because the intention was to satisfy the business-related or political appetites of politicians and was not to restore peace but rather to harm, revenge and to dominate.

In search of culture In Europe

What is the Empire if not the accumulation and assimilation of cultural distinctions coalescing to form a unitary whole? Hardt and Negri hold that the Empire is a manifestation of the globalization process. Geographical boundaries become irrelevant in the power quest of the corporation and international governance alike. Capitalism is imbedded or sought after by all nations-states. Adept countries relinquish their ‘nationness’ for a capitalist statehood. What formerly united people within the confines of distinct geographic borders, nationality, has been blurred and with it cultural traditions are lost. A way of life is lost. People are lost.

As the Dutch author Geert Mak writes in his novel, In Europe, Eastern European nations eagerly await their admission into the European Union without much awareness of the implications this will have on their cultures and societies. Specifically, Mak presents the Hungarian village, Vasarosbec: a village where tradition is as lively as national identity. The Empire of Hardt and Negri and adherence to it, requires immense sacrifices, as Mak explains, some that lead to an economic descent – poverty being a necessary part of the reintegration, as well as to community and personal loss.

“'And what's more, you're going to lose some very precious things: friendship, the ability to get by without a lot of money, the skills to repair things that are broken, the freedom to raise your own pigs and slaughter them as you see fit, the freedom to burn as much timber as you like... any number of other things.'

‘What?’ they asked him. ‘No more slaughtering our own pigs? No more burning wood?’ They looked at him in disbelief. At that time they did not know that, before long, they wouldn’t be allowed to smoke in the cafe either. ‘The bell-ringer walked out during my story,’ my friend wrote to us. ‘I can hear him ringing the church bell right now, to mark the setting sun. There are some things that go on unchanged’. (Geert Mak, XV)”

A shift in cultural norms and an adventure down the imperial reconstruction of Europe. It makes one wonder why the need for such assimilation? Is there no room for pig cutters and wood burners in this frame? Is this form of continental or global assimilation a necessary component in the creation of global order? Mak also supports that there is a shift from prior held values, and national unities; world order is – just as stated by Hardt and Negri, invisible if ever present at all: “[t]he world order of the twentieth century - insofar as one can speak of 'order' at all - seems to be gone for good. (Geert Mak, XVI)”

A new global order is born indeed, but is the global citizenry approving? Are members of the world community satisfied with a process that requires a loss of self? Is interconnectedness and global unity an enabler of the formation of the global nation, or is it merely widening the gap between the wealthy and poor?