BRUNO LATOUR ANTHROPOLOGY OF MODERNITY

Abstract

The contemporary approaches to the methodology of humanities and social sciences, related to attempts to formulate a new paradigm of knowledge are problematized in this article. The employment of the term paradigm refers to a disciplinary matrix outlining the interpretive framework of the scientific research proposed by T. Kuhn. Considering that this definition is a stereotypical understanding of science and itself needs to be problematized the instrumental employment of the term is offered.

At the beginning of the XXI century the constructivist maxima in the social sciences had been dominating. It also had been contending for the status of a leading paradigm in the philosophy of science. The thematizing of homo cognoscens and communicative space of culture had been having emancipating nature and had been aiming at transforming the scientistic oriented epistemology into the social-humanitarian synthetic vision and the descriptive methods development. The interest in epistemological problems was caused by the crisis of classical samples and its overcoming. The situation, which is called non-classical, had emerged at the borders, where the classical theories had collided with objects that not could be described in the accustomed terms. In the ХIХ century, such objects had been seen as exceptions from the rules, exotic representatives of micro- and megaworlds. The number of such objects is steadily increasing in contemporary world. The disobidient objects, centaurs- objects are the scientific knowledge feature at the beginning of the XXI century. The Science and Technology Studies (STS) had become the sources of such kind of objects discovering.

The non-classical approaches had become a reaction to the discrepancy between the ideal object of classics and such disobidient objects, abstract subject and particular individuals, classic methodology and intensive activities resources search in all areas of practice. In regard to the latter aspect had emerged two fundamentally different theoretical positions in the 60-70 years of the last century. The first had been problematizing the human factor in its connection with the problem of management. This position had been proposing the extension of a scientific research project and had been stating the necessity to take into account the human factor as a limitation in the strategy of exact and natural sciences increasing efficiency success employment, the necessity of further technological expansion. According to this position the most important technologies of this century should be the design of future, high humanitarian technologies, the social actors assembly and destruction algorithms. The basic methodology in the framework of this theoretical orientation becomes mathematical modeling of complex systems and facilities using in cybernetics, Artificial Intelligence, synergetics.

The second position on the contrary had been problematizing the subject of modernist thinking settings and practices, claiming the extensive way deadlock. The group of methodological problems in the detection and de-automatization classic models had revealed. These models had transformed into large productions, management structures, scientific activity forms and had captured in its functioning orbit huge natural and human resources. The modern science practices had appeared in social scientists, historians, anthropologists the focus of interest. In this research perspective the science like traditional societies day-to-day practices defines some convictions and beliefs and limits others. The advancement in the non-classical situation was possible with a modified approach to the stationary existence of classic samples. Under the pressure of postmodern criticism this condition had been simplifying and had been often interpreting as a rejection of the samples ― methodological and ideological norms. Scientific facts had been understanding as socially constructed – thoughts and decisions constructs of the scientific community.

New paradigm criticizes culture-and social determinism, which are characteristic for the interpretivist/constructivist paradigm. The interpretive framework offset is caused by the appearance of several research new areas and changes in the academy itself. Not a choice between the epistemological and ontological outlook, but the continuation of the alternative screenplays of modernization, the different type of subjectivity, the strategy of preventing extensive mechanical activity vector of search marks today the basic problems change. The advanced, cutting-edge research perspectives, which set the tone of discussions are associated with the appearance of postanthropocentric humanities. In the center of postanthropocentric paradigm interest there is the problem of the common world composition, combining both humans and non-humans. This shared world is characterized not in terms of globalization but the space – in a planetary perspective. The emancipatory potential of humanities accordingly to new outlook concerns not only people who are discriminated against in terms of race, gender, class, ethnicity or values, and above all ― the species emancipation from the centered on the own interests human species dictate. The issues of species identity borders, of man's connection with the environment, technology, things, animals, biopower and biopolitics questions had become the key issues.

What should be a positive knowledge of the future in the context of global migration, disasters of natural origin, biotechnological progress that cannot be compared with all in human history happened before? This is the question now facing the humanities and the social sciences. The emergence of new theoretical horizons is associated with a questioning knowledge requested in the actual situation. B. Latour’s Anthropology of modernity focuses on the common world semantic grounds, deployed in the new diplomacy and the new enlightenment concepts.