We Have Never Been Modern Book

I have no problem conceding that this rather thin book went a bit over my head. The blurb promised a spectacular new insight into human reality and history. And the bold claim that we only seemingly joined modernism stimulated my curiosity. But Latour writes from out of his own universe, uses quite particular jargon (which he hardly explains) and terminology that differs from what the rest of the intellectual world ordinarily uses (eg he uses the word 'society' for something that almost everyone else would describe as 'culture') and many passages just remained too obscure for me.

And yet: what I did understand, did resonate somehow. I'll try to translate it into my own words: what we understand as modernity (the Enlightened, rational-scientific view of the world) is not a radical break with the foregoing, and it must certainly not be interpreted in terms of progress; on the contrary, it is even a downright wrong view. That is because modernity rests on a radically perceived difference between nature (matter) and culture (society), whilst - according to Latour - both belong to the same realm and can't be divided; the distinction even is clear nonsense. As a consequence, self-proclaimed modernism gives us the illusion that everything it creates is new and different and above all better (an accumulation of knowledge and insights). And thus it throws us into an arrogance that dazzles and it disguises that in fact we are heading for a catastrophe (hence the strong ecological accent in later works by Latour).

I think I do see what Latour means, and maybe he is partially right (but in a much more nuanced way): western modernism indeed makes a clear distinction between nature and culture, and underlying that, also between subject and object, and it claims a universalism and a truthfulness that just isn't realistic. In the past months I read of a lot of books on systems thinking and these have made that clear to me, too. In that aspect I can follow his line of thought. And Latour's critique on how we look way too linear and too progressive at history and time really appealed to me; these passages in the book contain fundamentally valuable insights. See my review in my Senseofhistory alias:

But I'm not convinced modernism in general makes such a clear break between nature and culture as Latour claims. And the author uses his point of departure to radically deal with everything and everyone within modernism (in fact all -isms are done with, and paradoxically most of all postmodernism, while Latour's view in fact amounts to pure deconstruction and is therefore essentially postmodernist). Moreover, if we follow his claim that the starting point of modernism is a real illusion (that 'nonsensical' separation between nature and culture), how then is it possible that we are heading for an (ecological, nuclear ...) catastrophe? Then that distinction did make a difference! It seems to me that Latour got trapped in a thought paradox that he himself constructed.

No, I'd rather prefer the much more constructive approach of systems thinking that in its own way tackles the simplistic aspects of modernism, but at least makes an attempt to formulate meaningful alternatives. But then again, maybe I'm wronging Latour and I just misunderstood him. And it seems to me, that that is at least as much his fault as mine.