The blog

A reader has sent us a question through the Contributions interface. Because it is not, properly speaking, a contribution, it will not be published on the site. We have informed its author of this during the Moderation process which, as a reminder, involves email exchanges between the AIME team and the Co-enquirer. However, because we think that the response might be useful to other readers and/or co-enquirers, we are publishing it here along with the response, below:

[Title] Is this the return of the ether?

Actor-Network-Theory warns us strictly, to add something invisible. We ought to listen to the metaphysics of the actors. We thus have tried to learn the "painful lesson", that "we must not substitute a surprising but precise expression that is the well-known repertoire of the social which is supposed to be hidden behind it" (49). With [pre] suddenly seems that "well known repertoire" back in game, a invisible force behind the actions. Is this the return of the 'ether'?

The participants of our German (medieval history) ant-course were quite irritated about that point and so am I. I've documented the harsh results of our discussion at https://ameisenpfad.wordpress.com (sorry, it's in German).

And here is the answer by Bruno Latour:

dear Jan

thank you for your feedback; we have to have the German blog entry that you signal translated of course, but for now it is more a blog entry for the AIME community than a contribution per se (So if you agree we would like to post your question and our answer there: www.modesofexistence.org/blog). We have French and English but adding German would be too complicated for managing the site.

On the question you raised I think it is a simple misunderstanding: none of the connections that ANT allows to follow are lost with AIME, it is just that once the ANT type of associations has been followed, then the question remained of the kind of association that is in question. There is no mystery whatsoever in such an addition; ANT is good at following connections (and here the principle you cite applies) but not so good at detecting differences between the truth values of what I call modes of existence. This is why ANT becomes [NET] an indispensable mode to be sure, but one among others. Now [REP] is no different from all the other: following trajectories requires to pass through many passes and hiatus (to use the metalanguage of the inquiry). If your question is a sort of question Descartes asked Newton: why do you add a mysterious force to the forces of nature, I will answer just like Newton: I add nothing, gravitation has this characteristic of acting at a distance and this is this sort of action, of trajectory, that physics should learn to follow. Well, the situation is just the same for following the various trajectories that each mode trace. They are all called associations, but only from the point of view of [NET]. I agree this is somewhat surprising by people used to the fight of ANT against the notion of domains, yes, but it is not an "apostasy" as you seem to imply! Many thanks for taking interest in this work and please tell us more about medieval history and the link with AIME.

And here the answer from Jan (published with Jan's permission since it was part of a private conversation which co-inquirer):

Dear Bruno Latour,

I would like to offer you my warmest thanks for your kind reply to my annotation. It inspired me and my students very much to carry on in our struggle, to set 'medieval studies on the ants track' (that is the title of our course-blog). Maybe it was indeed a misunderstanding, maybe it is because I am just a German professor and therefore I need two things: rules and the assurance that they are in charge. Call it a specific kind of [REF] or just a desperate love for the beautiful plainness of the ANT. It teaches me the sometimes "painful lesson" to listen to the actors themselves and that "we must not substitute a surprising but precise expression that is the well-known repertoire of the social which is supposed to be hidden behind it." The question "Is the concepts of the actors allowed to be stronger than that of the analysts?" was set on the very top of my ANT-checklist. I'm right there with you, that the 'virgin Mary' may be a much more realistic part ob the medieval past than any social explanation could be. Get it all from the actors: Particular for medievalists, this strategy is absolutely necessary to escape the aporia of anachronism.

Because of this useful lesson I was just annoyed when reading and discussing [PRE]. I would agree, it could be useful to determine the quality of associations - not by adding new forces but by reconstructing their shape. This may be actually a blind spot in the architecture of ANT. But I'm not quite sure, what quantities of self-made context would be added in that way. Your nice Newton-example could easy be reused by the 'sociologists of the social', proclaiming that 'system', 'habitus' or 'discourse' are like gravity real forces they just are uncovering in their studies. On occasion of an interview at Weimar you used the example of Martin Luther, criticizing the catholic system of indulgences. You translated his statement in the meta-language of AIME: "There isn't any transportation in the mode of [REL]. You, the church, are just doing commerce." This may boil the statement down to an essence, but isn't the speech of the historical actor anymore. At this point the work of the historian is only just beginning.

I assume that the ‚modes of existence’ a quite useful as chapter-titles in a (politically relevant) travel guide to the world of moderns. To explore the worlds of medievals, one should strongly bank of the metaphysics of the actors. AIME is thrilling project to shape the future, I'm looking for proper tools to reassembling the past. At the Cluster of Excellence “Religion and Politics in Pre-Modern and Modern Cultures”, I am currently conducting a research-project on the late medieval plague. It shows how the epidemic, generally interpreted a heavenly exhortation, is used by the local authorities an the contemporary physicians in strictly different ways. My inquiry thus could be located at the crossing of [REL] and [POL]. But you may imagine, it isn't that easy. The 'dieu barré' of the moderns is just in the making, so that the quality of connections is hard to determine. Thus I'm afraid, I may be not ready for AIME.

Best regards Jan