Here are some brief responses from me to this take on Latour’s political thought:
1. This article is absolute rubbish https://t.co/E7ary87WXb
— Tim Howles (@AimeTim) November 8, 2018
2. "at worst he unwittingly assists the dominant ideology by endorsing and recapitulating it". No, he opens the playing field for any ideology to "win" on the basis of an ontology of representation, rather than on the basis of covert power relations.
— Tim Howles (@AimeTim) November 8, 2018
3. "at best he abstains from the political question by naturalizing it". No, he redefines politics and political activity away from the naturalizations that have infected it & rendered it inoperative for our contemporary moment.
— Tim Howles (@AimeTim) November 8, 2018
4. "antagonism safely resides inside Latour's world, but his system omits antagonism against the world" No, Latour describes the trials of strength between the most granular level of actors in order to allow their voices to change the world. His is the true revolution.
— Tim Howles (@AimeTim) November 8, 2018
5. "The world is real and only power can change it". This statement from Galloway itself reifies "power" as something that is independent of the actors who are its dynamo: this is the opposite of what Latour claims.
— Tim Howles (@AimeTim) November 8, 2018
6. In Latour's work, the nebulous & charged word "power" is better replaced with the word "voice" or "interest", thereby installing "power" as the predicate of an actor or being.
— Tim Howles (@AimeTim) November 8, 2018
Political Theology at the Time of the Anthropocene 