Título: Bruno Latour
Seção: "Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam?"
Background: Bruno Latour (French: [latuR]; born 22 June 1947) is a French philosopher, anthropologist and sociologist. He is especially known for his work in the field of science and technology studies (STS). After teaching at the Ecole des Mines de Paris (Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation) from 1982 to 2006, he became Professor at Sciences Po Paris (2006-2017), where he was the scientific director of the Sciences Po Medialab. He retired from several university activities in 2017.

Conteúdo: In a 2004 article, Latour questioned the fundamental premises on which he had based most of his career, asking, "Was I wrong to participate in the invention of this field known as science studies?" He undertakes a trenchant critique of his own field of study and, more generally, of social criticism in contemporary academia. He suggests that critique, as currently practiced, is bordering on irrelevancy. To maintain any vitality, Latour argues that social critiques require a drastic reappraisal: "our critical equipment deserves as much critical scrutiny as the Pentagon budget." (p. 231) To regain focus and credibility, Latour argues that social critiques must embrace empiricism, to insist on the "cultivation of a stubbornly realist attitude -- to speak like William James". (p. 233)  Latour suggests that about 90% of contemporary social criticism displays one of two approaches which he terms "the fact position and the fairy position." (p. 237) The fairy position is anti-fetishist, arguing that "objects of belief" (e.g., religion, arts) are merely concepts created by the projected wishes and desires of the "naive believer"; the "fact position" argues that individuals are dominated, often covertly and without their awareness, by external forces (e.g., economics, gender). (p. 238) "Do you see now why it feels so good to be a critical mind?" asks Latour: no matter which position you take, "You're always right!" (p. 238-239) Social critics tend to use anti-fetishism against ideas the

user: What is Critique?

assistant: He suggests that critique, as currently practiced, is bordering on irrelevancy.

user: DId this correlate with his views on modernism?

assistant: These inconsistencies and double standards go largely unrecognized in social critique because "there is never any crossover between the two lists of objects in the fact position

user: Was anyone critical of Bruno's ideas on this?

assistant: CANNOTANSWER

user: Are there any other interesting aspects about this article?

assistant: The conclusion of the article is to argue for a positive framing of critique, to help understand how matters of concern can be supported rather than undermined:

user: Does he go on to suggest how to support matters of concern?

assistant: "The critic is not the one who lifts the rugs from under the feet of the naive believers, but the one who offers the participants arenas in which to gather.

user: How does the think critique is "bordering on irrelevancy"?

assistant: The critic is not the one who alternates haphazardly between antifetishism and positivism like the drunk iconoclast drawn by Goya,

user: What does he believe the critic is?

assistant: but the one for whom, if something is constructed, then it means it is fragile and thus in great need of care and caution.

user: DId he publish a book on this subject?

assistant: CANNOTANSWER