Latour for Architects

Albena Yaneva

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2022
• ISBN:
  9781000546545
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Architecture
• Subtopic: Architecture General

Bruno Latour is one of the leading figures in Social Sciences today, but his contributions are also widely recognised in the arts. His theories 'flourished' in the 1980s in the aftermath of the structuralism wave and generated new concepts and methodologies for the understanding of the social. In the past decade, Latour and his Actor-Network Theory (ANT) have gained popularity among researchers in the field of architecture.

Latour for Architects is the first introduction to the key concepts and ideas of Bruno Latour that are relevant to architects. First, the book discusses critically how specific methods and insights from his philosophy can inspire new thinking in architecture and design pedagogy. Second, it explores examples from architectural practice and urban design, and reviews recent attempts to extend the methods of ANT into the fields of architectural and urban studies. Third, the book advocates an ANT-inspired approach to architecture, and examines how its methodological insights can trace new research avenues in the field, reflecting meticulously on its epistemological offerings.

Drawing on many lively examples from the world of architectural practice, the book makes a compelling argument about the agency of architectural design and the role architects can play in re-ordering the world we live in. Following Latour's philosophy offers a new way to handle all the objects of human and nonhuman collective life, to re-examine the role of matter in design practice, and to redefine the forms of social, political and ethical associations that bind us together in cities.

CHAPTER 1 Introduction: ‘In this world’

DOI: 10.4324/9780429328510-1

At the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, the French philosopher Bruno Latour wrote an essay for AOC, an online cultural newspaper, launching an appeal to rethink aspects of our systems of production (labour, instruments, raw materials and the social structure that regulates production) in order to become ‘efficient globalisation interrupters’ (Latour 2020). He asked us to imagine how different the world could look if we learned from the lockdown experience during the pandemic. This essay has since been translated into more than 12 languages, demonstrating Latour’s reputation, lately reported in The Guardian, as ‘one of the most influential thinkers of our age’ (Watts 2020). This most recent media appearance illustrates the original and provocative tone of Latour’s social theory that tackles issues ranging from the history of modernity, studies of science and technology, innovation, creative processes, cities, political ecology, the challenges of globalisation, religion and art, as well as the ecological crisis.

Over the course of their work architects often facilitate the production of social relations and help shape societies. Therefore, knowledge in sociology (the study of social life, social change and the factors that impact human behaviour) is crucial for designers. A Latourian sociological approach is relevant to architects for a number of reasons: first, there is a growing realisation of architecture as a social practice, recognising the social nature of the outcomes of architectural production (Till 2009); second, architectural professionals increasingly question understandings and beliefs in relation to knowledge production, innovation and creativity that are commonly taken for granted; and third, there is a tendency to acknowledge the active role of objects, materials and technologies in the process of design and inhabitation (for instance the role of scale models in the design process). Therefore, it is not a coincidence that Actor-Network Theory (ANT) associated with the name of Latour, has gradually gained popularity among researchers in the fields of architecture and design studies within the past two decades.

It is not a coincidence that Actor-Network Theory (ANT) associated with the name of Latour, has gradually gained popularity among researchers in the fields of architecture and design studies within the past two decades.

The greatest advantage of Latour’s sociology is that it is realistic, pragmatist (oriented around things) and remains in this world. It applies care, caution, and attention to understand the world by relying on ‘what comes from our own hands’. Such an earthly approach can provide a useful conceptual framework for architectural scholars and practitioners to better tackle the realities of design and architecture.

Trained in philosophy, theology and anthropology in France, Latour first worked in the US and moved back to his native France in 1982 to take a position as Professor in Sociology at the École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Paris, an elite engineering school, where – together with Michel Callon, Madeleine Akrich, Antoine Hennion, and others – he founded the influential Centre de Sociologie de l’Innovation (CSI). Seminal work on Science and Technology Studies (STS) was developed in this research centre between the 1980s and 2000s. In 2006, Latour moved to the University of Sciences Po, where he is currently an Emeritus professor associated with the médialab and the programme in political arts (SPEAP).

Unlike other volumes that have provided an introduction into Latour’s theory as a philosopher (De Vries 2016; Harman 2009), or offered an intellectual biography of the author (Schmidgen 2014), or a comprehensive summary of his key ideas (Blok and Jensen 2011), this book aims to introduce his work to architects. It outlines key methodological insights in relation to architecture and key concepts of particular relevance to an architectural audience, of both professional architects, and architectural, design and urban scholars.

The book is organised into nine chapters. Each chapter makes three essential moves: first: it presents key ideas and concepts from Latour’s philosophy; second: it deploys some of these ideas with the help of specific examples; third: it offers reflections on the relevance of these concepts and methods for architecture, sketching possible avenues for research and engagement with the profession. Chapter 1 introduces Bruno Latour as a thinker and the aims and the structure of the book. Chapter 2 spells out Latour’s critique of modernity and provides a reflection on the meaning of ‘modern’ and ‘nonmodern’ in architecture. Chapter 3 presents the key findings from Latour’s anthropology of science and how they can inform research in architectural studies. It also discusses a method for analysing and mapping architectural controversies. Chapter 4 reviews the socio-technical approach to innovation, the role of technology and objects in social life and the concept of technical failure. It also reflects on the active role of objects in design/dwelling practices. Chapter 5 introduces Actor-Network Theory as a method and elaborates on how it can be used in architectural research. Chapter 6 analyses Latour’s understanding of process and introduces the concept of spacing in opposition to space. Chapter 7 offers a pragmatist agenda for the study of cities; the case of Paris is discussed at large along with the role of urban artefacts in city life. Chapter 8 scrutinises the concept of politics orientated around objects and reflects on the meaning of cosmopolitical design for architectural professionals. Chapter 9 discusses Latour’s theory of the new climatic regime and a possible architectural response to climate change. The writing style, truthful to Latour, is based on careful analysis of specific examples. The illustrations are redrawn from classic diagrams and figures included in key works of Latour and are further reinterpreted architecturally for a design audience.

As demonstrated by Latour’s recent reflections on the pandemic in 2020, his philosophy continues to help us reflect on the world today. It is hoped that this book will equip architectural scholars with conceptual tools to re-examine contemporary societies and will open many avenues for a pragmatist architectural endeavour, based on what architects and users do.

It is hoped that this book will equip architectural scholars with conceptual tools to re-examine contemporary societies and will open many avenues for a pragmatist architectural endeavour, based on what architects and users do.

CHAPTER 2 Rethinking the Modern Constitution

DOI: 10.4324/9780429328510-2

What does it mean to be modern? How do we moderns, if that’s what we are, understand our place in the world? Modernity. Progress. The linear flight of time. Nature and cultures. Humans and objects. Facts and values. A controllable world. All of these are deeply rooted in modernity: understood as a historical period, as the socio-cultural practices and attitudes that arose in seventeenth-century thought and in the eighteenth-century ‘Enlightenment’. A central thread that runs throughout Latour’s work is questioning the foundations of modernity.

Being modern relates to how we represent ourselves as historical. ‘Modern’, ‘modernisation’ and ‘modernity’ are terms that suggest a sharp contrast with an archaic and continuous past. It is a break in the flow of time and yet, we continue to push forward, everything advances. This points to an asymmetry between the past and the present that is rooted in the very meaning of what it is to be ‘modern’. Moreover, in the logic of modernity, history endorses the winners and forgets the losers (Latour 1995). This creates another asymmetry. Because of this double asymmetry, Latour argued, there is a fundamental uncertainty in the way we understand ourselves as moderns. This is especially clear when we are in the midst of a practice, whether it is the making of an artefact or an experiment, where it is not possible to univocally define the direction of the flow of time and we cannot always determine who the winners and the losers are.

There is a fundamental uncertainty in the way we understand ourselves as moderns. This is especially clear when we are in the midst of a practice, whether it is the making of an artefact or an experiment.

We Have Never Been Modern (1993a) offered a powerful critique of these asymmetries. In this seminal book Latour probed the powerful dualisms (divisions that separate phenomena into two parts) of nature and culture, fact and value, subject and object that are crucial for modernity and were bequeathed to us in the seventeenth century by thinkers like Robert Boyle (1627–1691) and Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679). Boyle, for instance, as a scientist, conceptualised both nature and the origin of modern experimental science as what is independent from the social world. In his laboratory, scientists were intermediaries that spoke all by themselves in the name of things or facts. Hobbes, on the other hand, as a philosopher, theorised social and political order in terms of distinctively human conflicts and agreements, which are independent of material circumstances; citizens are represented by one of their members, the Sovereign, a simple intermediary. Both Boyle and Hobbes engaged in purifying Nature and Society (Shapin and Schaffer 1985). Nature with a capital ‘N’ and Society with a capital ‘S’ are those stable poles that exist by themselves and are ruled by their own laws. The capital letters point to their stability. For Latour, it is this purification that defines what might be called the Modern Constitution – a separation between the scientific power charged with representing (speaking on behalf of) things and the political power charged with representing subjects (Figure 2.1). The dualisms between Nature and Society/Culture, which constitute one way in which we define ourselves as moderns, hinder our understanding of the world.

The Modern Constitution, as Latour described it, is based on four features. First, the belief that Nature has a superior dimension distinct from the fabric of Society, while the premoderns believe in a continuous connection between the natural and the social order. Second, while Nature is transcendent (outside of human activities), Society is immanent to human activities, and possesses an inherent dimension that renders citizens totally free to reconstruct it. Third, the separation between Nature and Society is maintained. It is claimed Society has no relation to Nature, or the object world. Fourth, the idea of a God, as the arbitrator of this dualism, makes it possible to confirm these separate orders.

Figure 2.1 The Modern Constitution.

Illustration by Alexandra Arènes.

Here we should clarify Latour’s understanding of some key terms from what he imagines is the Modern Constitution. The term Society refers to the result of the modern settlement that, for political reasons, artificially divides things between the natural and the social realms. Like Society, the idea of Nature is the result of a highly problematic settlement. This settlement, moreover, has a political origin: the separation of politics from science, of political and epistemological representation.

Are we modern?

But how is this debate about Modernity, and the divides between Nature and Society/Culture, relevant to our practice as architects? Let us take a simple example. How often do we open the pages of architectural magazines and read about controversial buildings? Every day. Here is the Disney Concert Hall designed by Frank Gehry in Los Angeles, stainless-steel, aesthetically ‘beautiful’ and iridescent, changing colours depending on where the sun is. Yet, it is also extremely controversial – residents and businesses complained of a blinding glare, neighbours claimed that the sunlight reflected from the building caused rises in temperatures (reaching ap...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of illustrations
• Series editor’s preface
• Acknowledgements
• 1. Introduction: ‘In this world’
• 2. Rethinking the Modern Constitution
• 3. Science in the making
• 4. How technology shapes everyday life
• 5. Actor-Network Theory
• 6. Space and spacing
• 7. Invisible cities
• 8. The parliament of things
• 9. A Gaia who cares
• Further reading
• Bibliography
• Index