AIME has multiple goals. It is an anthropology of the moderns, but it is also a wish for a civilization to come. ( I am also reminded of Erikson's stages of psychosocial development for Latour himself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erikson%27s_stages_of_psychosocial_development, especially the late stages)
So it is an anthropology but with an eye towards a "just" future. Or a future where negotiations of some quality may take place. That means that depending on how this future is hoped to be there is an influence on how the anthropology will be expressed.
There is no way to prove what the future ideal politics must be, beyond dispute, and therefore there must be more than one possible AIME-style anthropologies depending on what is hoped for.
This brings me to [MOR]. If I take [MOR] as describing the moderns I have to say that to the best of my knowledge there is no fidelity to reality. The common good, the general optimum, is not a value of the moderns. It is true that they are interested on taking into account many actors, that they take great care to form inclusive systems when they ponder about things. But the moderns care foremost for their own good. For their own interests. Especially the Anglosaxons are very clear in this respect. They proclaim it all the time. They do care about others but a) they do so as far as there is no danger that the others might at some point take the lead and b) often they justify supporting the benefit of others as a precondition for their own gains. I might be wrong but I think that this is "the view from the outside" (do I express an ungrateful part of the others?)
(a personal anecdote: A Congolese friend was comparing French and Chinese comming to Congo. "The Chinese eat and sleep in the same places we do. The French have special hotels and restaurants.". On the other hand he hoped for going one day to France, which he did finally. But the point is that he was feeling the distance, the border, the concern for a sum bonum with the caveat that "we" will be safe, secure, on top of things)
Even inside their societies, more and more, the moderns express a Darvinian setting. The structure of their societies creates tests and then some survive (by merit or chance). For example things go well today but are you taking advantage of the opportunities to really beat your opponents? Things are going well today but are you preparing for the rainy day? (these are conflicting requirements). Then fight goes on and some survive
So the mass of the moderns,the high point of their "seremonies", seem to me to be the experience of fight, the mystery of ananalysable fight where somebody finally wins. (I think this is obviously a non Christian conception of mass and in this respect moderns are moving outside of Christianity - towards the jungle?)
From this point of view perhaps it would be better to have a different mode. One who would be more realistic and would not meet ridicule from the "others". Perhaps it would correspond to a more Darwenian future than the one expressed in AIME
----
BUT, from the point of view of a different hope for the future (not the above mentioned fighting one and the glorifying of pure success) the current AIME construction is not so much faithful to reality as it is possibly conductive to a future negotiation. In this respect although [MOR] does not describe the moderns, it could possibly describe them in retrospect, from the point of view of a possible future that might come true.
As far as I understand it is from this viewpoint that [REL] is a necessary ingredient of AIME-se. [REL] could express the steps one might make for the shake of the call of love. (which I thing could talk not only to Christians but to many other people as well). [REL] too most probably does not express a value of the moderns (if one wants to be strongly empirical).
Perhaps both [MOR] and [REL] are part of a negotiatory effort for the kind of future that Latour intuits as valuable. Could it be a proposal for metanoia from the part of the moderns?
-----
And what will happen when such partial futures (connected to alternative possible anthropologies) will be actually realized as people are going to be moving along their ways? It seems that history and anthropology mix one with the other.
Then, could it be that we have another test? The test of witnessing truth under hardship? To me it seems that in the end people "vote" not with their positive choices but through their power (or lack of power) to endure the consequences of their choices. The age of martyrs once more?
So it is an anthropology but with an eye towards a "just" future. Or a future where negotiations of some quality may take place. That means that depending on how this future is hoped to be there is an influence on how the anthropology will be expressed.
There is no way to prove what the future ideal politics must be, beyond dispute, and therefore there must be more than one possible AIME-style anthropologies depending on what is hoped for.
This brings me to [MOR]. If I take [MOR] as describing the moderns I have to say that to the best of my knowledge there is no fidelity to reality. The common good, the general optimum, is not a value of the moderns. It is true that they are interested on taking into account many actors, that they take great care to form inclusive systems when they ponder about things. But the moderns care foremost for their own good. For their own interests. Especially the Anglosaxons are very clear in this respect. They proclaim it all the time. They do care about others but a) they do so as far as there is no danger that the others might at some point take the lead and b) often they justify supporting the benefit of others as a precondition for their own gains. I might be wrong but I think that this is "the view from the outside" (do I express an ungrateful part of the others?)
(a personal anecdote: A Congolese friend was comparing French and Chinese comming to Congo. "The Chinese eat and sleep in the same places we do. The French have special hotels and restaurants.". On the other hand he hoped for going one day to France, which he did finally. But the point is that he was feeling the distance, the border, the concern for a sum bonum with the caveat that "we" will be safe, secure, on top of things)
Even inside their societies, more and more, the moderns express a Darvinian setting. The structure of their societies creates tests and then some survive (by merit or chance). For example things go well today but are you taking advantage of the opportunities to really beat your opponents? Things are going well today but are you preparing for the rainy day? (these are conflicting requirements). Then fight goes on and some survive
So the mass of the moderns,the high point of their "seremonies", seem to me to be the experience of fight, the mystery of ananalysable fight where somebody finally wins. (I think this is obviously a non Christian conception of mass and in this respect moderns are moving outside of Christianity - towards the jungle?)
From this point of view perhaps it would be better to have a different mode. One who would be more realistic and would not meet ridicule from the "others". Perhaps it would correspond to a more Darwenian future than the one expressed in AIME
----
BUT, from the point of view of a different hope for the future (not the above mentioned fighting one and the glorifying of pure success) the current AIME construction is not so much faithful to reality as it is possibly conductive to a future negotiation. In this respect although [MOR] does not describe the moderns, it could possibly describe them in retrospect, from the point of view of a possible future that might come true.
As far as I understand it is from this viewpoint that [REL] is a necessary ingredient of AIME-se. [REL] could express the steps one might make for the shake of the call of love. (which I thing could talk not only to Christians but to many other people as well). [REL] too most probably does not express a value of the moderns (if one wants to be strongly empirical).
Perhaps both [MOR] and [REL] are part of a negotiatory effort for the kind of future that Latour intuits as valuable. Could it be a proposal for metanoia from the part of the moderns?
-----
And what will happen when such partial futures (connected to alternative possible anthropologies) will be actually realized as people are going to be moving along their ways? It seems that history and anthropology mix one with the other.
Then, could it be that we have another test? The test of witnessing truth under hardship? To me it seems that in the end people "vote" not with their positive choices but through their power (or lack of power) to endure the consequences of their choices. The age of martyrs once more?
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου