Abstract“Science Is Politics By Other Means” (SIPBOM) was coined in The Pasteurization of France, Latour’s 1984 empirical study of the birth of microbiology. Yet, it encapsulates an outstanding political theory of science that Latour has never formalized and that has remained unnoticed to this day. The theory is comprised of two dimensions. The first one is the ontological labor performed by science, that is, the laboratory production of new nonhumans. The second one is the ability of science to devise and (...) implement novel policies targeted at the new beings it produces. These “other means” are incorporated in political projects and contribute to the shaping of society. Fifteen years later, Latour published Politics of Nature ([1999] 2004), a full-blown political treatise equally devoted to the political character of science. It would be mistaken, however, to assume that it falls in the same SIPBOM paradigm as the Pasteur study. The compositionist theory it offers redefines politics as the institution of the nonhumans that make up external reality, a task that has traditionally been monopolized by Science. In this sense, “science is politics by other means” has become “politics is science by other means,” these “other means” now referring to “cosmopolitics,” that is, the due process advocated by compositionism. The first claim of the present paper is that the respective weight ascribed to politics and ontology is different in The Pasteurization of France and in Politics of Nature. The second claim is that compositionism is not as successful as Latour’s early theory to account for the politicity of science. (shrink)

In the past forty years, Bruno Latour’s claim that Science Is Politics By Other Means (SIPBOM) has been the underlying creed of Science and Technology Studies (STS), most of us simply taking it for granted. In contrast, this special issue is predicated on the observation of an enduring lack of exegesis of this catchphrase so remarkable that is has caused an outcry among natural scientists, echoed in some social science quarters. If SIPBOM has been a resource for decades, by turning (...) it into a topic this special issue revisits one of the most exciting and challenging insights of contemporary thought. (shrink)

Quand Bruno Latour introduit le « monde commun » dans son oeuvre à la fin des années 1990, ce syntagme est déjà fort connu en théorie politique où il circule largement depuis la parution en 1958 du magnum opus d’Hannah Arendt The Human Condition. Or, Latour ne se réclame pas d’Arendt quand il traite du monde commun et, s’il la mentionne à l’occasion, c’est toujours pour s’en distancer. En analysant les conceptualisations respectives de Latour et d’Arendt, le présent article vise (...) à montrer qu’il existe bien un monde commun entre ces deux penseurs que tout semble éloigner.When Bruno Latour introduces the “common world” in his work at the end of the 1990s, this phrase is already well known in political theory thanks to the 1958 publication of Hannah Arendt’s magnum opus The Human Condition. Strangely enough, when he addresses the common world Latour does not claim to be a follower. If he mentions Arendt from time to time, it is always to distance himself from her. Through the analysis of the respective conceptualisations of Latour and Arendt, the present article aims to show that a common world does exist between these two authors who seemingly stand so far apart from one another. (shrink)

The debate between Bloor and Latour is based on a fundamental misunderstanding due to too narrow a view of what Bloor calls ‘the field’. The boundaries of this ‘field’ are not defined by the sociological analysis of the content of science: SSK and Latour do not share the same object of study. Latour's approach marks a shift from the social determinants of scientific knowledge to the ontological labour performed by scientific activity. The research on the science/society interface has generated two (...) approaches. Some works tackle the social factors which determine science. Their object is society in science. Other works address the social role of science. Their object of study is science in society. The difference in the way SSK and Latour look at science is an incarnation of this division. A re-conceptualization of ‘the field’ based on the acknowledgement of these two objects is perhaps the only way to allow for a diversity of approaches in the study of the science/society interface. (shrink)