Human Studies

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 93–110 | Cite as

On Latour’s Social Theory and Theory of Society, and His Contribution to Saving the World

Theoretical Paper


Latour is widely considered a critic and renewer of research in the social sciences. The ecologically minded Left has also acclaimed him as a theorist interested in bringing nature back both into sociological theory and into society and politics. To enable a more detailed discussion of Latour’s claims, I will here outline his theory and the ways in which it is related to classical theory, such as Durkheim, and the methodology of the interpretive paradigm, such as Schütz. My thesis is that Latour’s empirical studies may be read as unfolding the methodological consequences of the interpretive paradigm, and that his early work is a brilliant proof of Durkheim’s theory of the morphology of social facts. Latour has now elaborated the insights he gained from concrete laboratory studies toward a general theory of the social, of society, and of politics. These generalizations have made his theory at least partly problematic. The political implication of Latour’s theory of society is a generalization of the call for equality to encompass everything; in other words, Latour criticizes the exclusion of nonhuman entities from political representation. The paper closes by discussing the political consequences of this proposal.


Social theory Theory of society Actor-network-theory Agency of things 


  1. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  2. Bloor, D. (1976). Knowledge and social imagery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief (pp. 196–233). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Callon, M., & Latour, B. (1992). Don’t throw the baby out with the Bath School! A reply to Collins and Yearley. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 343–368). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Collins, H. M. (1985). Changing order. Replication and induction in scientific practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Collins, H. M., & Yearley, S. (1992). Epistemological chicken. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 301–326). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Durkheim, E. (1895/1982). The rules of sociological method (W. D. Halls, Trans.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  8. Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s program. Working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers (edited and introduced by Anne Warfield Rawls).Google Scholar
  9. Garfinkel, H., Lynch, M., & Livingstone, E. (1981). The work of a discovering science construed with materials from the optical discovered pulsar. The Philosophy of Social Sciences, 11(2), 131–158.Google Scholar
  10. Gehlen, A. (1940/1988). Man, his nature and place in the world (C. McMillan & K. Pillemer, with an introduction by K.-S. Rehberg, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Giddens, A. (1993). New rules of sociological method (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  12. Görg, C. (1999). Gesellschaftliche Naturverhältnisse. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.Google Scholar
  13. Knorr Cetina, K. (1991). Die Fabrikation von Erkenntnis. Zur Anthropologie der Naturwissenschaft. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  14. Knorr Cetina, K. (1992). Zur Unterkomplexität der Differenzierungstheorie. Empirische Anfragen an die Systemtheorie. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 21, 406–419.Google Scholar
  15. Latour, B. (1986). The powers of association. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief (pp. 264–280). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Latour, B. (1988). The pasteurization of France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Latour, B. (1991/1993). We have never been modern (C. Porter, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Latour, B. (1994). On technical mediation—Philosophy, sociology, genealogy. Common Knowledge, 3, 29–64.Google Scholar
  20. Latour, B. (1998). From the world of science to the world of research? Science, 280(5361), 208–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Latour, B. (1999/2004). Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy (C. Porter, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope. Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Latour, B. (2004). Whose cosmos, which cosmopolitics? Comments on the peace terms of Ulrich Beck. Common Knowledge, 10(3), 450–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Latour, B., & Johnson, J. (1988). Mixing humans with non-humans. Sociology of a door-opener. Social Problems, 35, 298–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life. The social construction of scientific facts. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Lindemann, G. (2008). Theoriekonstruktion und empirische Forschung. In H. Kalthoff, S. Hirschauer, & G. Lindemann (Eds.), Theorie und Empirie (pp. 107–128). Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  28. Lindemann, G. (2009a). Das Soziale von seinen Grenzen her denken. Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft.Google Scholar
  29. Lindemann, G. (2009b). From experimental interaction to the brain as the epistemic object of neurobiology. Human Studies, 32, 153–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lindemann, G. (2011). The living human body from the perspective of the shared world (Mitwelt). Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 24(3), 275–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Luhmann, N. (1984/1995). Social systems (J. Bednarz, Jr. & D. Baecker, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lynch, M. (1993). Scientific practice and ordinary action. Ethnomethodology and social studiees of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Lynch, M. (1996). DeKanting agency. Comments on Bruno Latour’s “On Interobjectivity”. 3. Mind, Culture and Activity, 3(4), 246–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marx, K. (1867/1954). Capital (Vol. 1). London: Lawrence & Wishart.Google Scholar
  35. Marx, K. (1885/1956). Capital (Vol. 2). London: Lawrence & Wishart.Google Scholar
  36. Marx, K. (1894/1959). Capital (Vol. 3). London: Lawrence & Wishart.Google Scholar
  37. Nassehi, A. (2004). Die Theorie funktionaler Differenzierung im Horizont ihrer Kritik. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 33, 98–118.Google Scholar
  38. Parsons, T. (1971). The System of Modern Societies. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  39. Pickering, A. (1993). The mangle of practice: Agency and emergence in the sociology of science. American Journal of Sociology, 99, 559–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Plessner, H. (1928/1975). Die Stufen des Organischen und der Mensch. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  41. Rawls, A. W. (1996). Durkheim’s epistemology: The neglected argument. American Journal of Sociology, 102(2), 430–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rawls, A. W. (2001). Durkheim’s treatment of practice. Journal of Classical Sociology, 1(1), 33–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rawls, A. W. (2002). Introduction to Garfinkel, H. Ethnomethodology’s program. Working out Durkheim’s aphorism (pp. 1–64). Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers (edited and introduced by Anne Warfield Rawls).Google Scholar
  44. Sartre, J.-P. (1943/1956). Being and nothingness. An essay on phenomenological ontology (H. E. Barnes, Trans.). New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
  45. Sartre, J.-P. (1960/1976). Critique of dialectical reason. Vol. 1: Theory of practical ensembles (A. Sheridan-Smith, Trans.). London: New Left Books.Google Scholar
  46. Schütz, A. (1973). On the methodology of the social sciences. In A. Schütz (Ed.), Collected papers. Vol. 1: The problem of social reality (pp. 3–80). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  47. Simmel, G. (1908/1983). Soziologie. Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung. Berlin: Duncker und Humblot.Google Scholar
  48. Soeffner, H.-G. (1989). Alltagsverstand und Wissenschaft. In H.-G. Soeffner (Ed.), Auslegung des AlltagsDer Alltag der Auslegung. Zur wissenssoziologischen Konzeption einer sozialwissenschaftlichen Hermeneutik (pp. 10–50). Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  49. Weingarten, E., Sack, F., & Schenkein, J. (Eds.). (1976). Ethnomethodologie. Beiträge zu einer Theorie des Alltagshandelns. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für SozialwissenschaftenCarl von Ossietzky UniversitätOldenburgGermany

Personalised recommendations