The Bringing Forth of Dialogue: Latour Versus Maturana

Abstract

After introducing the problem and a short impression of the work of Humberto Maturana, I elaborate on his ideas concerning science and the scientific explanation (1.) and objectivity (2.). In an evaluation of these views I claim that we cannot accept some consequences of Maturana’s theory, because they leave no space for discussion (3.). I then turn to Bruno Latour, and after a short introduction (4.) proceed to claim that there are some interesting similarities between Latour and Maturana (5.), especially in their respective ideas on the praxis of explaining. I further claim that Latour’s idea of ’infrareflexivity’ constitutes a way out of the problems with Maturana’s theory (6.). I conclude with a ’plea for taking dialogue seriously’ (7.). Along the way, it turns out, I could show Latour a counterexample of his claim that systems theorists are not aware of their own role in creating ’systems’.

“The notion of system is of no use to us, for a system is the end product of tinkering and not its point of departure (...). For a system to exist, entities must be clearly defined, whereas in practice this is never the case; functions must be clear, whereas most actors are uncertain whether they want to command or obey; the exchange of equivalents between entities or subsystems must be agreed, whereas everywhere there are disputes about the rate and direction of exchange. Systems do not exist, but systematizing is common enough; everywhere there are forces that oblige others to play the way they have always played (...).” (Latour, 1984/1988, p. 198)