Latour, LeFevre, Scott

Going into this reading, I was pretty convinced that I’d wind up throwing away everything in Reinventing the Social. I figured that it would contradict what I already believed about the social. I assumed that it would raise some interesting points, but that I would ultimately have little use for it in my own work. It turns out, I was wrong. Perhaps I’ve unjustly colonized/appropriated/co-opted Reinventing the Social for my own purposes, but I now see it as completely compatible with works such as Invention as a Social Act and "Rhetoric as Epistemic”.

I think each work problematizes the idea of authorship. Invention as a Social Act, by LeFevre suggests that all invention (especially the kind supported by Durkheim) is a result of social processes. Each and every writer or actor is capable of influencing and being influenced by every other actor. “Rhetoric as Epistemic,” by Scott, similarly argues that ideas and knowledge are created through the symbolic interaction of human beings.

While I have little doubt that Latour would take exception with much of the language in these two texts, I think he actually has a lot in common with them. He clearly appreciates the idea that any particular text is a result of a multitude of actors who are connected in very complex ways. For instance, he says that a quality text highlights “the ability of each actor to make other actors do unexpected things” (p. 129). He calls a text, “a test on how many actors the writer is able to treat as mediators and how far he or she is able to achieve the social” (p. 128-129). In other words, a connection to other authors and actors is a necessity that ought to be recognized and encouraged.

Here’s the thing: I don’t really know if I’m right about all this, but if I really follow Latour it might not matter. He probably didn’t expect me to compare him to LeFevre and Scott. How about that for movement and energy? Anyway, I’d really like to know if people think I’ve misappropriated and misinterpreted Latour here. Sometimes I can’t tell whether this guy is really enthusiastic about a point in which he believes or is just using hyperbole to show me how silly something is so that he can refute it.