Modes of existence

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Front cover of An Inquiry into Modes of Existence
Modes of Existence , title design of the English edition (2013)

Modes of existence. An Anthropologie der Modernes (French original: Enquête sur les modes d'existence: Une anthropologie des Modernes. 2012, German translation 2014 by Gustav Roßler) is the German title of a work by the French sociologist, ethnologist and philosopher Bruno Latour and can be considered one of his Major works are considered. According to the author, modes of existence represent a connection and extension of the actor-network theory , in whose conception he was significantly involved. Latour appears as an anthropologist who subjects the modern Western world to a new description, but also as a philosopher whojustifies and justifiesan ontological pluralism . Institutional values ​​of different areas of being , such as religion , politics and technology , are distinguished and systematically described using a catalog of criteria. The values ​​of the modes of existence are fragile and are in constant tension, as they tend to judge the values ​​of others according to their own standards. At the same time, the values ​​cannot exist without the others, since they are mutually based on one another. The book represents an interim report because it is continued on an interactive online platform under the project name AIME (An Inquiry into Modes of Existence) ; Those who register can take part in the online discussion about the book and thus become the co-author of a new version.

title

The concept and main title of existence points to a font of Étienne Souriau called The different modes of existence . Both have a common interest in emphasizing the design character of entities and society. Michael Schillmeier writes : "In the sense of Souriau, modes of existence can be understood as a sociological work of art to which any claim to finality is alien." Furthermore, Latour refers to Gilbert Simondon's monograph The Existence of Technical Objects , which previously served as a godfather for Latour's understanding of technology . The concept of disengaging, which came from the semiotic Algirdas Greimas and which Simondon applies to technology, concretizes the design character of Souriau and serves Latour as a central concept for the analysis of networking processes and courses of action beyond technology.

The subtitle An Anthropology of Modernity clarifies, on the one hand, the anthropological perspective that Latour takes in his book, and on the other hand, the spatial and intellectual object that is examined. On the basis of a criticism - with simultaneous appreciation - of conventional cultural and social anthropology, he accuses the lack of an anthropology of modern people. Anthropology always had to draw the distinction between cultivated / scientific thinking and wild thinking , based on the former, so Latour. This enabled the moderns to locate and eliminate archaic elements inside. The anthropological investigation method is thus reversed, whereby the focus is not on the distant, but on one's own Western world, pretending that one's own world is alien. Not cultural marginal phenomena such as folklore and traditions are to be examined, but the large modern institutions such as science, economy and politics. The investigation should not succumb to occidentalism, i.e. trust the theoretical reports and statements that the moderns make about themselves. Instead, so the claim, the practices and courses of action are empirically recorded and analyzed in such a way that the values ​​of the institutions (can) emerge.

Theoretical background

Bruno Latour (2015)

The book contains essential elements of the previous work of Bruno Latour and can thus be seen as an extension and summary of his previous work; he himself writes: “This work sums up an investigation that I have been following with a certain tenacity for a quarter of a century.” His epistemological basic assumptions stem from his ( empirical ) occupation in the 1980s with science and technology studies , which he himself helped shape that play a decisive role in modes of existence . Initially, he was interested in ethnographic observations by scientific researchers in laboratories or the investigation of practical conditions and institutional infrastructures for generating scientific facts. This leads to the understanding that the practical and material (technical devices) creation conditions are largely ignored after the researchers have completed their work. The subject of knowledge and the object of knowledge cannot be separated, or knowledge is produced by the “extension and intensification” of “reference chains”. In addition to examining the practice of natural science, Latour developed what claims to be a generally applicable social theory , the Actor Network Theory (ANT), which ontologically does not differentiate between the human and the material and is thus intended to guarantee that heterogeneous elements of reality can be linked in an associative and network-like manner . According to his own statements, Latour breaks less with the ANT in the modes of existence , rather he wants to continue and complete it; so it serves as a methodological foundation. In the contemporary diagnostic essay We have never been modern, Latour postulates the impossibility of separating society and nature and thus rejects the classic division into premodern and modern . He attests that the moderns deviate from their theoretical self-image from their actual practices. This results in a number of studies that attempt to show this deviation in various areas of society such as science, economics, politics, etc. In the modes of existence represent these areas play a crucial role, because they are assigned values having specific logic and so different ways of being.

Special features of the form of publication

structure

The book, which is divided into three parts and 16 chapters and has 666 pages in the German edition, has the special feature of subordinating the chapters in the table of contents to chapter descriptions in the form of related texts. Within these descriptions there are page numbers at the end of a sentence; conversely, the parts of the sentence can be read on the respective pages next to the indented main text. These parts of the sentence do not have the function of dividing sub-chapters into abstract, logical units, because they can only be understood by reading the entire text and thus offer the reader more information, but less abstraction. The table of contents, which then has 14 pages, is therefore very text-heavy and less clear. On the last pages there is an overview table in which the modes of existence are shown in bullet points using the five ontic dimensions. In addition, the book has a glossary in which the main terms in German, French and English are listed in a table in small caps . The book completely dispenses with a bibliography and source list and largely does without footnotes.

Augmented publication

The publication of the book is accompanied by various projects and was funded as a research project from 2011 to 2015 within the 7th Research Framework Program by the European Research Council of the European Commission . A website called AIME was launched by a team of computer scientists, artists and humanities scholars under the direction of Bruno Latours, of the Medialab research center at the grande école (University) Sciences Po in Paris. The book is therefore not yet finished, because a working group and associated colleagues are working collectively on the online platform to further develop the content of the text. After registration, anyone interested can generally participate and help redesign the text. Since the website was relaunched in 2015, it has been increasingly used to clear up interpretation and understanding problems. The site also offers a digital version of the book, a glossary, photos, videos and quotes in English or French. The contributors are asked to continuously expand the sources. As a multimedia project and as an experiment of a collective online editorial department, it should be placed in the broader context of digital humanities and thus gradually breaks away from Bruno Latour as the author. Other parts of the project also include a series of workshops and seminars with experts from different countries; an art exhibition, Reset Modernity! , within the polyphonic art format GLOBALE at the ZKM Karlsruhe , to present the content artistically.

content

Epistemology

In times of climate change and ecological crises, science faces the pragmatic challenge in political debates of having to defend the objectivity of scientific facts from being confused with opinions. Latour claims that the highly complex objects and far-reaching findings of climatology cause serious social and political consequences for all of humanity. So because these results affect so many people, objectivity can be questioned in controversies beyond science, and scientists can no longer rely solely on the certainty that their facts are of an indisputable nature, even though Latour does know the existence of confirmed knowledge not deny. A modern age in which a strict distinction between scientific facts and political values ​​is wanted can no longer be maintained in the Anthropocene if hybrid forms such as climate change multiply. That is why Latour sees modernization as the opposite of greening: "We have to choose between modernizing and greening."

Latour's antisubstantial and anthropological thinking leads to epistemological knowledge that lies beyond the dualisms (matter and spirit, nature and culture, science and politics, etc.) of many western philosophies. He explains that the mathematical formalisms for describing natural phenomena in the modern age have become the substance (basis) of human knowledge or of the knowing spirit by means of a great transcendental leap . The practical stages that take place before the mathematical abstraction , the “reference chains” (experiments, observations, graphical representations, etc.) are ignored and not viewed as part of the knowledge. At the same time, behind the individual natural phenomena that are abstracted into matter, a transcendental substance is positioned, which in turn is supposed to ensure their existence. Because one could not imagine that natural phenomena precede humans and that they always had to ensure their existence and reproduction themselves. The substance this time was the knowing mind itself. Since both category errors , as Latour calls them, did not make much sense on their own, both were crossed. That is, the mathematical signs, better known as the laws of nature , became the substance and condition of the material world. This gives rise to the modern belief that the world, independent of man, consists of indisputable facts that only need to be discovered. Latour blames rationalism for maintaining this thought regime. With the term res ratiocinans (based on Descartes ' res extensa and res cogitans ) he criticizes this historically grown idealism of matter.

“How can you stop this deluge that drowns everything that exists under the waters of matter - the thought of matter? The difficulty ceases, the waters begin to run off as soon as one realizes that this Res Ratiocinans in no way consists of or in space. It gives the impression of being 'everywhere' because it is literally nowhere , because it does not pay for its movements by setting up any network. If it is able to flood everything (in thought), it is because it never pays for the cost of its expansion, because it blurs all the gaps, skips all passes and acts as if there were only shifts of undeformable necessities, of cause -Effect chains from which the smallest jump, the smallest interruption of continuity, the hiatus between cause and effect would have disappeared [...] "

From the fundamental criticism of the rationalistic knowledge and with the telos of a sustainable and common world, an epistemology emerges that is mutually derived from an experience-based empiricism . The epistemology itself becomes a mode of existence as a reference [ref] . The subject of knowledge and the object of knowledge arise from the co-production of knowledge. They are part of a reference chain that is characterized by a constant sequence of different references in networks. Information is passed on in the chain, which changes in its material form at each station. "We wanted to understand by which instruments, which machinery, which material, historical, anthropological conditions it is possible to produce objectivity." B. practices, statements, people, apparatus, machines, flows of substances and energies, rooms, such as laboratories , etc. in different and each time new contexts. Because ontologically human and material things and epistemologically knowing consciousness and known nature can no longer be separated, the difference between ontology and epistemology is put into perspective . Being is not independent of the knowledge of being and vice versa, writes Braun. From a pragmatic point of view, the description of the practice of the scientists and the material and practical conditions in which knowledge came about brings more trust to the scientific institution. Although trust in the institution tends to decline, its credibility is based precisely on the fact that it guarantees the truth of statements. Trust in the institution is necessary to make up for the lack of belief in the certainty of indisputable facts, and thus to better defend objectivity in controversies.

Ontological pluralism

Knowledge as a reference [ref] thus gives up the hegemony to judge other entities according to their rational standards and to claim an objective truth only for themselves. Instead, there are other truths or other types of truth-speaking that make up the values ​​of other modes of existence, such as a political, religious, aesthetic truth, etc. These truths correspond to the values ​​of spheres of activity. Those areas that are most important for the development and understanding of modernity are in some cases not adequately anchored in an institution because different values ​​are in conflict. Latour sees the renewed institutionalization of suppressed values ​​as his diplomatic claim. Every mode of existence has different “principles of judgment” that are used “explicitly” and “reflexively” to decide between “true” and “false”. So there are different ways of articulating reality. However, these cannot be classified according to a dualism either on one side of the language or on the other side of the world. “When there are several ways of existing and not just two, one can no longer simply define one by contradicting the other.” While the dualism is undermined here, the ontology expands in two ways. Latour summarizes the diversity of existence, i.e. the different modes of existence and the different forms of judgment about what exists, with the concept of ontological pluralism.

“In order to move forward in our investigation, we need an ontological pluralism that was hardly possible before, since the only permitted pluralism was perhaps in the language, in the culture, in the representations, at least not in the things themselves, because these were completely absorbed by that strange task of forming the outside world, starting from a matter of argumentative substance, the res ratiocinans. "

network

The term actor network is used to empirically describe the social practice of institutions , as it determines the position of actors solely through their effect and is thus able to symmetrically describe the procedural contributions of human and non-human beings. As a metalinguistic instrument and its own way of existence, called network [net] , it enables the temporal chains of action to be determined, which lead through various social areas, to be identified in individual cases. The networks connect or cross the boundaries of the areas and allow articulatory connections between them, because in reality they are always mixed up. Latour describes it as "[e] in tool that takes into account the fact that a border indicates less a boundary line between two homogeneous ensembles than an intensification of border traffic between foreign elements."

Relationships of modes of existence

At the same time, however, the network mode has the difficulty of taking into account the differences that people reflexively make of their world through institutions. Only the empirical tracing of the network of relationships is insufficient to determine the intrinsic logic of certain fields of action or institutions (modes of existence). The network perspective is unable to differentiate between different forms of association. The program of modes of existence aims to overcome this deficiency by introducing another mode of existence called the preposition [pre] . If a connection is found between two potential fields of action by means of [net] in empirical research, [pre] is able to cross the two fields of action as modes of existence in metalinguistic terms and thus to show which modes of existence one is dealing with. That means: the intrinsic logics of the two modes of existence, as well as their differences from one another, are highlighted by comparing them. So they can be theoretically differentiated and self-referentially articulate their own values, but at the same time the modes of existence are based on each other down to their innermost functionality. They are interdependent and serve as tools for one another. These relationships are visible through the intersections. Thus keeping Henning Laux fits firmly: "So science needs the fiction to the areas covered by their references to give a concrete shape [ref ∙ fik] , the religion needs organizational processes to transport credibly to promise of salvation through institutional infrastructures [rel ∙ org] , Politics counts on the right in order to establish collective liability [pol ∙ rec] , networks are dependent on the directional signals of prepositions for their expansion [net ∙ pre] , moral concerns can only have an effect if there is even the possibility of Reversal gives [mor ∙ met] , technical innovations are only permanent if their practical handling can be inscribed in the habits [tec ∙ gew] etc. ”However, if a mode of existence applies its own logic to another mode of existence or to its practice, then a category error is spoken of. In modes of existence, Latour anthropologically investigates the historical and large-scale category errors of modernity. He identifies them with the concept of belief - taking one thing for another - as a distinction to beliefs and declares them to be the constitutive and constitutive principle of modernity. At the intersection [ref · rel], for example, the ultimately unsuccessful scientific attempt to prove God , with simultaneous rejection of God as an object of religious experience, can be registered as a category error.

How the modes of existence work

The new description of being as being-as-other functions axiomatically as an ontological template for all modes of existence. It is expressed through five interrelated ontic dimensions.

  1. The essence of existence is not determined by the assignment of essential properties, but the essence is the process of creation and persistence, the " trajectory " of entities. The trajectory describes the specific process logic of a mode of existence. The existing ones have to secure their existence themselves.
  2. An existing course of action can break off if it is unable to overcome gaps (hiatus) through small transcendent jumps.
  3. Success or failure depends on certain conditions of success or failure, which allow judgments about truth and falsehood within a mode of existence. According to Fabian Link , the terms come from the speech act theory of John Austin and John Searle , with which principles of American pragmatism come into play, according to which what succeeds or works is true.
  4. While being takes shape through different modes of existence, it experiences specific changes, so-called alterations, depending on the mode of existence. They are available as resources for the other modes of existence.
  5. In the event of success, a mode of existence produces beings to be installed , that is, manifestations that must be understood as abstract institutions that must be maintained and restored. Entities as diverse as living beings, physical forces, political groups, organizations, psyches, inventions, and works of art can be viewed.

The different modes of existence

Latour summarizes the modes of existence in different groups. The first group includes reproduction [rep] , metamorphosis [met] and habit [gew] ; they precede man. Reproduction refers to chains of operations that subsist living bodies such as humans, animals, plants, bacteria, physical forces, etc., which humans have later combined to form nature. The beings of reproduction all fight for survival in their own way and therefore have their own ontological dignity, although they are not to be equated with natural laws. With metamorphosis are meant invisible beings that are capable of change and cause change. They are supposed to connect the invisible world with the visible world, since by giving up dualism they can no longer be positioned only in the inner world of the human being, as internal representations. Only through them could humans develop a psyche. Through crisis-prone emotions, they constantly influence people even in modern times. Latour speaks of psychogenic networks, such as computer games , psychoanalysis , or rainbow press and so on, which are abundant in modern times. He makes no distinction between these and spirits , deities or idols from other cultures .

Today people are what they are because they have frequented modes of existence such as technology [tec] , art / fiction [fik] and scientific reference [ref] . “They have become skilful, imaginative and capable of knowing because they had a lot to do with these modes of existence.” At the same time, these modes of existence, which Latour summarizes as quasi-objects, could only develop through humans. The modes of existence of the quasi-subjects consisting of politics [pol] , law [rec] and religion [rel] give people the opportunity to express themselves and are thus producers of subjectivities. Complex processes create independent citizens, responsible people, loved and recognized people.

After matter, economy is the second “nature” of modernity; it actually consists of three modes of existence of the fourth group. It claims to connect the quasi-objects and the quasi-subjects with one another. The mode binding [am] replaces the exchange and aims contrary to the desire of goods and products by passionate interests, making goods but also the evil be reproduced. Organization [org] makes it possible to create organizations through action-guiding scripts that create frames, roles and proportions. For Latour, morality means determining the optimal end-means relationship.

reception

The reader is guided through the book by a staged, fictional ethnologist . It is endowed with the claim to adopt an ethnographic and unbiased perspective by means of which the large modern institutions are to be examined. Henning Laux states that "[...] their appearance [...] the availability of a transcendent observer's point of view that leaves behind not only cultural assumptions, but also field-specific perspectives and knowledge." This independence is reinforced by the fact that the printed book does not have any sources or literature references, which prevents both positive and negative references to other authors and makes it difficult to connect scientifically to existing knowledge, so it is up to the reader to make scientific classifications. In terms of language, too, says Andreas Braun, the text appears “somewhat chaotic and unstructured”, and there are also many “methodical, conceptual, stylistic and content-related innovations”. This creates the impression of a context-free investigation, which, as in René Descartes ' meditations , is everything doubts, only to come to knowledge about being with an undisguised look, even though Latour sharply criticizes him as the founding father of a rationalistic dualism. In contrast, Latour refers on a large scale to his own empirical studies without naming them. However, these are essential for understanding and comprehension, which means that knowledge of the complete works of Latour is required. Laux comments on this: “The representation of modes of existence, such as law, religion or technology, lags far behind the richness of detail achieved in previous studies in some points. It remains unclear whether the reduced representation is justified by a rejection of previous insights, or whether knowledge of this work is simply assumed to be known Moving work outside the limits of the social sciences.

The extent to which the work turns away from the earlier program of actor-network theory is answered differently. Markus Schroer asks the ANT whether human actors not only want to see themselves gathered in a network, but also want to differentiate themselves. Only parts of the links between reality can be made the subject of scientific research, notes Georg Kneer and Max Weber . At the ANT one searches in vain for restrictive categories that, like Weber's value ideas, are able to highlight certain sections of the infinite diversity of the world. Latour joins the ranks of the critics of his ANT in terms of modes of existence and diagnoses: “It is therefore not completely groundless to accuse this theory of Machiavellianism : everything can be associated with everything without it being clear how one should define what is successful and what can fail. ”With the modes of existence, it seems, Latour provides the required value differences of the social world without giving up the actor-network theory. Andreas Braun speaks of a metaphysical turnaround because his “conceptual instruments” are “considerably expanded and programmatically restructured” in such a way that not only hybrids, but all phenomena that exist for him, including nature, are involved. Henning Laux recognizes the overcoming of the inadequacies of the ANT through the project of modes of existence, already speaks of a sociology of modes of existence and attests to Latour a turning point in differentiation theory . He establishes a certain proximity to differentiation theoretic authors such as Max Weber, Jürgen Habermas or Pierre Bourdieu .

Above all, the comparison with Niklas Luhmann's system theory is at the center of the debate, because both authors “rely on an operative theoretical system in which distinct logics of meaning are understood not as substances but as processes,” says Laux. Andreas Braun's large-scale comparison works out similarities, despite persistent differences, according to which both start from an iterative knowledge that is produced in a functionally differentiated society in one of several extracts of reality. Neither science nor politics (etc.), as particular forms of the construction of reality, can claim a sovereignty of interpretation. "Both theorists have so far tried to develop an enlightening position on modernity - Luhmann with the sociological enlightenment, Latour in symmetrical anthropology [...]." Werner Vogd sees a closeness between Latour and Luhmann in the complementary mirror image of their theoretical programs. Both take epistemically opposing starting points, but both end up with the same reference problem or a desideratum which forces them to expand their theoretical program. The main difference, however, is the different accentuation of people who, at Luhmann, are outside of society or in the system's environment. Latour focuses on it as a hybrid aggregate, due to the metatheoretical nature, according to which the modes of existence are conceptualized through the practices. “Formatted by a specific combination of mutually enacting quasi-objects and quasi-subjects, man becomes a sentient being who has to give an account to himself and others, who experiences grace and salvation , and who can commit sin with regard to himself to err on the constitutional conditions of his own nature. ”So Latour repeatedly points out that he could be mistaken about the modes of existence and that the book is only a provisional report. As a scientific and human observer or as the materiality of a reflexivity, he does not see himself in relation to the world, but rather as a part of it, says Vogd. Latour counteracts its own fallibility with the collective and collaborative improvement and further development of the text on the Internet platform AIME, where some human scientists reflect in a network-like manner on ontologies and metaphysics of many people.

Web links

literature

  • Andreas Braun: Latour's modes of existence and Luhmann's functional systems. A sociological comparison of theories. Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2017, ISBN 978-3-658-17283-1
  • Michael Cuntz et al. Lorenz Engell : Giving the cows their color back - From ANT and the sociology of translation to the project of modes of existence. In: Journal for Media and Culture Research . Issue 2/2013, pp. 83-100.
  • Lars Gertenbach : Delimitation of the Sociology. Bruno Latour and Constructivism . Velbrück, Weilerswist 2015, ISBN 978-3-95832-049-9 .
  • Bruno Latour : modes of existence. An anthropology of the modern. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt / M. 2014, ISBN 978-3-518-58607-5
  • Bruno Latour: A new sociology for a new society. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt / M. 2010, ISBN 978-3-518-29567-0
  • Bruno Latour: Biography of an inquiry: On a book about modes of existence. In: Social Studies of Science . Issue 43 (2) / 2013, pp. 287–301.
  • Henning Laux : (Ed.): Bruno Latour's sociology of “modes of existence”. Introduction and discussion. transcript, Bielefeld 2016, ISBN 978-3-8376-3125-8
  • Henning Laux: Sociology of modes of existence: Bruno Latour. In: Jörn Lamla , Henning Laux, Hartmut Rosa, David Strecker (eds.) Handbuch der Sociologie . UTB, Konstanz / Munich 2014, pp. 261–280, ISBN 978-3-8252-8601-9
  • Fabian Link: Reassembling Non-Modernity: Bruno Latour's New Ways of Existence . In: Historyka. Studia Metodologiczne T. , Issue 45/2015, pp. 173-192.
  • John Tresch: Another turn after ANT: An interview with Bruno Latour. In: Social Studies of Science , Issue 43 (2) / 2013, 302–313.
  • Werner Vogd : The hiatus - on the mirror image of the research programs Latour and Luhmann. In: Social Systems. Issue 20 (1) / 2015, pp. 193–206

Remarks

  1. ↑ http://modesofexistence.org
  2. ↑ Michael Schillmeier: [DK] From the soul slayer of difference. Double click in the modes of existence . In: Henning Laux (Ed.): Bruno Latour's Sociology of Existence - Introduction and Discussion. transcript, Bielefeld 2016, p. 207
  3. ↑ Emanuel Herold: [TEC] The mode of existence of technology. In: Henning Laux (Hrsg.): Bruno Latour's sociology of modes of existence - introduction and discussion . transcript, Bielefeld 2016, p. 171
  4. ↑ Henning Laux: From the actor network theory to the sociology of modes of existence . In: Henning Laux (Ed.): Bruno Latour's Sociology of Existence - Introduction and Discussion. transcript, Bielefeld 2016, p. 22
  5. ↑ Bruno Latour: modes of existence. An anthropology of the modern . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt / M. 2014, p. 47
  6. ↑ Bruno Latour: modes of existence. An anthropology of the modern . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt / M. 2014, p. 66
  7. ↑ Bruno Latour: modes of existence. An anthropology of the modern. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt / M. 2014, p. 21
  8. ↑ Andreas Braun: Latour's modes of existence and Luhmann's functional systems. A sociological comparison of theories. Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2017, p. 31
  9. ↑ Bruno Latour: modes of existence. An anthropology of the modern . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt / M. 2014, p. 134
  10. ↑ Henning Laux: From the actor network theory to the sociology of modes of existence . In: Henning Laux (Ed.): Bruno Latour's Sociology of Existence - Introduction and Discussion . transcript, Bielefeld 2016, p. 14
  11. ↑ Bruno Latour: modes of existence. An anthropology of the modern . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt / M. 2014
  12. ↑ https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/98860_en.html
  13. ↑ Bruno Latour: modes of existence. An anthropology of the modern . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt / M. 2014, p. 21
  14. ↑ http://modesofexistence.org/#support
  15. ↑ Henning Laux: From the actor network theory to the sociology of modes of existence. In: Henning Laux (Ed.): Bruno Latour's Sociology of Existence - Introduction and Discussion. transcript, Bielefeld 2016, p. 10
  16. ↑ https://vimeo.com/44456882
  17. ↑ https://zkm.de/event/2016/04/globale-reset-modernity Globale
  18. ↑ Bruno Latour: modes of existence. An anthropology of the modern . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt / M. 2014, p. 40
  19. ↑ Bruno Latour: modes of existence. An anthropology of the modern . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt / M. 2014, p. 172ff
  20. ↑ Bruno Latour: modes of existence. An anthropology of the modern . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt / M. 2014, p. 182
  21. ↑ Bruno Latour: modes of existence. An anthropology of the modern . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt / M. 2014, p. 184
  22. ↑ Andreas Braun: Latour's modes of existence and Luhmann's functional systems. A sociological comparison of theories. Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2017, p. 78
  23. ↑ Fabian Link: Reassembling Non-Modernity: Bruno Latour's New Ways of Existence . In: Historyka. Studia Metodologiczne T. , Issue 45/2015, p. 175.
  24. ↑ Bruno Latour: modes of existence. An anthropology of the modern . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt / M. 2014, p. 138
  25. ↑ Andreas Braun: Latour's modes of existence and Luhmann's functional systems. A sociological comparison of theories. Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2017, p. 75
  26. ↑ Andreas Braun: Latour's modes of existence and Luhmann's functional systems. A sociological comparison of theories. Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2017, pp. 31,39,74
  27. ↑ Andreas Braun: Latour's modes of existence and Luhmann's functional systems. A sociological comparison of theories. Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2017, p. 42
  28. ↑ Bruno Latour: modes of existence. An anthropology of the modern . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt / M. 2014, pp. 31–40
  29. ^ Henning Laux: Sociology of the modes of existence: Bruno Latour . In: Jörn Lamla, Henning Laux, Hartmut Rosa, David Strecker (eds.) Handbuch der Sociologie. UTB, Konstanz / Munich 2014, p. 276
  30. ↑ Bruno Latour: modes of existence. An anthropology of the modern . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt / M. 2014, p. 99
  31. ↑ Bruno Latour: modes of existence. An anthropology of the modern . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt / M. 2014, p. 291
  32. ↑ Andreas Braun: Latour's modes of existence and Luhmann's functional systems. A sociological comparison of theories. Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2017, p. 38.
  33. ↑ Bruno Latour: modes of existence. An anthropology of the modern. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt / M. 2014, p. 214
  34. ↑ Werner Vogd: The Hiatus - on the mirror image of the research programs Latours and Luhmanns. In: Social Systems. Issue 20 (1) / 2015, p. 196
  35. ↑ Henning Laux: From the actor network theory to the sociology of modes of existence. In: Henning Laux (Ed.): Bruno Latour's Sociology of Existence - Introduction and Discussion . transcript, Bielefeld 2016, p. 16
  36. ↑ Bruno Latour: modes of existence. An anthropology of the modern . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt / M. 2014, p. 68.
  37. ↑ Henning Laux: From the actor network theory to the sociology of modes of existence. In: Henning Laux (Ed.): Bruno Latour's Sociology of Existence - Introduction and Discussion. transcript, Bielefeld 2016, p. 17
  38. ↑ Bruno Latour: modes of existence. An anthropology of the modern . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt / M. 2014, p. 104
  39. ↑ Henning Laux: From the actor network theory to the sociology of modes of existence. In: Henning Laux (Ed.): Bruno Latour's Sociology of Existence - Introduction and Discussion. transcript, Bielefeld 2016, p. 24
  40. ↑ Henning Laux: From the actor network theory to the sociology of modes of existence . In: Henning Laux (Ed.): Bruno Latour's Sociology of Existence - Introduction and Discussion . transcript, Bielefeld 2016, pp. 24–25.
  41. ↑ Bruno Latour: modes of existence. An anthropology of the modern . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt / M. 2014, pp. 104–112
  42. ↑ Andreas Braun: Latour's modes of existence and Luhmann's functional systems. A sociological comparison of theories . Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2017, p. 60
  43. ^ Henning Laux: Sociology of the modes of existence : Bruno Latour. In: Jörn Lamla, Henning Laux, Hartmut Rosa, David Strecker (eds.) Handbuch der Sociologie . UTB, Konstanz / Munich 2014, p. 274
  44. ↑ Andreas Braun: Latour's modes of existence and Luhmann's functional systems. A sociological comparison of theories . Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2017, p. 44
  45. ↑ Andreas Braun: Latour's modes of existence and Luhmann's functional systems. A sociological comparison of theories . Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2017, p. 50
  46. ↑ Fabian Link: Reassembling Non-Modernity: Bruno Latour's New Ways of Existence . In: Historyka. Studia Metodologiczne T. , Issue 45/2015, p. 178
  47. ↑ Andreas Braun: Latour's modes of existence and Luhmann's functional systems. A sociological comparison of theories . Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2017, p. 51
  48. ↑ Fabian Link: Reassembling Non-Modernity: Bruno Latour's New Ways of Existence . In: Historyka. Studia Metodologiczne T. , Issue 45/2015, p. 184.
  49. ↑ Andreas Braun: Latour's modes of existence and Luhmann's functional systems. A sociological comparison of theories . Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2017, p. 51
  50. ↑ Henning Laux: From the actor network theory to the sociology of modes of existence . In: Henning Laux (Ed.): Bruno Latour's Sociology of Existence - Introduction and Discussion . transcript, Bielefeld 2016, p. 19
  51. ↑ Andreas Braun: Latour's modes of existence and Luhmann's functional systems. A sociological comparison of theories . Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2017, p. 52
  52. ↑ Bruno Latour: modes of existence. An anthropology of the modern . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt / M. 2014, p. 174
  53. ↑ Fabian Link: Reassembling Non-Modernity: Bruno Latour's New Ways of Existence . In: Historyka. Studia Metodologiczne T. , Issue 45/2015, p. 183.
  54. ↑ Bruno Latour: modes of existence. An anthropology of the modern . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 2014, p. 273.
  55. ↑ Bruno Latour: modes of existence. An anthropology of the modern . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 2014, p. 507.
  56. ↑ Bruno Latour: modes of existence. An anthropology of the modern . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt / M. 2014, p. 507
  57. ↑ Henning Laux: From the actor network theory to the sociology of modes of existence . In: Henning Laux (Ed.): Bruno Latour's Sociology of Existence - Introduction and Discussion . transcript, Bielefeld 2016, p. 20
  58. ↑ Andreas Braun: Latour's modes of existence and Luhmann's functional systems. A sociological comparison of theories . Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2017, p. 55
  59. ↑ Henning Laux: From the actor network theory to the sociology of modes of existence . In: Henning Laux (Ed.): Bruno Latour's Sociology of Existence - Introduction and Discussion . transcript, Bielefeld 2016, p. 20
  60. ↑ Henning Laux: From the actor network theory to the sociology of modes of existence . In: Henning Laux (Ed.): Bruno Latour's Sociology of Existence - Introduction and Discussion . transcript, Bielefeld 2016, p. 20
  61. ↑ Henning Laux: From the actor network theory to the sociology of modes of existence . In: Henning Laux (Ed.): Bruno Latour's Sociology of Existence - Introduction and Discussion . transcript, Bielefeld 2016, p. 11
  62. ↑ Henning Laux: From the actor network theory to the sociology of modes of existence . In: Henning Laux (Ed.): Bruno Latour's Sociology of Existence - Introduction and Discussion . transcript, Bielefeld 2016, p. 23
  63. ↑ Andreas Braun: Latour's modes of existence and Luhmann's functional systems. A sociological comparison of theories. Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2017, p. 15
  64. ↑ Bruno Latour: modes of existence. An anthropology of the modern . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 2014, p. 23
  65. ↑ Henning Laux: From the actor network theory to the sociology of modes of existence . In: Henning Laux (Ed.): Bruno Latour's Sociology of Existence - Introduction and Discussion . transcript, Bielefeld 2016, p. 11.
  66. ↑ Henning Laux: From the actor network theory to the sociology of modes of existence . In: Henning Laux (Ed.): Bruno Latour's Sociology of Existence - Introduction and Discussion . transcript, Bielefeld 2016, pp. 13-14
  67. ↑ Markus Schroer: Mixing, Mediating, Networking. Bruno Latour's Sociology of Mixtures and Mixtures in Context. In Georg Kneer, Markus Schroer, Erhard Schüttpelz (eds.): Bruno Latours collective. Suhrkamp. Frankfurt / Main 2008, p. 389
  68. ↑ Georg Kneer: Hybridicity, Circulating Reference, Amodern? A criticism of Bruno Latour's sociology . In Georg Kneer, Markus Schroer, Erhard Schüttpelz (eds.): Bruno Latours collective. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt / Main 2008, p. 286
  69. ↑ Bruno Latour: modes of existence. An anthropology of the modern . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt / M. 2014, p. 113
  70. ↑ Andreas Braun: Latour's modes of existence and Luhmann's functional systems. A sociological comparison of theories . Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2017, p. 15
  71. ↑ Andreas Braun: Latour's modes of existence and Luhmann's functional systems. A sociological comparison of theories . Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2017, p. 16
  72. ↑ Henning Laux: From the actor network theory to the sociology of modes of existence . In: Henning Laux (Ed.): Bruno Latour's Sociology of Existence - Introduction and Discussion . transcript, Bielefeld 2016, p. 15
  73. ↑ Henning Laux: From the actor network theory to the sociology of modes of existence . In: Henning Laux (Ed.): Bruno Latour's Sociology of Existence - Introduction and Discussion . transcript, Bielefeld 2016, p. 26
  74. ↑ Andreas Braun: Latour's modes of existence and Luhmann's functional systems. A sociological comparison of theories . Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2017, p. 156
  75. ↑ Andreas Braun: Latour's modes of existence and Luhmann's functional systems. A sociological comparison of theories . Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2017, p. 159
  76. ↑ Werner Vogd: The Hiatus - on the mirror image of the research programs Latours and Luhmanns. In: Social Systems. Issue 20 (1) / 2015, pp. 193f
  77. ↑ Werner Vogd: The Hiatus - on the mirror image of the research programs Latours and Luhmanns. In: Social Systems. Issue 20 (1) / 2015, p. 204
  78. ↑ Bruno Latour: modes of existence. An anthropology of the modern . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt / M. 2014, p. 21
  79. ↑ Werner Vogd: The Hiatus - on the mirror image of the research programs Latours and Luhmanns. In: Social Systems. Issue 20 (1) / 2015, p. 205