Patrick Jones                                                                Approximately 150 words

pwj2@geneseo.edu

INTD 105-19: Science Writing

We Have Never Been Modern

            We as a collective find it necessary to separate and classify everything around us. In Bruno Latour’s writing, We Have Never Been Modern, he addresses this necessity of ours and explains how it hinders our ability to be a “modern” world. Using a newspaper, Latour explains how problems like the diminishing ozone layer cannot be separated into distinct categories because, “A single thread links the most esoteric sciences and the most sordid politics…” For us to become a modern world we will either have to stop our need to categorize all aspects of society and nature or redefine what it means to be modern.

My view on the parking curb behind Milne Library acting as a division between nature and civilization contradicts Latour main argument in We Have Never Been Modern. My clear division ignores the multitudinous connections Latour argues exists between everything and stops humanity for entering a modern age.

Juniper Tremper
Scientific Writing 105-19
Geneseo, NY
~165 words

Modern Contamination
Juniper Tremper

If you, like Latour, believe that perfect distinction between categories defines being modern, then this chapter rings truth. We as humans voluntarily “retie the Gordian knot” of labels because we value titles that have been customized for our specific circumstances. After all, as Latour notes, we are hybrids ourselves. However, he says these complex distinguishments do not prove us to be modern, explaining that we have two goals as a civilization: the work of purification, and the work of translation. Purification refers to keeping humans separate from nature, while translation includes creating custom labels and hybrids. As Latour claims, “as soon as we direct our attention simultaneously to [both], we immediately stop being wholly modern.” The self described paradox that he proceeds to detail raises the unanswered question of what will we become if we do not have clear separation.

His writings are curious to consider, but have no clear comparison to the tree planted only to be cut down, unless you rearrange the tree’s situation to be hybridized to better suit your point.

Paul Weissfellner

Prof. Fenn

September 14, 2016

 We Have Never Been Modern

In the first chapter of his book, We Have Never Been Modern, Bruno Latour paints a picture of a society at odds with itself. In his analysis, modernity consists of two parallel, completely separate processes; that of hybridization, and that of purification. According to Latour, it is the separation between the two that is the marker of a modern society. However, in many ways, it is impossible to keep the two separate. “[purification] has made [hybridization] possible; the more we forbid ourselves to conceive of hybrids, the more possible their interbreeding becomes.” (12)

 Latour’s work touches on one of the most intense debates of the modern era: “what does it mean to be modern?” (8) The rock on the south side of campus addresses this question. It is natural, in that it was created by natural forces, and as such is pure and untouched. At the same time, it resides within the bounds of a human structure, that of the college campus, blending between natural and human simply by being.  The two processes pointed out by Latour, that must be kept separate for modernity to exist, coexist peacefully in it, turning his notion of modernity on its head.

Robert Romano

Rjr12@geneseo.edu

Are We Modern?

“We have never been modern, but we have found a way of thinking that we were” is stated by Bruno Latour in We Have Never Been Modern. Latour centers his piece around the idea of “modernism” and talks about how “modernism” deals with “purification” and “translation.” Latour compares science and sociology together and talks about how the world tries to keep these domains separate to be more modern as a society. He states that this is a paradox at its finest because the act of keeping society separate from nature is not allowing our society to reach a modern era. When I read Latour’s writing I found The Greek Tree to perfectly exemplify the vocal point of Latour’s writing. The Greek Tree allows students to support their fraternal/sorietal organization, which they have a tremendous amount of pride in and they get to express their way of life(culture) through the natural world.

Will Gerber                                                                                                      150 words

10 MacVittie Circle

Geneseo, New York 14454

(315) 250-9687

wrg1@geneseo.edu

We Have Never Been Modern

By Will Gerber

The first chapter of Bruno Latour’s We Have Never Been Modern is a commentary on ‘modern’ society’s attempt to categorize existence into rigid sciences. Latour criticizes the way we insist upon dividing the social and natural sciences into two absolutely fixed and completely separate matters. He claims that the two are entirely codependent and should be studied and discussed as such

The Greek Tree in the center of campus is a fitting illustration of Latour’s argument. One may see the tree through a natural lens, studying it as a biological specimen, or, through a social lens, regarding fraternal organizations’ effort to recruit them. However, few modern people would observe the entire picture, the way that we used the natural world to further our social causes.

Rachael Natoli                                                      Approximately 200  words

rln5@geneseo.edu

INTD 105-19: Scientific Writing

In We Have Never Been Modern by Bruno Latour he addressing the dualism between natural science and society. He begins the chapter by discussing the contents of a newspaper. There are many topics included in a single page of a newspaper that have a union between the natural world and societal issues.

“The ozone hole is too social and too narrated to be truly natural…,” which is why it shows that the dualism between the social and the natural is an illusion created by the modern world. To describe the effect the ozone has on our world in an article or essay, societal problems and scientific information must be combined. Latour describes the ideas of critics who say a scientist can not include societal discourse in their academic work as societal issues are not in their field of expertise.

His ideas about the false dichotomy of nature and society connect to the farm land that you can see when looking out from the gazebo into the valley. Farming has been a topic of societal discussion recently due to the animal cruelty by large corporate farms and it is also a part of the natural sciences because it involves the health of plants and animals.

Alec Toufexis

agt9@geneseo.edu

INTD 105-19- Scientific Writing

Latour’s essay states that our society is in fact not modern. To be modern we must be able to consider two practices. “Translation” ,which is a hybrid of nature and culture, and “Purification”, which takes the hybrid and focuses on it’s constituents. However, there is a great dichotomy between the two practices, which is making modernity an unreachable reality.

The author makes it clear that this dichotomy is evident in the newspapers. Right now, our society is more of a hybrid. Latour says, “Press the most innocent aerosol button and you’ll be heading for the Antarctic and from there to the University of California at Irvine, the mountain ranges of Lyon…”. This is what the author calls a “network”, which is more of an “Ariadne’s Thread” that exhaustively takes the reader of a newspaper from one discipline’s view on the subject to another. That is why we need a balance between “Translation” and “Purification”.

With respects to The Greek Tree, I find that we utilize both the “translation” and “purification” practices. We view the tree as associated with Greek Life, but we also see the artwork separate from the natural beauty of the tree.

Jason Gerbsch                                                             Approximately 230 words

jg33@geneseo.edu

INTD 105-19: Scientific Writing

To be modern, according to Latour, is to be simultaneous in our ideas.  Because of this, humans are not modern.  Latour states that, “as soon as one outlines the symmetrical space and thereby reestablishes the common understanding that organizes the separation of natural and political powers, one ceases to be modern” (Latour 1991, 13).

As a society, we don’t like to mix networks together, it becomes too confusing.  An event must belong to one network or the other.  Latour brings up the example of the hole in the ozone.  He states that the ozone hole is too social and too narrated to be truly natural, meaning that the media has so much coverage on the issue, that it can’t be scientific.  However, this is entirely false as many events in our society have multiple networks intertwining.  Using the example of the ozone hole, networks such as science, politics, industry, and more are involved in a matter such as this.  No event or issue can be labeled as belonging to one singular network, because beneath the surface, everything is connected.  Because of this, we are not modern.

I can see the connection between my object and the idea of intertwining networks created by Latour.  Like many events and issues in real life, there are many connections between the ivy and Sturges Hall, as well as humans.

Alexis Baer                                                                                       about 150 words

anb8@geneseo.edu

Student, INTD: Writing Science

“We Have Never Been Modern”
by Alexis Baer

Bruno Latour begins his essay by focusing on a newspaper article that recognizes multiple negative events that begin to rapidly occur. Such topics mentioned include flawed dualisms, religion, culture, technology, law, and the economy in order to further support his argument of separation throughout the writing. Latour’s main points he tries to get across consists of his modernization views and the hybrid of combining nature, that is based off scientific studies, and society together. Modernism is the altering of traditions to form a new way of society using new ideas and thoughts. As Latour explains it; he believes that modernism is the challenging divide between translation and purification. Individuals must consider these different perspectives of such topics as well as forming and changing their own opinions. Although Bruno Latour does give a valid argument, his statements do not quite connect or resemble my object.

Sarah Lambert                                                                                 about 180 words

sel15@geneseo.edu

Student, INTD 105-19: Scientific Writing

“We Have Never Been Modern” Response

By Sarah Lambert

   Since it’s birth, society has found thousands of ways to classify and separate aspects of itself. Latour relies on the example of a newspaper in the beginning of his essay to exemplify this; how it’s easy to see categories like science, religion, fiction, etc. Latour’s argument relies on how this attitude of segregation in society is inaccurate and the paths of these elements do in fact cross, creating “hybrid networks.”

  As time does to many other words, the definition of modern has been altered under many different connotations. Latour believes that we are not able to define ourselves as modern until we define the word itself in which case we may need to adjust our attitudes and beliefs.  He emphasizes his argument about modernity when he writes, “If the modern world in its turn is becoming susceptible to anthropological treatment, this is because something has happened to it.”

   As his argument forces the audience to rethink the definition of “modern,” Latour’s piece seems quite effective in supporting my ideas about the minimal barriers that remain between man and nature.