‘Nothing has sufficient time to crystallize. Everything is in a liquid state. Nothing has a chance to be tested for its good or bad qualities. We really do not know which of the incessantly changing “ models” and values are good and which are poor. Therefore the whole social life and the whole mentality are also in a liquid state, formless, shapeless, foggy, like a primeval protoplasm or a crowd of fleeting shadows. One would look in vain, in this fog of shadows, for clear-cut boundary lines between the sinister and the benevolent, the good and bad, the true and false, the beautiful and ugly, the wholesome and harmful, right and wrong. The shadow values are so crowded, so foggy, they come and go so fast, that no such lines can be established. Hence the supreme reign of relativism in our mentality and culture — relativism of everything. Hence a lack of any certainty, stability, and security in our mental and social life. In this atmosphere of queer, dancing shadow values nobody can feel secure; nobody can have firm ground under his feet. We try our best to “ adjust ” ourselves to this continuous change. A hopeless task, more hopeless than that of Sisyphus. The only result of this desperate “adjustment of maladjustments” is exhaustion, fatigue, and the senseless state of “ being busy doing nothing”‘ (Sorokin, 1957/1970, p.320).
From Social and Cultural Dynamics (4 vol., 1937–41; rev. and abridged ed. 1957) by Pitirim Sorokin.
Bruno Latour’s recent (Feb,2013) Gifford Lectures at the University of Edinburgh deserve to be more widely viewed than they have been. Indeed, if history is any guide, they probably will be, eventually. Already I have heard about an upcoming workshop organized around the lecture series, and a book based on the series is forthcoming. Past luminaries of these lectures, which were established to ‘promote and diffuse the study of natural theology in the widest sense of the term’ have included some of the most influential thinkers (and books) of the last century, including William James (1900-1902, The Varieties of Religious Experience), Henri Bergson (1913-14, The Problem of Personality), Hannah Arendt (1976, Life of the Mind), and, with particular significance for Latour, Alfred North Whitehead (1927-28, Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology).
This last work, still notoriously troublesome despite its various revisions since Whitehead delivered it in Edinburgh almost a century ago, echoes throughout Latour’s six lectures. Latour speaks; Whitehead stands at his shoulder. It is clear that Professor Latour enjoyed following in ‘his philosopher’s’ footsteps. The key themes of the lectures circle around the implications of living in a new epoch in which humans are significantly affecting the earth’s ecosystem: the anthropocene. The abstract for the series as a whole reads:
Facing Gaia. A New Inquiry into Natural Religion.
There could be no better theme for a lecture series on natural religion than that of Gaia, this puzzling figure that has emerged recently in public discourse from Earth science as well as from many activist and spiritual movements. The problem is that the expression of ”natural religion” is somewhat of a pleonasm, since Western definitions of nature borrow so much from theology. The set of lectures attempts to decipher the face of Gaia in order to redistribute the notions that have been packed too tightly into the composite notion of ”natural religion”.
Politics, science and religion are brought into dialogue, via a sustained contemplation of Gaia, rather than nature. What this shift calls for above all is a (political) shift from matters of fact to matters of concern, which is, in itself, a Whiteheadian shift. The draft text of the lectures is available here (pdf), but the published book is on the way. The remaining five lectures are below the fold. I have only recently finished viewing them all and I am not ready to offer a critique just yet. I may have to read (and re-read) the notes or the book that emerges to fully grasp what Latour is saying. His project is vast, and requires, demands, serious attention. These lectures are a good place to begin.
The abstract for the first lecture is:
Once Out of Nature – natural religion as a pleonasm
The set of questions around the two words “natural religion” implies that only the second word is a coded and thus a disputed category, the first one being taken for granted and uncoded. But if it can be shown that the very notion of nature is a theological construct, we might be able to shift the problem somewhat: the question becomes not to save or resurrect “natural religion”, but to dispose of it by offering at last a ”secular” version of nature and of the natural sciences.
They get better as they go on. Persevere. And enjoy!