view of capitalism is of an ethnologist much more than that of a political ‘that commentator.’ The canvases go on to sell for half a million euros a piece. It is not difficult when thinking of this ethnographic gaze that reflects and – perhaps inadvertently valorises contemporary capitalism, rather than directly critiquing it to recall the work of Bruno Latour. His project of actor-network theory – speaks to the descriptive project of mapping and charting hence the ‘objects’ – litany’ of objects that recur in his studies. Beginning in the social ‘Latour study of science Latour’s articulation of networks, appropriately, seems to extend everywhere: urbanism, law, art, philosophy, politics, etc. His work has also been influential, notably most recently in the articulation of so-called realism’, ‘speculative but also more broadly in literary and cultural studies. Houellebecq’s scene, in which the artist profits from his descriptions, also speaks to the equivocal status of such gestures. While Latour’s work is premised on the novelty of network analysis as a mode he notes that this approach seems to mirror the operations of a capitalism. What concerns me here is not only analysing the risk of a convergence between this style of analysis and the features of contemporary capitalism but also, more broadly, the equivocal attraction exerted by this kind of work its discreet – charm. In particular, I am concerned with Latour as merely one symptomatic instance of the turn from critical analysis to the descriptive, and the ‘anti-critique’; loss of confidence in the very gesture of critique. I could have chosen many other figures to target this kind of so widespread is it; for example, we could ‘anti-critique’, consider the work of Jacques Rancière, which relentlessly problematizes the
view of capitalism is ‘that of an ethnologist much more than that of a political commentator.’ The canvases go on to sell for half a million euros a piece. It is not difficult – when thinking of this ethnographic gaze that reflects and perhaps inadvertently valorises contemporary capitalism, rather than directly critiquing it – to recall the work of Bruno Latour. His project of actor-network theory speaks to the descriptive project of mapping and charting ‘objects’ – hence the ‘Latour litany’ of objects that recur in his studies. Beginning in the social study of science Latour’s articulation of networks, appropriately, seems to extend everywhere: urbanism, law, art, philosophy, politics, etc. His work has also been influential, notably most recently in the articulation of so-called ‘speculative realism’, but also more broadly in literary and cultural studies. Houellebecq’s scene, in which the artist profits from his descriptions, also speaks to the equivocal status of such gestures. While Latour’s work is premised on the novelty of network analysis as a mode he notes that this approach seems to mirror the operations of a What concerns me here is not only analysing the risk of a convergence between this style of analysis and the features of contemporary capitalism but also, more broadly, the equivocal attraction exerted by this kind of work – its discreet charm. In particular, I am concerned with Latour as merely one symptomatic instance of ‘anti-critique’; the turn from critical analysis to the descriptive, and the loss of confidence in the very gesture of critique. I could have chosen many other figures to target this kind of ‘anti-critique’, so widespread is it; for example, we could consider the work of Jacques Rancière, which relentlessly problematizes the capitalism.
nottingham_paper.docx