hberg95's review against another edition
4.0
In Down to Earth, Latour provides a view I haven’t quite encountered yet in my time reading through climate change literature. Instead of beginning with immediate questions of economics, tax breaks, ESGs, greenwashing, or even activism, Latour is more interested in (1) the history of political partisanship in the ‘global west’ (it’s not exactly clear what the limits are) and (2) the positionality of human beings within ‘nature’.
Sometimes he’s spinning theories that sound a little conspiratorial (as he himself acknowledges), alleging that most elites who deny the existence of climate change are actually acutely aware of it and simply stockpiling as much money and resources as they can before the world inevitably implodes. At other points, he very clearly and carefully articulates explanations for how we ought to make use of science, while remaining critical of it, or how conservatives and liberals have evolved over time in pursuit of different goals.
Overall, I think there are valuable things to take away here: the axis and 4 attractors he sketches out in the early chapters provide a helpful (though possibly reductive) model for understanding partisan politics and how those differences may be overcome in a discovery of some common ground. His criticism and endorsement of science as useful, but imperfect is also very nuanced and useful in thinking about the political place of science in our post-truth world. Latour is certainly able to articulate concerns and thoughts I’ve had about contemporary politics in an incredibly clear and cohesive manner, and his discussion of the Terrestrial as an alternative pole to which we should turn our heads is a nice Nietzschean/Heideggerean touch that I appreciate.
That being said, I’m left feeling entertained and more interested in certain ideas and theories, but I don’t feel as though I know what to do with that information or with that excitement. Admittedly, I read this pretty quickly and I found it difficult to track some of the arguments, so a re-read may enlighten me a bit more. However, Latour seems to suggest that epistemology won’t provide us with answers, but I think the crucial question concerning the climate crisis (and really concerning political life in the next several decades) is how we can create meaning, cultivate understanding, and dispel misinformation collectively as a society — social epistemology has a lot to say about this incredibly important question and I think we ought to listen. If we can’t get on the same page, like Latour suggests we ought to, I don’t think any utopia or topos for that matter, is possible.
Sometimes he’s spinning theories that sound a little conspiratorial (as he himself acknowledges), alleging that most elites who deny the existence of climate change are actually acutely aware of it and simply stockpiling as much money and resources as they can before the world inevitably implodes. At other points, he very clearly and carefully articulates explanations for how we ought to make use of science, while remaining critical of it, or how conservatives and liberals have evolved over time in pursuit of different goals.
Overall, I think there are valuable things to take away here: the axis and 4 attractors he sketches out in the early chapters provide a helpful (though possibly reductive) model for understanding partisan politics and how those differences may be overcome in a discovery of some common ground. His criticism and endorsement of science as useful, but imperfect is also very nuanced and useful in thinking about the political place of science in our post-truth world. Latour is certainly able to articulate concerns and thoughts I’ve had about contemporary politics in an incredibly clear and cohesive manner, and his discussion of the Terrestrial as an alternative pole to which we should turn our heads is a nice Nietzschean/Heideggerean touch that I appreciate.
That being said, I’m left feeling entertained and more interested in certain ideas and theories, but I don’t feel as though I know what to do with that information or with that excitement. Admittedly, I read this pretty quickly and I found it difficult to track some of the arguments, so a re-read may enlighten me a bit more. However, Latour seems to suggest that epistemology won’t provide us with answers, but I think the crucial question concerning the climate crisis (and really concerning political life in the next several decades) is how we can create meaning, cultivate understanding, and dispel misinformation collectively as a society — social epistemology has a lot to say about this incredibly important question and I think we ought to listen. If we can’t get on the same page, like Latour suggests we ought to, I don’t think any utopia or topos for that matter, is possible.
jonathanvdh's review against another edition
5.0
Geen gemakkelijk boekje, maar wie mee durft te stappen in Latours woordenstroom vindt een uiterst verfrissend en verhelderend perspectief op de klimaatcrisis. Niet alleen een sterk pleidooi om van abstracties en het vooruitgangsdenken af te stappen en terug te keren naar de directe ervaring van het aardse, maar vooral ook een poging om te omschrijven wat er nu eigenlijk op die humuslaag, die wij als aardbewoners bewonen, gaande is. En het is dan ook vooral in die omschrijving, in de ronkende taal en metaforen, prachtig vertaald door Rokus Hofstede, dat Latour weet te verassen en je naar de keel weet te grijpen.
'Wij moeten even slim zijn als die oude zeeman: niet geloven dat we het er levend vanaf zullen brengen, niet stoppen met het registreren van het afdrijvende wrakgoed; misschien ontdekken we dan in een flits waarom sommige wrakstukken naar de bodem worden gezogen terwijl andere door hun vorm als reddingsboeien kunnen dienen. "Mijn rijk voor een leeg vat!"'
'Wij moeten even slim zijn als die oude zeeman: niet geloven dat we het er levend vanaf zullen brengen, niet stoppen met het registreren van het afdrijvende wrakgoed; misschien ontdekken we dan in een flits waarom sommige wrakstukken naar de bodem worden gezogen terwijl andere door hun vorm als reddingsboeien kunnen dienen. "Mijn rijk voor een leeg vat!"'
tidtiltanker's review against another edition
4.0
A little difficult at times if English is not your fist language but mostly just well written and very interesting. You’ll definitely find some answers here, you might have been wondering for a long time
chiaralt's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
3.0
A bit convoluted and pretentiously written but the message is less complicated than it seems and I think it’s an important one: basically we need to stop pretending we live in a limitless world of endless progress and economic growth and turn back towards the reality we actually live in. Latour calls this “the terrestrial”. This sounds very vague but I think there are many examples of communities in which this is the case (and the book would have been less vague and also less Eurocentric and white if Latour had acknowledged this). As for his conclusion, I agree that Europe needs to take some sort of responsibility going forward, but his take was a bit too romantic. To this day, European policies perpetuate the very progress/globalization-minus he critiques and I think he glossed over that a bit too quickly.
I recommend Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Wall Kimmerer for a more approachable example of what I would consider “the terrestrial”.
I recommend Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Wall Kimmerer for a more approachable example of what I would consider “the terrestrial”.
caitlinokeeffewhite's review against another edition
1.75
Ignoring cultures outside of his own, Latour presents ideas that have been around for millenia as new, and he the great mind behind them all. In writing this book he becomes the very thing he attempts to critique - that is a Eurocentric humanity obsessed with itself, in constant movement towards the ‘modern’.
A look to Aboriginal Peoples for example, would have alerted him that for 60,000+years humans have had alternative systems and knowledges of nature and our entanglement with it.
Less self flagellation is needed if we are to address the climate crisis, not more, and Latour would be wiser if he could acknowledge this.
A look to Aboriginal Peoples for example, would have alerted him that for 60,000+years humans have had alternative systems and knowledges of nature and our entanglement with it.
Less self flagellation is needed if we are to address the climate crisis, not more, and Latour would be wiser if he could acknowledge this.
icrylikeagirl's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
This was a theoretically challenging read. I'm not sure what I missed, but I definitely missed some things.