A review by hberg95
Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climatic Regime by Bruno Latour
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.