Modernità o capitalismo? Tornare davvero sulla terra

L. Pellizzoni
{"title":"Modernità o capitalismo? Tornare davvero sulla terra","authors":"L. Pellizzoni","doi":"10.4000/qds.2537","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Down to Earth. Politics in the New Climatic Regime, Bruno Latour takes issue with globalization and its elites vis-a-vis the ecological crisis. The former, he claims, is the result of modernity’s universalistic aspiration, for actualizing which the planet is not big enough. The latter have decided that, faced with ever-more worrisome ecological threats, there is room for protecting and supporting only few. The task, then, is to circumvent the contrast between local and global pointing towards an emergent “terrestrial” attractor, which entails the reciprocal recognition of different ways of living entertaining a constitutive relation with places and soils. To this purpose, the dominance in science of a Galileian “view from nowhere” is to be rejected, as conducive to a productivist approach, in favour or a generative one, capable of valorizing a variety of outlooks and concerns. Compared with Latour’s earlier takes on the ecological crisis, such as Politics of Nature, the book expresses a sense of urgency at odds with diplomacy and negotiation. Many of its claims can be subscribed. However, Latour depicts the relationship with the terrestrial attractor in terms of dependence, rather than friendship, which hardly signals a change in the instrumental approach that is at the grounds of the crisis. Moreover, he carefully avoids to even mention what is arguably the main responsible of the latter, which is not modernity but capitalism, preventing himself from a more credible diagnosis of elites’ strategy. Moreover, the novelty of the case for the terrestrial attractor scales down once framed in the context of burgeoning claims about the overarching power of geological forces, of which it shares the ambiguity (plea for humility on one side; call for constant experimentation, on which neoliberalism thrives, on the other). Overall, the book represents the cutting-edge of a moderately progressive intelligentsia, who is aware that the situation requires radical interventions yet persists in believing that the world in which it has prospered can be salvaged in its basic coordinates.","PeriodicalId":55721,"journal":{"name":"Quaderni di Sociologia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quaderni di Sociologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4000/qds.2537","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In Down to Earth. Politics in the New Climatic Regime, Bruno Latour takes issue with globalization and its elites vis-a-vis the ecological crisis. The former, he claims, is the result of modernity’s universalistic aspiration, for actualizing which the planet is not big enough. The latter have decided that, faced with ever-more worrisome ecological threats, there is room for protecting and supporting only few. The task, then, is to circumvent the contrast between local and global pointing towards an emergent “terrestrial” attractor, which entails the reciprocal recognition of different ways of living entertaining a constitutive relation with places and soils. To this purpose, the dominance in science of a Galileian “view from nowhere” is to be rejected, as conducive to a productivist approach, in favour or a generative one, capable of valorizing a variety of outlooks and concerns. Compared with Latour’s earlier takes on the ecological crisis, such as Politics of Nature, the book expresses a sense of urgency at odds with diplomacy and negotiation. Many of its claims can be subscribed. However, Latour depicts the relationship with the terrestrial attractor in terms of dependence, rather than friendship, which hardly signals a change in the instrumental approach that is at the grounds of the crisis. Moreover, he carefully avoids to even mention what is arguably the main responsible of the latter, which is not modernity but capitalism, preventing himself from a more credible diagnosis of elites’ strategy. Moreover, the novelty of the case for the terrestrial attractor scales down once framed in the context of burgeoning claims about the overarching power of geological forces, of which it shares the ambiguity (plea for humility on one side; call for constant experimentation, on which neoliberalism thrives, on the other). Overall, the book represents the cutting-edge of a moderately progressive intelligentsia, who is aware that the situation requires radical interventions yet persists in believing that the world in which it has prospered can be salvaged in its basic coordinates.
现代性还是资本主义?真正回归地球
在《脚踏实地》中。Bruno Latour在《新气候制度下的政治》中对全球化及其精英在生态危机中的表现提出了质疑。他声称,前者是现代性普世主义愿望的结果,为了实现这一愿望,地球还不够大。后者决定,面对越来越令人担忧的生态威胁,只有少数人有保护和支持的空间。因此,任务是避免局部和全局之间的对比,指向一个新兴的“陆地”吸引器,这需要相互承认不同的生活方式,与地方和土壤建立构成关系。为此,应拒绝伽利略式的“不知从哪里来的观点”在科学中的主导地位,认为这有利于生产力方法,有利于或有利于生成方法,能够对各种观点和关切进行评估。与拉图尔早期对生态危机的看法(如《自然政治》)相比,这本书表达了一种与外交和谈判不一致的紧迫感。它的许多索赔都可以认购。然而,拉图尔从依赖而非友谊的角度描述了与地球吸引器的关系,这很难表明危机发生时的工具方法发生了变化。此外,他甚至谨慎地避免提及后者的主要责任,即不是现代性,而是资本主义,这使他无法对精英的战略进行更可信的诊断。此外,陆地吸引器的新颖性一旦在关于地质力的总体力量的新兴主张的背景下形成,就会缩小,而地质力的整体力量也存在歧义(一方面呼吁谦逊;另一方面呼吁不断的实验,新自由主义正是在实验的基础上蓬勃发展)。总的来说,这本书代表了一个适度进步的知识界的前沿,他们意识到这种情况需要激进的干预,但仍然相信,它繁荣的世界可以在其基本坐标下得到拯救。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信