Regrounding the commons: Bruno Latour, ecological democracy, and nonhuman political representation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
What is the relationship between science and politics, and especially as it concerns the entities of the sciences and the relevance they have in political processes? In the following thesis, I look to form proper political institutions around nonhuman entities through the work of Bruno Latour and his democratic-ecological ethos by way of his 2004 text the Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. In recognition of mass species extinction, the fragility of our soil, the warming climate, the rise of automation, the importance of carbon sequestration, and the various socio-economic problems attached to the environment—what is called political ecology—the old binary of science and politics as opposed, as one discipline concerned with technology and natural objects (science), and the other concerned with humans (politics), is becoming less and less tenable as we become more sensitive and inundated with the aforementioned issues. With the guidance of the sociologist of science Bruno Latour, these essays attempt to use Latour's framework of a technoscientific political process, plus an expanded sense of spokespersonship as representative institutions for nonhumans. In establishing these processes and institutions, I hope to help orient how we should understand our past failures in improper recognition of nonhumans, and how it is we can better bring nonhumans into democracy through the aid of Latour. By redefining politics as the issues that bring about a concerned public, Latour also looks to include nonhumans as a part of the public. Nonhumans as a public is one of the significant points through these pages. I hope to accomplish three things in this thesis. 1. Contribute to Latourian scholarship by providing exegesis around his 2004 text The Politics of Nature. 2. In doing this, I hope to better situate the current political ecology movements, as seen by a premier thinker concerned with climate change and the Anthropocene. In relation to that contribution, I would like to further establish Bruno Latour as a political theorist with a political philosophy that is worth examining. At the end of this work, I provide my own philosophic contribution in shaping policy and existing institutions in a warming and sea-rising technological future by the aid of Latour's institutional vision from the Politics of Nature. The reader will have to reconsider how they view politics, who the constituents are, and whom the "we" are when talking about a common world "we" would like to share. Arguably, the most radical vision for democratic politics in the 21st century is to include those things humans have historically tried to subjugate as mere objects, or the materials of Nature, or the work of social construction. The next step in the democratic project is to include the entities that without human subsistence would be futile: it is time to recognize multi-species living, the collaboration between nonhumans for the sake of human flourishing, and the work that politics can do in organizing a sense of commonality.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,030 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».