Book: Bruno Latour “Pasteur. War and peace of microbes

Series: "Pragmatic Turn" The book by the famous French epistemologist, philosopher, sociologist, anthropologist and historian of science Bruno Latour addresses one of the most striking episodes in the history of science - the discovery of the pasteurization method and the victory over infectious diseases. The name of Louis Pasteur, known to every schoolchild today, has become a symbol of the triumph of the human mind over nature. Bruno Latour offers a new look at the mechanisms of social consciousness that made possible both this victory and the incredible rise of Pasteur himself. Pasteurization appears here not just as one of the methods of preserving food, but as a political gesture that allows a group of technocratic scientists to gain unprecedented power over the entire Western civilization, and as a technology of power, which consists in, representing on behalf of invisible agents, becoming indispensable a mediator between them and humanity. Publisher: "European University in St. Petersburg" (2015) ISBN: 978-5-94380-197-6

Latour, Bruno

Bruno Latour(fr. Bruno Latour) - French sociologist of science and philosopher, author of such famous books as “There was no New Time. Essays in Symmetrical Anthropology,” “Laboratory Life,” and “Science in Action.”

Biography

Born on June 22, 1947 in Burgundy, into a family of winemakers. Received a philosophical and anthropological education. He lectured at the London School of Economics and at the Department of History of Science at Harvard University. Bruno Latour - PhD, associated with the Center for Organizational Sociology, vice-president of its research activities. He is the author of Laboratory Life (1979), The Pasteurization of France (1984), A Love of Technology and an Essay on Symmetrical Anthropology, There Was No New Time. In 1987, Latour published Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society, one of the significant texts of sociology.

When Things Give Back: The Possible Contribution of “Science Research” to the Social Sciences

“Everything is going well with the social sciences, with the exception of two tiny words: “social” and “sciences.”

Latour's definition of social science is “the study of science and technology” (STS). STS defines the objects of study of social sciences, as well as the methods of studying them - social interpretation. Latour identifies a number of difficulties associated with changing socially interpreted phenomena. The idea of ​​social interpretation is “the replacement of the true content of an object with the functions of society,” and such replacement either destroys the object or ignores it. The peculiarity of social interpretation is to consider objects exclusively from the point of view of society, whereas “society does not explain anything, it itself must be explained.” Thus, Latour highlights the first difficulty of social interpretation: “to go beyond the social” in order to see the true essence of objects. However, with the disappearance of difficulties, as Latour writes, the very goals of the social sciences will disappear.

The second problem is the definition of science and the definition of the concept of society. Latour focuses on the imitation of the general sciences by the natural ones. However, the objects of study of both differ in the sense that in the natural sciences objects are not “just things”, but objects that exist objectively according to their internal natural laws, not subject to what the scientist says about them, and acting regardless of his expectations. And the object of social sciences is, first of all, people who are not always able to resist and “make concessions” to scientists. Latour calls this discrepancy between the interests of scientists and the behavior of natural objects that disobey them “science wars.” The reason for imitation of the natural sciences is the existence of the social sciences as having their “natural scientific counterpart” (except for sociology). Sociology was not included in this number, since it did not experience in the “pre-STS era” an internal conflict determined by the nature of the “thing”, as other sciences did, so Latour uses “social sciences” instead of the term “sociology”. The goal of imitation is “the gradual creation of a common world.”

Give me a laboratory and I'll change the world

Latour, in the article “Give me a laboratory and I will change the world,” analyzes the work of laboratories in a new sense, referring to the experiences and activities of Louis Pasteur, a French biologist who studied microorganisms that cause such a serious disease of livestock as anthrax - o which is what the sociologist writes.

Separating problems at the “micro” and “macro” levels, Latour says: “...there is a division of labor between students of organizations, institutions, and public strategy, on the one hand, and people studying disagreements at the micro levels within scientific disciplines, on the other. It is indeed difficult to discern common elements in the analysis of the laetrile controversy (Nelkin, 1979) and in the semiotic study of a single text (Bastide, 1981); in a study of indicators indicating growth in R&D and the history of the gravitational wave detector (Collins, 1975); or in investigating the Windscale reactor explosion and deciphering the inarticulate mutterings of scientists talking while sitting on a bench (Lynch, 1982)... It is so difficult to discern commonalities among these disparate topics that people are inclined to the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe existence of “macroscopic” problems and the need for separate consideration two levels of research carried out by scientists with different specializations using different methods."

First of all, Bruno Latour talks about the awareness of the hidden technological possibilities of research activities, as a result of which the functions of the laboratory change. They become the abode of applied science, that is, science focused on the creation and improvement of technologies. It is laboratories that act as the starting point of scientific and technological progress. At the same time, all research algorithms and their results, obtained and initially tested in the laboratory, are used not only to obtain new knowledge and develop new technologies, but also for practical service in many areas of activity, such as, for example, agriculture (which, in fact, , and is discussed in the article). Latour writes that scientists “will do everything in their power to spread everywhere some of the conditions conducive to the reproduction of favorable laboratory practices. Since scientific facts are produced inside laboratories, ensuring their free circulation requires the creation of expensive networks within which to maintain their fragile efficiency. If this means turning society into a big laboratory, then so be it. The spread of laboratories into areas that a few decades earlier had nothing to do with science is a good example of the construction of such networks” (Bruno Latour, “Give me a laboratory and I will change the world” pp. 27 - 28).

Once again raising the question of the “scientific nature” of science, Bruno Latour talks about the penetration of research into many areas of life, possible thanks to the improvement of technology. Thus, the article metaphorically presents discussions about the inextricable relationship between problems at the “micro” and “macro” levels, their interdependence, that is, the transition from one state to another along the path of development and resolution.

Politics of nature

The article focuses on the recently developed idea of ​​political ecology, which has given rise to movements trying to establish concern for the environment as a fundamental political principle. There is stagnation in the practice of these movements, and B. Latour wanted to understand the very idea of ​​​​political ecology in order to find out the reason for this outcome. In the process of this research, it turns out that political ecology, due to an undeveloped theoretical framework, is mistaken regarding its real activities. Caring for nature is not really her area of ​​expertise for a number of reasons.
The first reason is that politics cannot protect the interests of nature, since it was originally created to protect the interests of man and it is he who is considered the subject. It can protect nature only by endowing it with subjective qualities and natural rights that previously belonged only to man: this leads to absurdity. The second reason is that political ecology considers the real interests of nature and nature itself as a phenomenon accessible to the direct understanding of man, whereas in fact it deals only with the scientific interpretation of the phenomenon of nature. Therefore, conversations about global natural crises are always subjective, concerned with particulars and have no real basis. The significance of political ecology is that it reveals the contrast between clear, well-defined scientific concepts and unpredictable, beyond these concepts, real-world phenomena in all their complex internal relationships.

To narrow down the search results, you can refine your query by specifying the fields to search for. The list of fields is presented above. For example:

You can search in several fields at the same time:

Logical operators

The default operator is AND.
Operator AND means that the document must match all elements in the group:

research development

Operator OR means that the document must match one of the values ​​in the group:

study OR development

Operator NOT excludes documents containing this element:

study NOT development

Search type

When writing a query, you can specify the method in which the phrase will be searched. Four methods are supported: search with morphology, without morphology, prefix search, phrase search.
By default, the search is performed taking into account morphology.
To search without morphology, just put a “dollar” sign in front of the words in the phrase:

$ study $ development

To search for a prefix, you need to put an asterisk after the query:

study *

To search for a phrase, you need to enclose the query in double quotes:

" research and development "

Search by synonyms

To include synonyms of a word in the search results, you need to put a hash " # " before a word or before an expression in parentheses.
When applied to one word, up to three synonyms will be found for it.
When applied to a parenthetical expression, a synonym will be added to each word if one is found.
Not compatible with morphology-free search, prefix search, or phrase search.

# study

Grouping

In order to group search phrases you need to use brackets. This allows you to control the Boolean logic of the request.
For example, you need to make a request: find documents whose author is Ivanov or Petrov, and the title contains the words research or development:

Approximate word search

For an approximate search you need to put a tilde " ~ " at the end of a word from a phrase. For example:

bromine ~

When searching, words such as "bromine", "rum", "industrial", etc. will be found.
You can additionally specify the maximum number of possible edits: 0, 1 or 2. For example:

bromine ~1

By default, 2 edits are allowed.

Proximity criterion

To search by proximity criterion, you need to put a tilde " ~ " at the end of the phrase. For example, to find documents with the words research and development within 2 words, use the following query:

" research development "~2

Relevance of expressions

To change the relevance of individual expressions in the search, use the " sign ^ " at the end of the expression, followed by the level of relevance of this expression in relation to the others.
The higher the level, the more relevant the expression is.
For example, in this expression, the word “research” is four times more relevant than the word “development”:

study ^4 development

By default, the level is 1. Valid values ​​are a positive real number.

Search within an interval

To indicate the interval in which the value of a field should be located, you should indicate the boundary values ​​in parentheses, separated by the operator TO.
Lexicographic sorting will be performed.

Such a query will return results with an author starting from Ivanov and ending with Petrov, but Ivanov and Petrov will not be included in the result.
To include a value in a range, use square brackets. To exclude a value, use curly braces.

Available in formats: EPUB | PDF | FB2

Pages: 320

The year of publishing: 2015

Language: Russian

The book by the famous French epistemologist, philosopher, sociologist, anthropologist and historian of science Bruno Latour addresses one of the most striking episodes in the history of science - the discovery of the pasteurization method and the victory over infectious diseases. The name is Louis Pasteur! known to every schoolchild today, has become a symbol of the triumph of the human mind over nature. Bruno Latour offers a new look at the mechanisms of social consciousness that made possible both this victory and the incredible rise of Pasteur himself. Pasteurization appears here not just as one of the methods of preserving food, but as a political gesture that allows a group of technocratic scientists to gain unprecedented power over the entire Western civilization, and as a technology of power, which consists in, representing on behalf of invisible agents, becoming indispensable a mediator between them and humanity. Thus, Latour's book allows us to see Pasteur as a figure of political magnitude, and science as a field of primarily political action. The book consists of two parts, the first is about Pasteur itself, the second is a philosophical exposition of the research methodology.

Reviews

Vsevolod, Tomsk, 22.07.2017
I was looking for an interesting book by Pasteur. War and peace of microbes. With the "Irreducible" application, I found it here. Fast and free download. The book is read in one sitting.

Marina, Ulyanovsk, 16.05.2017
I heard something about your site from colleagues. Someone downloaded specialist literature from you. I soon forgot about it until I decided to download something for the trip. And when it came up in the search, I remembered) “Pasteur. War and the World of Microbes. With the “Irreducible” application” I downloaded. I went on a business trip with 3 more books from you. You just need to enter the code and that’s it. I didn't pay anything by the way.

Those who viewed this page were also interested in:

FAQ

1. Which book format should I choose: PDF, EPUB or FB2?
It all depends on your personal preferences. Today, each of these types of books can be opened both on a computer and on a smartphone or tablet. All books downloaded from our website will open and look the same in any of these formats. If you don’t know what to choose, then choose PDF for reading on a computer, and EPUB for a smartphone.

3. Which program should you use to open the PDF file?
To open a PDF file, you can use the free Acrobat Reader program. It is available for download at adobe.com

Russia remembered the War of 1812 according to Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy. The first chapters of his grandiose epic novel “War and Peace” were published in 1865 in the January and February books of the magazine M.N. Katkov "Russian Bulletin". True, the novel was then called “One Thousand Eight Hundred and Five.” Publication continued in the February, March and April books of the magazine for 1866. Why exactly on December 8, 9, 10 and 11 of 2015 in Russia they decided to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the first publication of the novel by reading it live on air by 1,300 selected volunteers - God knows. But in any case, this is a more than worthy end to the Year of Literature. “He (Tolstoy - NGN) was aware that he was writing a myth, a legend, a “fairy tale of the year 12,” notes Andrei Baldin, architect, researcher of War and Peace. “But it was precisely this clear understanding that helped him create a coherent picture of 1812.” So coherent that for the vast majority of our readers it seems true. An important, intimate and at the same time simple truth, about which there is no need to argue. It was just as Tolstoy wrote!”

Perhaps the slightly greater number of degrees of freedom (freedom of interpretation, interpretation) inherent in any myth, compared to, say, a purely academic study, allowed the French social philosopher and historian of science Bruno Latour to see a heuristically powerful sociological methodology in Leo Tolstoy’s great novel. Identify and apply it in analyzing the reasons for the amazing effectiveness of Science using the example of the activities of the outstanding French microbiologist Louis Pasteur. Therefore, there is nothing unexpected in reading “War and Peace” as “War and Peace of Microbes.”

Latour's study is useful reading for anyone interested in the emergence of science as the most authoritative social institution in modern society. The text brought to your attention, dear readers, once again illustrates a particular “mythological” property of science: it is easily included in any social (political) organism, gradually occupying a dominant position in it... And to explain this phenomenon, to show the mechanisms of such “contagiousness” Science, it turns out, is helped by Leo Tolstoy's novel.

Executive editor of the NG-Science application Andrey Vaganov

“When sociology follows Tolstoy,

we can be proud of our profession again.”

Bruno Latour

In 2015, the French sociologist Bruno Latour’s book “Pasteur: The War and Peace of Microbes,” which has already become a classic book for the sociology of science, was published in Russian. As you can see, the title of the book about Pasteur includes the title of the famous novel by Leo Tolstoy. One might assume that this coincidence is accidental. But no, there are numerous references throughout the text of the book - in the first chapter alone, Tolstoy is mentioned 10 times! - indicate that Tolstoy’s novel really plays an important role in the thoughts of Bruno Latour. What valuable things did the influential French sociologist of science see in Tolstoy, revising the idea of ​​the social?

A novel without heroes

"In memory of the centenary of the Patriotic War of 1812–1814." Calendar for 1912. Text and drawings based on the novel “War and Peace” by L.N. Tolstoy." Illustration from the book “The Patriotic War of 1812. Bibliochronicle. 1789–1985.” M., 2012

Before Latour’s research, the dominant myth was about the greatness of Pasteur’s genius, who “with the power of his mind” transformed life in Europe. In the eyes of the French, as Latour notes, Pasteur had particularly outstanding merits; It was believed that he created all new medicine, and new biology, and new hygiene. Latour wants to understand what Pasteur actually did and what was attributed to him, and finds a model for the embodiment of his plan in War and Peace.

At one time, Tolstoy took on a similar task. He decided to write War and Peace because he believed that military historians had created a false picture of Napoleon's campaign of 1805–1812. The historian, according to Tolstoy, is looking for the reasons for the result of military actions that have already taken place and is obliged to describe the actions of thousands of people very briefly, relying mainly on the reports of military leaders and the commander-in-chief. All this leads to the birth of a view of events where it goes without saying, in the words of Tolstoy, “that the same discipline that subjugates tens of thousands of people to the will of one on the parade ground will have the same effect where matters of life and death take place.” That is, the historian follows the model: military commanders give orders, armies carry them out.

But Tolstoy knew that the actual course of military operations was different; that immediately after the battle it is impossible to find out from anyone how everything really happened, and least of all, Tolstoy emphasizes, from the commander-in-chief.

Therefore, in his novel, Tolstoy focuses not on results, but directly on events, does not consider a person as unconditionally submitting to one single goal - to follow orders for the sake of defeating the French, but shows characters in different situations, with different, often contradictory, human manifestations.

For example, Captain Tushin, who heroically commanded a battery in a battle, in another situation turns out to be a confused and timid little man. Tolstoy does not seek to create a portrait of a hero; moreover, he claims that there should be no heroes in his novel. Napoleon and Kutuzov are no exception.

Tolstoy's approach appeals to Latour, and he draws a parallel between Tolstoy's portrayal of Napoleon and Pasteur: "Pasteur plays the same role as Napoleon in Tolstoy's treatise on political philosophy, which is called War and Peace."

In this book, Tolstoy introduces hundreds of characters to deal with a question so important to him: what can a person do? What can such a great man as Napoleon or Kutuzov really do? It takes him almost 800 pages to restore that multiplicity of powers which the historians of the time attributed to the courage or genius of a few men.”

What Pasteur didn't do

The novel "War and Peace" at one time was a challenge to the French historiography of Napoleon. This is remembered in France. And in the book about Pasteur, Latour wants, continuing the line of Tolstoy, to make his own challenge, but this time in relation to outstanding personalities in the history of science. He points out what particularly inspired him (Latour) from Tolstoy: “Tolstoy forever subverted the ideas of a leader, strategy and strict subordination...”

Now the floor is up to Latour, and he mentally holds before him “his inimitable model” - the novel “War and Peace”.

It is known that Bruno Latour is critical of the established concept of the social, believing that there is nothing specific in the social order, that there is no special “social force”, no “social context”; he looks back to a time when the words “social forces” and “social context” were not repeated everywhere as a matter of course.

And Latour sees in Tolstoy an important opportunity for himself to avoid the concept of social context: “It is only if we make a distinction between context and content that the desire to reduce the power attributed to great men comes into conflict with the clarification of their actual personal merits. Tolstoy's revival of the genre of the historical novel is an excellent way to avoid this apparent contradiction: only after the crowds are introduced into the picture does the writer give each character his own appearance and character.

Indeed, Tolstoy reduces the large-scale actions of the army to the independent actions of individual people. This is why, Latour notes, Tolstoy is able to show that the Russian victory in the campaign was largely ensured by the army itself, and not by the actions of Bagration or Kutuzov.

In his novel, Tolstoy reveals his idea that as long as the stories of individuals are written, and not the stories of all the people who took part in an event, “it is impossible not to attribute to individuals the forces that force other people to direct their activities towards one goal.” Latour points to a similar mechanism for attributing to Pasteur what he did not do. Following Tolstoy, already in his plot Latour seeks to restore the many forces that acted around Pasteur, “to provide freedom to all actors in French society.”

Microbial actors

It would seem that the difference between Latour’s view and Tolstoy’s begins with the word “actor.” Latour is an innovator in modern sociology; the new form of metaphysics he describes in his book about Pasteur does not accept the distinction between the natural and the social. Actors, that is, those entities that act or whose actions are felt by other entities, for Latour can equally be of human, natural, or any other origin. Latour's attention is drawn not to the nature of acting entities, but to how they manifest themselves, to the strength of their impact on the environment.

The intrigue of the book about Pasteur is built around the enormous power that microbes not yet discovered by Pasteur’s laboratory had in society. Unknown forces at that time kept all of Europe in fear. They were kept in tension and fear not only because of inexplicably outbreaks of epidemics. These forces were capable of unexpectedly leading to failure of almost any human undertaking: from childbirth - both among the poor and among very wealthy, high-born people, the death of babies and women in labor happened constantly - to the failure of a commercial business - the brought beer or milk could turn out to be fermented, sour.

Tolstoy, in his reasoning, speaks only about characters, about people, that is, he does not go beyond the framework of ideas about the public and social, which Latour criticizes. But this is only in speculation. Latour notes: “Every actor described by Tolstoy summarizes what others are doing and tries to give meaning to chaos.”

“Every actor”, and not “every acting person”, as it is written in the Russian translation. In War and Peace, “actors” of a different, non-human nature also enter into relationships with human characters.

Tolstoy himself draws attention to the fact that all the “innumerable” participants in the war with Napoleon acted due to many circumstances, “due to their personal properties, habits, conditions and goals.” Nikolai Rostov, Tolstoy gives an example, galloped to attack the French because he could not resist the desire to gallop across a flat field. In Latour’s sociology, a “level field” is an equal actor whose action affected the implementation of the attack. And in the battle of Austerlitz, thick morning fog played a significant role in Napoleon’s rapid victory at Tolstoy. Following the arrogant plan of the Austrian General Weyrother, on the morning of November 20 (December 2), 1805, Russian troops marched down into a ravine covered with impenetrable fog, dooming themselves to death - the fog hid from the Russian command that Napoleon’s army had come close to the Russian troops overnight. Napoleon, on the contrary, took advantage of the fog: “When the sun completely emerged from the fog and splashed with a blinding brilliance across the fields and fog (as if he was just waiting for this to begin the matter), he took off the glove from his beautiful white hand, made a sign to the marshals with it and gave the order start a business."

According to Latour, Pasteur multiplied the power of his influence on society thanks to the establishment of a kind of alliance with microbes, demonstrating in his laboratory a model of how one can avoid unpredictable and destructive actions produced in society by recently incomprehensible and frightening forces, which have now found a source clearly shown by Pasteurians – microbes. In Tolstoy, Napoleon, having taken the fog as a kind of ally before the Battle of Austerlitz, strengthened his offensive by the influence of the fog on the disorientation of the Russian troops.

For Latour, identifying the actions of non-human “actors” serves the same purpose as clarifying the actions of all people and their associations who took part in an event - a more accurate determination of what exactly the one person at the head of the action did, and what happened because actions of “other actors”.

Holders of power

According to Latour, Pasteur's genius lies in the fact that he created a network of influence on the consciousness of huge masses of people. And to this day, this influence, judging by the issues of postage stamps from Monaco to the Gambia dedicated to Pasteur, has not weakened. Postage stamps from 1972 and 1989

In the last example about fog, we come close to the concept of power and strategy, to which Tolstoy’s criticism Latour pays special attention: “Leo Tolstoy, in the epilogue of War and Peace, criticizes both social and mystical explanations of strategy; Of particular interest to us is his criticism of the concept of power.”

What of Tolstoy's criticism of power is important for Latour?

The holder of power in Tolstoy is endowed with the right to give orders, but the orderer himself is the furthest from the events. There are many unforeseen circumstances that can create a situation in which an order becomes unenforceable. According to Tolstoy, only those orders that have the opportunity to be executed can be executed. After the capture of Moscow, Tolstoy explains his thought, Napoleon was more than ever full of strength and close to victory. Napoleon gave the same wonderful, ingenious orders as in Austria, but in Austria they were carried out and brought success and victory, but in Russia they did not. For an order to be executed, there must be an interest in its execution, Tolstoy shows.

It is this moment of “interest in performance” that is important for Latour. And, starting from Tolstoy’s thoughts, Latour discusses Pasteur: “For the reader of Tolstoy, there would be no dissemination of Pasteur’s ideas, no public response to Pasteur’s doctrine, and no recommendations or vaccines would have left Pasteur’s laboratory if other people had not seized on them , would not desire them, would not be interested in them.”

In order for an order from the commander-in-chief's headquarters to be carried out, the motivation of those to whom the order is addressed is needed. For an idea to come out of the laboratory and gain support in society, it is necessary that it be picked up by the interested forces of society itself. Here we come to the concept of strategy, which, following Tolstoy, was adopted by Latour.

In his commentary to the second chapter of the book on Pasteur, Latour writes: “The word strategy is constantly used here in the same sense as in War and Peace.” The strategist makes plans that constantly float away from under his feet; finding himself in the midst of complicated circumstances, he seizes the opportunity, he actively strives to ensure that in case of victory he is given the credit of all, and in case of defeat the responsibility is assigned to someone else.”

And then follows a very important observation for Latour about the novel “War and Peace,” which we have already partially quoted, and now we will present in full: “Every actor described by Tolstoy summarizes what others are doing and tries to give meaning to chaos. Sometimes his interpretation is shared by others who effectively operate within the same framework and thereby contribute to the general chaos. I call strategy this summary of activities and these agreements regarding the general direction."

"Inevitable Movement"

Already in another of his works, in the 2014 article “Agency at the Time of the Anthropocene,” Latour analyzes in detail the episode from “War and Peace”, where Kutuzov gives the order for the Russian troops to move, although considers this speech pointless.

Latour shows how Kutuzov’s strategic decision took shape and cites a famous quote from Tolstoy: “The news of the Cossacks, confirmed by the sent patrols, proved the final maturity of the event. The stretched string jumped, and the clock hissed and the chimes began to play. Despite his imaginary power, his intelligence, experience, knowledge of people, Kutuzov, taking into account the note from Beningsen, who personally sent reports to the sovereign, the same desire expressed by all the generals, the desire of the sovereign assumed by him and the bringing together of the Cossacks, could no longer restrain the inevitable movement and, having given orders for what he considered useless and harmful, blessed the accomplished fact.”

Kutuzov did not insist on his opinion. However, his submission to circumstances is perceived not as a weakness of the commander-in-chief, but as a realistic decision. This happens because, explains Latour, that Tolstoy shows all the circumstances of the situation, and the reader is able to distinguish between objective and subjective factors - “fait accompli” and “inevitable movement”, on the one hand, and “power, intelligence, experience, knowledge” - on the other. another. Latour notes that this distinction between subjects and objects that we see in Tolstoy has been lost in today's society.

This episode about Kutuzov is also mentioned in the book about Pasteur. According to Latour, the fact that Tolstoy’s Kutuzov could summarize all the circumstances and, based on this, make decisions, is a sign of a man of genius. And Latour admits that he borrows this model of “genius” from Tolstoy to analyze Pasteur’s activities.

In the book “Pasteur: War and the World of Microbes,” Latour introduces the concept of two mechanisms for assembling the forces of society around Pasteur. The first mechanism, which Latour himself restores, adds to one need that has arisen in society for certain scientific developments another, and to it the next. Restoring such a chain makes it possible to show that Pasteur was guided precisely by needs or, according to Latour, by forces that could, on the part of society, pick up his developments. Pasteur more than once abandoned fundamental research, in which he had achieved success, for the sake of developments that were of interest to a significant part of society - this explains Latour’s long-term interest in Pasteur’s laboratory.

The second mechanism explains the undying interest in Pasteur solely by the genius of Pasteur himself. And then Latour looks back at Tolstoy: “When Tolstoy explains the course of Napoleon’s Russian campaign, he describes the first mechanism, but he is well aware that the second mechanism is structured differently, since the implementation of all military actions is attributed by historians exclusively to the “genius of Napoleon” and the “genius Kutuzov."

And so it is. Tolstoy repeatedly describes the action of the “second mechanism” in the novel. For example, he shows in detail how, after the terrible defeat of the Russian army at Austerlitz, due to the irresistible need of Russian society for a hero in Moscow, in the course of small talk and gossip, the image of a hero is created in the person of Prince Bagration, who did not play, as we saw from the previous narrative, no role in the Battle of Austerlitz.

It is difficult to say to what extent, but, apparently, the fact that in the novel “War and Peace” the heroes are always in an internal, often contradictory, movement, with thoughts and feelings following circumstances and other people, confirmed Latour in his understanding of sociology as the science of constantly emerging and collapsing alliances and connections between “actors”.

Latour vs Tolstoy

But Latour's admiration for War and Peace is not unconditional. There are many arguments in the novel with which he cannot agree. The main thing that Latour does not accept is Tolstoy’s providentialism.

In his approach, Latour deliberately avoids the use of concepts such as strategy, sociology, theology, etc. They, in his opinion, do not clarify, but conceal the actual order of things. Latour strives to create a new sociology or even a new philosophy, where the relationships between acting objects are free from human ideology, from anthropocentrism, but not only. Latour’s “actors” or “actants” are also free from subordination to any divine essence.

Therefore, arguing in the first edition of the book about Pasteur about how often in descriptions of scientific, political, and military conflicts people resort to meaningless scientific concepts, Latour points out that even Tolstoy finds a general religious explanation for the liberation of Russia from the invasion of Napoleon’s army in the divine plan. And in private correspondence, Latour formulates his general impression of the novel “War and Peace”: “The great writer multiplies the number of active participants in my understanding (therefore it is better to call them actants), and then, when he begins to reflect on the meaning of what he has done , then ignores the complexity deployed in the text and replaces it with a tedious ideology of the actions of people in relation to the action of Providence, which reduces the value of the novel.