Modernism(Critical Theory ) vs Translation or Delegation

Before I can make further assessments of twitter, I would like to depart from my prior Modus operandi and entertain another approach to understanding and evaluating twitter.



In a interview of Bruno Latour by T. Hugh Crawford (1993) Latour speaks of the notion of critical theory, the basis of his assessment is derived form the works of Boltanski and Thevenot. He asserts that there is a shift from a critical sociology to a sociology of criticism. He sets forth the idea that critical theory is concerned with mostly denouncing and unveiling and is not a good definition of intellectual practice. He interprets modernism based on Shapin and Schaffe's book as " as the dichotomous representation of the humans in the political sciences and the representation of the nonhuman which is taken over by science. Latour establishes modernism as the task of critique and understanding of social sciences and natural sciences, and the emergence of the "us and them" culture.



Latour does not see these polar distinctions and proposes another approach, which is more centered on the meaning of things, which is focused on the notion of "quasi objects that are constructed via the social realism, naturalism, and semiotics or discourse analysis. He goes further to state that the notion of appropriation is insufficient because it implies a rightful owner. He purposes the notion of "translation or delegation".



In the vain of the rational set forth by Bruno Latour I would like to take an approach of assessing twitter not in the form of a critique but as a question in the mindset of Latour. Most of all I am interested in trying to understand what kind of delegation or translation occurs while interacting with twitter.





www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~mrbohlen/PPPYYYUUUOO/MachineCulture/Latour_Interview_1993.pdf