Bruno Latour, Aramis, or the Love of Technology, PDF - Dss-edit.com

inappropriate, as if it were clear to everyone that the actants on whichfeelings are projected were actually acting in terms of different competences.If we say that whales are "touching," that a gorilla is "macho," thatrobots are "intelligent," that Macintosh computers are "user friendly," thatAramis has "the right" to bump, that chips have "a majority vote," and thatbugs are "bastards," we are still supposing that "in reality," of course, allthis fauna remains brute and completely devoid of human feelings. Nowhow could one describe what they truly are, independently of any "projection"?By using another list taken from a different repertory that is projectedsurreptitiously onto the actants. For example, technomorphisms: the whaleis an "automaton," a simple "animal-machine"; the robot, too, is merely asimple machine. Man himself, after all, far From having feelings to project,is only a biochemical automaton.We give the impression, then, not that there are two lists, one ofhuman capabilities and one of mechanical capabilities, but that legitimatereductionism has taken the place of inappropriate anthropomorphism. Underneathprojections of feelings, in this view, there is matter. Some evengo so far as to claim that projections should be Forbidden, and that onlydesignations should be allowed. No more metaphors. Figurative meaningsgo into the wastebasket; let's keep only proper meanings.But what can be said of the following projection: "The chips arebugged"? Here is a zoomorphism-bugs-projected onto a technology. *Or this one: "The gorilla is obeying a simple stimulus-response"? Here atechnobiomorphism-the creation of neurologists-is reprojected onto ananimal. Or this one: "Chips are only electron trajectories"? Here we havea phusimorphism projected onto a technology. But what can we say aboutthe Following sentence: "Aramis can bump if it wants to; it's not a right thatit is given"? Is this an anthropomorphism? Do rights come from humanFeelings? From nature-phusimorphism? From gods-theomorphism? Andwhat do you know, here we are in the middle of a philosophical quarrel.The engineers are right in the middle of it when they hesitate between theirvehicle's "you can" and "you must," and when they decide that humansecurity "has priority" over "the functional," in calculations and decisions.What? Could they be moralists, theologians, jurists, these poor engineerswho are said to be pigheaded calculators (a zoomorphism and a techno-*In French, computer chips are designated by a different zoomorphism, puces("fleas") .ARAMIS AT THE CET STAGE