Bruno Latours Aramis or the love of

technology Critical commentary

By ADMIN | Published: JANUARY 15, 2013
By Javier de Rivera

In this book, Latour addresses the social and political factors implicated in the
development of technological projects. To such and end, he uses the case study of a
failed technological project: Aramis, an innovative public transportation
system developed in France between 1972 and 1987 that, despite its apparent
technological interest and all the efforts invested in it, finally failed to see the light.

The style of the book is very innovative. It takes the form of a detectives novel, with two
researchers trying to solve the mystery of Who killed Aramis? or Was it killed in the
first place?. However, this novel is not pure fiction, it is based on Latours own research
on the Aramis project, though everything is presented in a dramatical (fictional) way that
allows him the narrative freedom to expose his own theories about society and
technology. Specially, Latour uses the the relation between the two researchers, a
sociology professor and a young engineer, to articulate his preconceptions about social
sciences and the study of technology.

Even though this way of introducing his ideas can be attractive and appealing, it makes
more difficult to criticize them, as they are all covered by rhetorical tropes. On the
contrary, it seems fairer to write theoretical issues and research reports in a clear
straightforward way, to facilitate and stimulate the further discussion of ideas. This way
(the fictional) it looks like the authors ideas are not open to discussion.

However, behind this rhetorical style the main features of Latours thought can be easily
discovered. His central idea of the non-human subjects, the consideration of
machines as actants (subjects) in the network is present throughout the book, using
the most incredible rhetorical resources to convince the reader: references to
Frankenstein as something independent created by human, fictional verbatims of what
Aramis would think or say, imaginative descriptions of how the automated-cars think,
analogies between the independence of the apprentice and the independence of
machines, etc.
His thought is so embedded in the narrative that we can even find the quasi-objects
when the microprocessors enter the scene. We can even find the mention of Leibnizs
monads a key element in Latours Actor-Network-Theory that are the
fundamental idea behind the concept of subject or actant in ANT. It appears in a casual
passage when the researchers are discussing the automatic functions of Aramis, so
the metaphysical regression can be made without modesty1.
For my part, Id prefer a system more in conformity with that of Mr. Leibniz, one in which
Gods creatures would contain the complete recapitulation of all possible actions. It
would suffice to enter all predicates in the software. (page 63)
The fragment refers to the possibility of programming the behavior of the automatic car,
so it can function with autonomy, which makes it a subject (monad, actant) in the
network, at the same level as a human, making a perfect analogy between God-humans
and Humans-machines. So, in his view we are created by God in the the same way we
create automated machines: introducing all the possibilities in the software. In this
aspect, the technological fantasies of Latour are the opposite of the typical science-
fiction narratives, where the Machines become aware of themselves and similar to
humans. In his description, it is the humans that become predefined machines
(or monads)2.

The second relevant aspect in which his thought can be easily perceived is the
way Sociology, and social science in general, is caricatured as a non-logical discipline,
with unreliable methods of research and weak theoretical foundations. On the other side,
the engineers mind is stronger and is better prepared to understand the complexities of
technology. In other words, real sociology is an obstacle in Latours desire to mystify
technology as an independent realm of existence, instead of an aspect of culture and
society.
In the process of mocking sociological research, Latour made up a new brand of
Sociology called relativistic or relationist, which main characteristic is to stick in the
boundaries proposed by the informants:
How to frame a technological investigation? By sticking to the frame work and the li mits
indicated by the interviewees themselves. (page 18)
Since every study has to limit its scope, why not encompass it within the boundaries
proposed by the interviewees themselves? (page 19)
The methodological implications of this sociology-fiction method of research are
disastrous: the limits of a social research only can be defined by the research
question. Unfortunately, here the main research question (who killed a something that
cannot be alive) is so biased, that any frame proposed by the informants is highly useful.
In order to be sociological, a research has to take account of the social context
and the social structure, the background and the whole picture is necessary to do
sociology. Society is the real object of study beneath any social research, and the
particular aims of a research only can make sense in relation with that whole picture.
The actors, subjects or informants usually cannot see this bigger picture, because they
are situated in an specific point of view, though their reflexivity (narrative competence)
and their interpretations are always insightful and useful.
The use of a sociological framework to interpret and make sense of the information
obtained is not, necessarily, a bias. It is a necessary pre-knowledge to make sense of
what is observed. As the knowledge of grammatical rules and vocabulary allows us to
read, the knowledge of social dynamics allows us to interpret social phenomena.

Relativist sociology has no fixed reference frames, and consequently no metalanguage.

It expects the actors to understand what they are and what it is. It does not know what
society is composed of, and that is why it goes off to learn from others, from those who
are constructing society. (page 200)

However, it seems like this let the informants do the sociology for us is specially
adequate when we are talking about technological studies, and the interviewees are
mainly high qualified engineers. Probably Latour or his characters would not dare to say
the same when studying less educated populations. This attitude reflects a hidden
elitism, that mixed with the rampant technophilia, helps him to project his technological
fantasies. The picture drawn in this process is aesthetically akin to Ayn Rands
idealization3 of the industrial entrepreneur, always driving the train of technological
innovation.

In opposition to this, from a sociological perspective the study of Aramis is relevant

because it is the most successful of the Personal Rapid Transportations
systems that interested everybody in the late sixties, therefore it represents the social
conflicts and tensions beneath this event. Case studies are used as a way to represent
general phenomena and learn more about our societies, not (only) for the shake of
knowing a particular fact.

According to Latours methodology, the PRTs are out of question because the actors do
not discuss them as a social event. Fortunately, the book offers interview scripts and
documents that help us reach our own conclusions. So we know from a Canadian
document (page 135) that the general interest in the PRT systems appears as a way to
relocate the research investments of the tech-companies after the space programs
slowed down. And from multiple verbatims we also get to know the confusion that an
hybrid of public-private transportation rise:

Senator Wallace: What if instead of finding her cronies, as you put it, in this closed car
with no driver, your housewife runs into a couple of thugs? (I didn t say blacks -be sure
to get that straight.) (page 21)

The main social repercussion of the PRTs is the improvement of the conditions of
transportation (and of life) for the public, it represented the socialization of the
technological advances, giving a public car to the working classes (South Paris
Suburbs), and making the expensive private cars less valuable. The tension between
public and private, and the social class reading of the project is obvious from a
sociological perspective, but for Latour it is just noise that aparts us from the
understanding of technology (Aramis).

Then, What is the answer that we find at the end of the book about who killed Aramis?
What is the brilliant solution that Detective Latour offers to justify the whole research?

We lack of love for technology.

As if technology were a subject we could love or hate (Frankenstein analogy is
mandatory here). As if it were not obvious that technology is just a projection of human
creativity and social productivity. We only can love (a particular application of)
technology for what it does or can do, or for the meanings embedded in it as a cultural
artifact, or for the power or social status we can get through it. Technology is not a realm
or a thing in itself, is (a central) feature of culture.

The lack of political interest in explicitly pursuing the research necessary for the
development of Aramis, or any other PRT, is due to the particular signification of PRTs in
the socio-economical and political context. Love for Technology is abundant when it is
about launching a rocket to the moon or developing sophisticated weaponry, but it lacks
when it is about revolutionizing public transportation. Why? Because the social structure
(the network of social interests) do not support research in that area, although for some
time it did: to relocate investments, for patriotism (French technology), etc. Technically,
Latour does not offer us any real answer, but an abstract idealization and
mystification of technology, which is misleading and apart us from the possibility of a
sociological understanding of technology.

To finish, the epilogue subtly addresses again the tension between public and private in
transportation systems, when the young engineer reads an article and thinks that
maybe Aramis (PRTs) could be developed backwards: transforming private cars in a
public transportation system. It looks like a funny wink to end the book, but it is very
significant because addresses the real question beneath the case: Who is really
interested in Aramis or PRT? Or more generally, What are (human or social) agencies
behind this technological project?

Needless to say that non-living things do not have agency, as the living condition is
necessarily included in the agency property

1The only way to introduce metaphysics in a research report is to put them in others
voice, because typically it would take out all the scientific authority from the researcher.
2Ina philosophical or metaphysical discussion we would bring up Spinozas account of
the Being (also known as God) and the subjects, to counterargument against Leibnizs
metaphysics but in a sociological text we might stay out of metaphysics and stick to
what is observable; namely, the Durkheimian account of what is a social fact.
3See Atlas Shrugged or The Fountain.