Why the fetish?

Chapter 1 of Bruno Latour’s On the Modern Cult of the Factish Gods (2010) uses etymology, homonymy, and general artifice to make the claim that facts are modern fetishes. Thus, while we may claim to be secular and scientific in public, we have never been areligious. This continues Latour’s theme of symmetry, earlier developed in We Have Never Been Modern (1993). I approve of the cleverness. Mating ideas to the historical peculiarities of the words we use to express them is something that Heidegger did splendidly in his lecture on Das Ding (“The Thing”), and Latour carried the torch well.[^1] Tellingly, however, the uglier neologism “iconoclash” was instead ported to Germany for a 2002 art installation, the written accompaniment to which makes up chapter 2 of the book. Then chapter 3 is a closing sermon on scientism. Overall, I agree with the claim that our practices and taboos about science are weirdly religious. But the English fête prepared for Latour by Duke Press was unwarranted.

The pamphlet adapted into chapter 1, Petite réflexion sur le culte moderne des dieux faitiches (1996), pretends to show a little more humility than the translated version. Reading the English is daunting, not only for its density, but for its pretentious style and numerous footnotes. That said, as Rosalind Williams emphasized in her review, the footnotes are illuminating. (Some generous soul also underlined the most interesting passages in the copy of the book I borrowed from Stanford’s library, so I take back what I wrote about the fête.) Tomorrow I will post a secondhand homily and a selection of quotes.

[1] Rorty reminded us that this is Europa’s torch: “Analytical philosophers think in terms of questions without history, whereas continental philosophers think in terms of names with history.”