是誰創造「巴斯德」並且站上歷史的舞台？誰又在這洪流中逐漸隱沒？
路易．巴斯德（Louis Pasteur 1822-1895），細菌學之父，醫學邁入新時代的象徵，法國人心目中的民族英雄。如今以巴斯德為名的街道遍布法國大小城鎮，他的成就無可質疑，然而布魯諾．拉圖（Bruno Latour）卻向這公認的事實提出疑問：為什麼人類生活環境的改善全數歸功於巴斯德的天才？
本書是世界重量級思想家拉圖的經典著作，不以偉人當作一個時代的答案，他將巴斯德放回在普法戰爭中落敗的法國。戰後法國政府力圖振作，而改造國民體質是走向富強的必要項目，在這樣的背景下，拉開了法國十九世紀公共衛生運動的序幕。與此同時，巴斯德在實驗室與細菌交戰，最終掌握細菌的特性，並提出細菌傳染導致疾病的理論，然而這一時一地一個團隊的研究成果竟透過新聞媒體迅速取得社會大眾的認可，讓他成為細菌的代言人。這時衛生專家接手把實驗室的成果導向法國再生的關鍵，將巴斯德高舉為科學精神的象徵，而細菌則是全法國都應該齊心對抗的敵人，使得公衛運動的推展逐步取得正當性，深入各個層面，上至城市下水道開鑿的施政績效，下至不可隨意吐痰的個人道德要求。
有別於偉人獨自改變世界的線性敘事，拉圖呈現一幅紛亂的景像，其中的人物懷抱各自的企圖，彼此結盟、互相利用，為了說服對方而四處奔走，在不斷的角力當中界定社會、創造歷史。
本書特色
◎認識法國公共衛生的歷史，衛生清潔如何轉變為施政績效與個人的道德約束。
◎解構偉人敘事，指出時代的變革是眾人為實現各自的目標與利益而持續角力的過程。
◎拋開抽象的理論語言，學習以一種更深刻的方式來描述這個世界。

★ 科学史、科学哲学、科学人类学领域必读书目，时隔12年修订再版
★ 我们真的从未现代过，现代性不过是一种信仰
★ 模糊科学、人文与社会科学的边界，重塑我们的精神图景
-编辑推荐-
★河流污染、冷冻胚胎、艾滋病病毒、臭氧层空洞……这些侵入我们世界的奇怪之“物”是自然还是文化的一部分？我们要如何理解它们？
★作为现代人，我们相信随着科学的兴起，世界已经发生了不可逆转的改变，这种改变进而将我们与原始的、前现代的先辈们分割开来。然而，如果我们放下此种执念，世界将会变成什么样子？
★现代意味着什么？成为一个现代人又意味着什么？一部在当前关于现代性、反现代性、后现代性的争论中无法绕开的著作，一次对现代性本身之定义和构成的深刻反思，一种对科学的全新解读。
-内容简介-
本书颇具原创性地介入了当前关于现代性、反现代性、后现代性的争论之中，作者认为，这些争论都深陷于现代性所奠基的二元对立（主体与客体、自然与文化、人类与非人类……）的错误之中，并割裂了时间。我们的“现代”社会从来没有按照支撑其世界表征系统的宏大分界来运作：一方面是自然，另一方面是文化，两者根本对立。事实上，现代人在实践中从来没有停止过制造杂合体，那些既属于自然又属于文化之物。在此意义上，拉图尔的这本科学人类学著作告诉我们，我们真的从未现代过，现代性在很大程度上不过是一种信仰。
基于此，拉图尔独具匠心地以“科学论”的工作为基础建构出一种不同于后现代主义的“非现代”立场，并发展出一种对称的人类学。他力图在实践中将人类与非人类这对范畴联结起来，打破自然与历史之间的割裂和前现代、现代与后现代之间的分裂，并试图通过组建拟客体，重构作者所谓的“现代制度”。本书模糊了科学、人文与社会科学之间的边界，推进了人们对三者的理解，这无异于重塑我们的精神图景。
-专家推荐-
如果您喜欢一种反二元论式的哲学讨论，如果您想打破诸如主体与客体、心灵与身体、语言与事实之间的分裂，那么您肯定会喜欢上拉图尔……目前而言，在打破制造与发现、自然与历史之间的割裂以及前现代、现代和后现代之间的分裂上，拉图尔的工作是最出色的。
——理查德•罗蒂
在当前有关现代性、反现代性和后现代性等的争论中，[拉图尔]无疑占据了一个非常重要且颇具原创性的位置。他一方面致力于在实践中将人类与非人类这对范畴联结起来，另一方面又对康德、黑格尔、巴什拉、哈贝马斯、鲍德里亚、利奥塔和海德格尔等思想家进行简略的评价，这都使当下的争论内容更加丰富、程度更加热烈。
——安德鲁•皮克林
这是一本有关形而上学和政治本体论的著作。拉图尔的目标是打破自然、权力、语言之类的哲学范畴。书中远见卓识俯拾皆是，从他对多元自然主义（相对于多元文化主义）的倡导到对社会理论家承认客体之历史性的呼吁，不一而足。这是一本奇妙的著作，它与科学史和科学哲学领域中自缚手脚的奉承之作针锋相对、分道扬镳，给人以耳目一新之感。这本书读起来颇有难度，但对那些具有哲学智慧者而言却是一个奖赏，值得一读。
——罗布特•N. 普罗克特
这本书针对当代与“现代主义”这一观念的各类问题，进行了一次既异彩纷呈、深思熟虑又囊括无遗的集中展示。书中集中关注了三个相互关联的重要领域：科学与技术、政治与政府、语言学与符号学研究。拉图尔在考察前现代主义者、后现代主义者、反现代主义者以及所谓的现代主义者的基础上，得出结论：我们真的从未现代过，如其所述，一种祛除了其诸多有害特质之后的现代主义，才是值得我们追求的。
——《选择》

《自然的政治：如何把科学带入民主》是法国当代著名哲学家、社会学家、人类学家布鲁诺·拉图尔于1999年推出的一部政治生态学著作，全书从自然、政治和科学三大领域，探讨我们能用政治生态学做什么的问题。该书赓续拉图尔之前著作的思路与特色，在该书中力图为政治生态学（不是作为学科，而是作为生态政治运动的“绿色运动”）设计新的理论建模，开辟新的科学社会学途径与思考空间，是一部不同于寻常悲天悯人的生态忧思录。

With the rise of science, we moderns believe, the world changed irrevocably, separating us forever from our primitive, premodern ancestors. But if we were to let go of this fond conviction, Bruno Latour asks, what would the world look like? His book, an anthropology of science, shows us how much of modernity is actually a matter of faith. What does it mean to be modern? What difference does the scientific method make? The difference, Latour explains, is in our careful distinctions between nature and society, between human and thing, distinctions that our benighted ancestors, in their world of alchemy, astrology, and phrenology, never made. But alongside this purifying practice that defines modernity, there exists another seemingly contrary one: the construction of systems that mix politics, science, technology, and nature. The ozone debate is such a hybrid, in Latour's analysis, as are global warming, deforestation, even the idea of black holes. As these hybrids proliferate, the prospect of keeping nature and culture in their separate mental chambers becomes overwhelming--and rather than try, Latour suggests, we should rethink our distinctions, rethink the definition and constitution of modernity itself. His book offers a new explanation of science that finally recognizes the connections between nature and culture--and so, between our culture and others, past and present. Nothing short of a reworking of our mental landscape. "We Have Never Been Modern" blurs the boundaries among science, the humanities, and the social sciences to enhance understanding on all sides. A summation of the work of one of the most influential and provocative interpreters of science, it aims at saving what is good and valuable in modernity and replacing the rest with a broader, fairer, and finer sense of possibility.

Science and technology have immense authority and influence in our society, yet their working remains little understood. The conventional perception of science in Western societies has been modified in recent years by the work of philosophers, sociologists and historians of science. In this book Bruno Latour brings together these different approaches to provide a lively and challenging analysis of science, demonstrating how social context and technical content are both essential to a proper understanding of scientific activity. Emphasizing that science can only be understood through its practice, the author examines science and technology in action: the role of scientific literature, the activities of laboratories, the institutional context of science in the modern world, and the means by which inventions and discoveries become accepted. From the study of scientific practice he develops an analysis of science as the building of networks. Throughout, Bruno Latour shows how a lively and realistic picture of science in action alters our conception of not only the natural sciences but also the social sciences and the sociology of knowledge in general. This stimulating book, drawing on a wealth of examples from a wide range of scientific activities, will interest all philosophers, sociologists and historians of science, scientists and engineers, and students of the philosophy of social science and the sociology of knowledge.

Reassembling the Social is a fundamental challenge from one of the world's leading social theorists to how we understand society and the 'social'. Bruno Latour's contention is that the word 'social' as used by Social Scientists has become laden with assumptions to the point where it has become a misnomer. When the adjective is applied to a phenomenon, it is used to indicate a stabilized state of affairs, a bundle of ties that in due course may be used to account for another phenomenon. Latour also finds the word used as if it described a type of material, in a comparable way to an adjective such as 'wooden' or 'steely'. Rather than simply indicating what is already assembled together, it is now used in a way that makes assumptions about the nature of what is assembled. It has become a word that designates two distinct things: a process of assembling: and a type of material, distinct from others. Latour shows why 'the social' cannot be thought of as a kind of material or domain, and disputes attempts to provide a 'social explanation' of other states of affairs. While these attempts have been productive (and probably necessary) in the past, the very success of the social sciences mean that they are largely no longer so. At the present stage it is no longer possible to inspect the precise constituents entering the social domain. Latour returns to the original meaning of 'the social' to redefine the notion and allow it to trace connections again. It will then be possible to resume the traditional goal of the social sciences, but using more refined tools. Drawing on his extensive work examining the 'assemblages' of nature, Latour finds it necessary to scrutinize thoroughly the exact content of what is assembled under the umbrella of Society. This approach, a 'sociology of associations' has become known as Actor-Network-Theory, and this book is an essential introduction both for those seeking to understand Actor-Network-Theory, or the ideas of one of its most influential proponents.

This highly original work presents laboratory science in a deliberately skeptical way: as an anthropological approach to the culture of the scientist. Drawing on recent work in literary criticism, the authors study how the social world of the laboratory produces papers and other "texts," and how the scientific vision of reality becomes that set of statements considered, for the time being, too expensive to change. The book is based on field work done by Bruno Latour in Roger Guillemin's laboratory at the Salk Institute and provides an important link between the sociology of modern sciences and laboratory studies in the history of science.

Frankenstein's monster was born of human endeavour and 19th-century ignominious end but provided many lessons during his 24 years of plans and prototypes. Aramis, the guided-transportation system intended for Paris, represented a major advance in "personal rapid transit" - a system that combined the efficiency of a subway with the flexibility of the private automobile. But in the end, the system of electronic couplings proved too complex and expensive, the political will failed, and the plans were jettisoned in 1987. The story of Aramis, of its birth and death, is told here by several different parties, none of which is given precedence over any other: an engineer and his professor, who together act as "detectives" to ferret out the reasons for the project's failure; company executives and elected officials; a sociologist; and finally Aramis itself, who delivers a passionate plea on behalf of technological innovations that risk being abandoned by their makers. Technology has needs and desires, especially a desire to be born, but cannot function without the sustained commitment of those who have created it. Part novel and part sociological study, Bruno Latour has written a tale of a technological dream gone wrong. As the young engineer and professor follow Aramis's trail - conducting interviews, analyzing documents, assessing the evidence - perspectives keep shifting: the truth is revealed as multilayered, unascertainable, comprising an array of possibilities worthy of "Rasbomon". The reader is eventually led to see the project from the point of view of Aramis, and along the way gains insight into the relationship between human beings and their technological creations.

A scientist friend asked Bruno Latour point-blank: "Do you believe in reality?" Taken aback by this strange query, Latour offers his meticulous response in Pandora's Hope. It is a remarkable argument for understanding the reality of science in practical terms.In this book Latour, identified by Richard Rorty as the new "bête noire of the science worshipers," gives us his most philosophically informed book since Science in Action. Through case studies of scientists in the Amazon analyzing soil and in Pasteur's lab studying the fermentation of lactic acid, he shows us the myriad steps by which events in the material world are transformed into items of scientific knowledge. Through many examples in the world of technology, we see how the material and human worlds come together and are reciprocally transformed in this process.Why, Latour asks, did the idea of an independent reality, free of human interaction, emerge in the first place? His answer to this question, harking back to the debates between Might and Right narrated by Plato, points to the real stakes in the so-called science wars: the perplexed submission of ordinary people before the warring forces of claimants to the ultimate truth.

Although every town in France has a street named for Pasteur, was he alone able to stop people from spitting, persuade them to dig drains, influence them to undergo vaccination? Pasteur's success depended upon a whole network of forces, including the public hygiene movement, the medical profession (both military physicians and private practitioners), and colonial interests. It is the operation of these forces, in combination with the talent of Pasteur, that Bruno Latour sets before us as a prime example of science in action.

In this new book, Bruno Latour offers answers to questions raised in "We Have Never Been Modern, "a work that interrogated the connections between nature and culture. If not modern, he asked, what "have" we been, and what values should we inherit? Over the past twenty-five years, Latour has developed a research protocol different from the actor-network theory with which his name is now associated--a research protocol that follows the different types of connectors that provide specific truth conditions. These are the connectors that prompt a climate scientist challenged by a captain of industry to appeal to the "institution" of science, with its army of researchers and mountains of data, rather than to "capital-S Science" as a higher authority. Such modes of extension--or modes of existence, Latour argues here--account for the many differences between law, science, politics, and other domains of knowledge. Though scientific knowledge corresponds to only one of the many possible modes of existence Latour describes, an unrealistic vision of science has become the arbiter of reality and truth, seducing us into judging all values by a single standard. Latour implores us to recover other modes of existence in order to do justice to the plurality of truth conditions that Moderns have discovered throughout their history. This systematic effort of building a new philosophical anthropology presents a completely different view of what Moderns have been, and provides a new basis for opening diplomatic encounters with other societies at a time when all societies are coping with ecological crisis.

Prince of Networks is the first treatment of Bruno Latour specifically as a philosopher. It has been eagerly awaited by readers of both Latour and Harman since their public discussion at the London School of Economics in February 2008. Part One covers four key works that display Latours underrated contributions to metaphysics: Irreductions, Science in Action, We Have Never Been Modern, and Pandoras Hope. Harman contends that Latour is one of the central figures of contemporary philosophy, with a highly original ontology centered in four key concepts: actants, irreduction, translation, and alliance. In Part Two, Harman summarizes Latours most important philosophical insights, including his status as the first secular occasionalist. The problem of translation between entities is no longer solved by the fiat of God (Malebranche) or habit (Hume), but by local mediators. Working from his own object-oriented perspective, Harman also criticizes the Latourian focus on the relational character of actors at the expense of their cryptic autonomous reality. This book forms a remarkable interface between Latours Actor-Network Theory and the Speculative Realism of Harman and his confederates. It will be of interest to anyone concerned with the emergence of new trends in the humanities following the long postmodernist interval. 'Graham Harman does for Bruno Latour what Deleuze did for Foucault. Rather than a recounting of Latours impressive sociological analyses, Harman approaches Latour as a philosopher, offering a new realist object-oriented metaphysic capable of sustaining contemporary thought well into the next century. What ensues is a lively and productive debate between rival, yet sympathetic, orientations of object-oriented philosophy between two of our most highly original, daring, and creative philosophers, giving us a text destined to have a major impact on contemporary philosophical thought and providing exciting avenues beyond reigning deadlocks that haunt philosophy today.' Professor Levi R. Bryant (Collin College), author of Difference and Givenness: Deleuze's Transcendental Empiricism and the Ontology of Immanence. 'Graham Harmans book Prince of Networks is a wonderfully eloquent exposition of the metaphysical foundations of Latours work. This is not an introduction to Latour. It is rather a skilful and penetrating interpretation of his work, as well as a insightful Heideggerian critique. At last somebody has taken Latour to heart and to task. I cannot imagine a more forceful, incisive and lucid analysis of the foundations of Latours work than this one.' Professor Lucas D. Introna (Lancaster University)

-编辑推荐-
★ 潘多拉盒子被打开，“科学大战”一触即发
1996年，在一次国际人类学会议后，拉图尔被一位心理学家郑重其事地问及了一个不可思议的问题：“你相信实在吗？”这仿佛将他带到了“科学大战”的前线，交战双方针对“科学事实是客观存在的，还是科学研究的产物？”这一议题争执不休。自己所一直从事的科学论研究遭到了如此大的误解，让拉图尔深感有必要略微折返脚步。于是，本书便应运而生。
☆ 为了找回寄存在潘多拉盒子底部的希望，我们需要一个新的、相当复杂的构思
本书在哲学和概念层面研究科学和科学进程本身，是自拉图尔的《科学在行动》一书以来最具哲学意义的著作。作者质疑了科学知识的权威性和可靠性，带领“科学大战”的交战双方远离战场，去往更高之处：超越传统的主客体二分观念，在这种观念留下的空白处绘制出一幅由人类和非人类所组成的概念图景。
★ 详细、生动的经验案例研究×有力、充分的论证
拉图尔采用了一种逸闻逸事的叙事方法，描述了他在亚马孙雨林与土壤学家共事的经历、法国核物理学家弗雷德里克•约里奥对核裂变链式反应的研究、路易•巴斯德发现乳酸发酵物的过程，探讨了科学研究的政治维度和充斥其间的社会话语。全球气候变暖、疯牛病传播与吸烟的致癌效应都在书中不同章节有所提及。
-内容简介-
本书是布鲁诺•拉图尔多年深耕科学哲学的结晶，是自他的《科学在行动》一书以来最具哲学意义的著作。面对一次学术会议后，一位科学家朋友直言不讳的提问：“你相信实在吗？”拉图尔在书中给出了缜密的回应，并对其科学论立场做出了最全面和具体的阐述，为从实践角度理解科学实在和科学论所追求的那种实在论提供了出色的论证。
通过一系列案例研究，拉图尔展示了不同领域科学家的行动：从土壤科学家在亚马孙地区的田野考察，到第二次世界大战爆发时法国原子能科学家的核反应研究，再到路易•巴斯德对酵母中乳酸发酵的研究，从而向我们揭示了物质世界中的各类事件被转化为科学知识的无数个步骤；他还选取技术世界的诸多例证，让我们见证了物质世界与人类世界是如何在技术进程中相互聚合、相互转化的。
-名家推荐-
本书充满着洞察力，时常让人眼前一亮。它实现了人们对哲学著作的所有期待，尽管绝大多数哲学著作并不能做到这一点；它动摇了那些人们深深持有却又不自知的预设。它将世界重新洗牌，然后再行发牌；牌未变，洗牌手法却截然不同……《潘多拉的希望》其书、其作者，都值得认真关注……拉图尔提出的问题令人震惊，却又异常重要，他给出的答案，同样令人震惊不已，却又精妙绝伦。卡夫卡曾写到，一本好书应如冰斧般拥有强大的冲击力。《潘多拉的希望》做到了这一点。读罢此书，我热血沸腾，茫然无措。这是我对一本书所能想出的最高赞美和最由衷的认可。
——诺亚•J. 埃夫隆，《波士顿书评》
布鲁诺•拉图尔在本书中对科学生活的探索慷慨激昂又极富创见，他以理性之人自居，时刻准备着带领“科学大战”的交战双方远离战场，去往更高之处……书中收录的文章涉及科学大战的缘起与背景、有关科学实践的案例研究和对其当前理论立场的精微阐述。这些文章读来令人振奋、耳目一新，时有动人之处……拉图尔对古代著作的铺陈反而凸显了当下的学术焦点，他试图给读者留下一种印象，苏格拉底和卡利克勒这两位主角不仅彼此对话，同时也在与拉图尔对话，如此欢畅之行文深得读者之心。
——凯瑟琳•潘多拉，《美国科学家》
向拉图尔展现一个智识战场，他会突入战场中央，向双方开战……《潘多拉的希望》完全可以撼动你的思想。不管在科学抑或其他领域，这似乎从来都不是一件坏事。
——迈克•霍尔德内斯，《新科学家》
拉图尔以《潘多拉的希望》一书对科学论进行了系统的辩护，这一辩护始于他与五位博物学家在亚马孙地区的短暂停留……他对他们的观察极具说服力，对科学事业也未有丝毫傲慢的敌意。对自己能够成为科学家研究报告的共同撰稿人，拉图尔自豪不已；对能够出现在拉图尔的研究报告之中，科学家们必定同感欣喜。
——《泰晤士高等教育增刊》
他的著作到处闪耀着睿智、深刻的见识，优雅的辞藻，朴实而贴切的比喻，自嘲式的个人趣闻，高超的说服技艺。不管读拉图尔之书，还是听拉图尔之言，总给人赏心悦目之感，这是因为拉图尔的心中总是充满着活力和趣味。
——约翰•齐曼，《跨学科科学评论》
拉图尔致力于为新兴的“科学论”辩护，这是一门从哲学和概念层面研究科学和科学进程本身的学科。第1章的任务是概述科学论及其对人们理解实在本质所做的贡献，随后拉图尔给出了一系列案例研究，以展现科学家在不同领域的行动。这些案例研究涉及范围广泛，从对几位土壤学家田野考察的分析，到路易•巴斯德对酵母中乳酸发酵的研究，拉图尔细致剖析了科学家行动和思想的构成，不管这些构成是可见的还是不可见的。拉图尔引人入胜、简洁明快的写作风格，使这一艰深的话题变得更易理解。
——R. K. 哈里斯，《选择》