Author – Dipak Barkhade

The act of remembering a young Latour invites Ambedkarite scholars to engage with the question of what historical sense they would make of “Indian” modernity?

Bruno Latour (1947-2022), a famous French philosopher of science and technology, passed away this month on 9th October, 2022. Dr. Babu Suthar, a linguist based in Philadelphia (USA), expresses his views on Latour’s works on his social media handle on 10th October, 2022. He writes that Latour’s contribution is remarkable in the areas of science, philosophy, sociology and climate change and shares the central points on his major works.

We have never been Modern (1993) discusses the introductory point that science is fundamentally flawed. The flaw lays in the scene that science examines objects of inquiry free of us, the society of scientists. It creates a kind of dichotomy between the objects of scholarship and us. A social reality is neither object-centric nor expert-centric but science tries to convey the otherwise. It is believed to be invented in the form of an objective reality that is present to us “out there” in different forms of narrative in everyday life. It is also claimed that the relation of scientists with such objective knowledge is pure to the extent that the scientists are seen separable from the nature itself, winning an authority over nature. Latour, in his book, Laboratory Life (1979), argues that not only social facts but also scientific facts are mere constructs of our reality. In his book, Science in Action (1987), Latour demands that the scientific community ought to hold a critical outlook on science as well. His Reassembling the Social (2005) shares one of the complaints that sociologists commit an error while employing the term, ‘society’. The term may not be ‘social’ but unfriendly in its function because certain names are reduced into an adjective which fixes and attributes the objects of inquiry with a sense of stability.

In his book, Bruno Latour in Pieces: An Intellectual Biography (2015), Henning Schmidgen indicates that certain identities are essentialized on the basis of “given” determiner of natural geography and “manufactured” determiners like modern language, literature, culture, history, etc. Latour finds these determiners closely “entwined” which can deceive the agents of modernity (5).

Having read these notes, I wondered about the relevance of his works in the scientific realm of India where Brahminical practice of caste-supremacy debunks the narrative of “Indian” modernity. His works do not help me to speak out the existence of caste-supremacy in scientific world as such. But the early academic orientation of this ethnographer of science and technology may demand the attention of Ambedkarite scholars to remember him for two reasons: the savarna (high caste) agents of knowledge may ‘naturalize’ the place of Dalit scholars—given their social identity at the bottom of caste-hierarchy—in the modern centres of learning in India; and they may betray the ideal of objectivity which is at the centre of knowledge production.

In her article, “Bruno Latour, the Post-Truth Philosopher, Mounts a Defence of Science,” Ava Kofman writes that Latour was inspired by Nietzsche’s philosophy in his young age. He studied epistemology but lived doubtful of scientific knowledge and scientists. He moved to West Africa to teach philosophy at a technical school on behalf of the French government. He was commissioned a task to find out why the French companies “failed” to recruit black executives. He found that the problem was not with the black minds but with the ‘white’ mind of engineering schools run under French authority. He learnt for the first time that the establishment of truths about indigenous groups like the blacks should have told in reality the story about intellectual weakness of the white capitalists who enjoy power by virtue of a shared network in an institutional collaboration. The schools were racist. The schools did not pass any practical knowledge of the machinery but abstract theories alone leaving the black students vulnerable to the handling of technical tools in French companies. It is in this background Latour declares that the agents of scientific knowledge system have not been modern and rational. The knowledge(s) is embodied and operated by various groups of scientists in ways which speak for different frameworks of knowing truth(s).

Like the French companies unfairly perceived the black engineers as “pre-modern” and “African” for failing to handle technical graphs in French companies, the toll on Dalit scholars for failing in institutions is disturbing. It is important to note how knowledge is passed on to them in the background of intellectual backwardness of savarna teachers in public institutions of India. When I joined PhD in one of the eminent institutes in south India, I met a research supervisor and started to work with her on the ground of her expertise in the area of identity politics. The head of the Centre called me to her cabin few days later and advised that I work with a Dalit professor. She reasoned out that since I belonged to Dalit background, it was the best to follow her advice. I refused to follow her. She threatened me of expelling from the centre. I conveyed my concerns to her through email because I was under pressure. I mailed her writing that I did not have any intension to disrespect her. I did not obey her because my research work was already set in pace with the supervisor of my choice. I also reasoned out to the HoD that her forcing me to work with the Dalit professor in department was an academic ghettoization. The HoD misused my mail and circulated it maliciously to the Dean of the School of Humanities against me. She alleged me of committing an atrocity on the Dalit professor. To my surprise, the Dean, who coincidentally belong to the savarna caste and linguistic province similar to the HoD, convinced me to submit to her ego. I found him giving me reference of academic texts on caste humiliation to convince me that I should not have opposed academic ghettoization. The mental toll of dealing with such teachers from dominant castes in power lasted whole year. It occurred in the context of a shared network of the savarna intellectuals. It demanded me to approach Ambedkarite Students Association (ASA) outside the centre. My fight for justice resulted in victory but it exhausted me through out and damaged my academic endeavours. What historical sense, then, do Ambedkarite scholars make of “Indian” modernity in such situation?

The article remembers Latour also in response to a much appreciated Foucaultian approach in Indian academia. Its predominance suits the interest of high caste scholars who garner a strong consensus on anti-colonial modernity. The Ambedkarite Dalit scholars do the opposite. In his book, Civility against Caste, Suryakant Waghmore appreciates the colonial state for introducing institutions and access to knowledge to the formerly ‘untouchable’ castes, women, Adivasi, and religious minorities. This happened never before like that (Waghmore 12-13). This strand too tells something about caste positions of savarna scholars. In his book, The Politics of the Governed, Chatterjee builds his theory of “political society” on “subalterns” while civil society on privileged castes (40-41). Ambedkarite scholars deny authority of such a dichotomy between “‘civil’(elite) and ‘political’ (masses)” (Waghmore 20). They demand a close relation with the state and institutions in terms of their full participation in power-structures. Also to be noted is the demand for caste census and thirty-three percent reservation by Ambedkarites in power structures. The demand is found the least in the core agenda of savarna feminists who are critical of Hindu patriarchy.  In his article, “Canutian Kingship and the Courtiers,” Chittibabu Padavala notes that the people suffer with unequal proportion in the public institutions of India. He argues that savarna Marxists of India have failed to fight out fascism as they are less serious with the demand of caste census. Likewise, in her article, “How Upper-Caste Women Continue to Dominate the Women’s Movement in India,” Aabha Joshi points out the alienation faced by Dalit-bahujan women because the issues of reservations and caste violence have been ignored in women’s struggle.

Latour is concerned with the ways in which transmission of knowledge takes place and determine the change in society from inside and outside its character (Schmidgen 3-4). It is a matter of embodiment of modern tools. The knowledge society of India has moved to the level of moon but it looks stuck at the historical junctions of caste-supremacy. But ethnography of science is found animated in Latour’s approach. He does not reject the statist logic of power in a Foucaultian sense. He does not demonstrate “the clinic and the prison” at the centre of “the social field with regard to issues of the body and the exercise of power” (Schmidgen 5). He defends science as it offers the gift of objectivity. I use the same to mark the Brahminical attempts of academic ghettoization on a relativist ground. The intellectuals from privileges castes may fail to achieve objectivity in social transactions with the first-generation students from under privileged backgrounds. Remembering Latour in this light might discomfort them and suspend their claim to modern and rational stand points. It is important to question the civility of their castes when found deterrent to the value of objectivity.

Author – Dipak Barkhade has submitted his PhD thesis on the politics of Bundeli language and identity at the Centre for Comparative Literature, University of Hyderabad.

Image credit: NYT