Comparing Haraway And Latour's Ideas

Bruno Latour’s notion of nonhuman actors and Donna Haraway’s notion of the companion species are both concepts that are based around the view that humans are not alone in the creation and maintenance of society. They are unique concepts as animals are so often excluded from the sociological field. Jim Johnson states ‘the most liberal sociologist often discriminates against nonhumans’ (1988 p.1). Both Haraway and Latour seek to change this. Haraway has a background in science, with a PhD in biology. Despite being a sociologist of science, Bruno Latour has a background in theology. Their interdisciplinary perspectives mean their sociological approaches are noteworthy and unique. This essay will compare and contrast Latour’s idea of nonhuman actors
Their writing styles will be considered to see how it effects their presentation of nonhuman actors and companion species and if it makes it less or more convincing. Ideas that will be analysed are how animals contribute to society, but how Haraway and Latour differ in the way they see the relationship between animals and humans. How social constructionism influenced their arguments will also be considered, as well as their writing styles such as how many examples they use. How their sociological backgrounds influence their ideas will be explored in greater detail and finally their ideas regarding hybridity will be analysed. It appears that whilst both notions have their strengths and weaknesses, Latour’s is the most widely accepted and is also the most accurate portrayal of the human’s relationship with nonhumans, specifically animals, within contemporary
One example of this is that he references the Pasteurisation of France to describe how nonhuman actors heavily affect the social. If Pasteur had not conducted his studies on the prevention of diseases then French society would not have been transformed into the culture we know today. As Scientific knowledge is socially produced, the sociological approach of Latour is to use examples of societal production in order to demonstrate scientific advances (Lock, 2000). This most definitely has its advantages, but it has been criticised by many scholars as being ‘frustrating’. However, it can be argued that Latour’s idea of nonhuman actors within Actor Network Theory is one that needs examples and metaphors in order to understand. Haraway admits that her work uses ‘ironic metaphor’ in order to put forward her arguments. For example, her in her book ‘Primate Visions’ (1989) she focuses on how metaphors affect the studies of companion species. However, it has been argued that Haraway’s notion of companion species would benefit from more accessible examples like those used by Latour, as it is simply ‘detached from practicality’ (Sax, 2008). Although Latour and Haraway both use metaphors, the lack of practical examples in Haraway’s work means it can be hard to understand. However, it can be argued that the claim she is ‘detached from practicality’ is not due to her writing style, but because the concept