Latour abre a sua fala fazendo uma brincadeira com a platéia do encontro sobre redes. Traz como exemplo as conexões entre os Navi e seu planeta no filme Avatar de James Cameron para mostrar como as ideias em torno de rede se tornaram dominantes no mundo contemporâneo e questiona:”What have we done?”. O que nós fizemos? Um “nós” no qual ele diz se considerar incluído não por ter estudado especificidades de redes digitais ou materiais (provavelmente caso da maioria dos ali presentes) mas por ter, há trinta anos atrás quando estava em San Diego, considerado a noção de redes como “a very powerfull way of refphrasing basic social theory espistemoloy and philosophy”. 05:45
In a #network the whole is always smaller than the parts; a whole is a mode of circulation through the parts #Latourhttp://ping.fm/jJFtj
Fala que duas ofuscações desnecessárias, uma metafísica do outro sociológica, tem que ser postas de lado se quisermos dar uma boa definição de organização [two unecessary obfuscation, one metaphysical the other sociological have to be put aside if we wish to provide a good definition of #organizing}
E então fala sobre a a mudança constante no tempo pela qual todas as coisas passam. Para continuarmos a existir temos que pagar o preço da mudança.
There is a huge distinction to be made between the clear recognition of a trait especific to the organization mode of existence and the activity of blowing it into a mistery, specially with the dialectical miracle for witch the same person witch simultaneously be the all souls of organizations and those who are defined by the organization as if it ever existed a system or structure into wich humans actors would fit...
Cita James e Witehead com os grandes pensadores da metafísica.
"...essence is the consequence, not the cause of duration..."
0:00--- [instead of defining the precise mechanisms that defines an organization, sociologists with very very few exception], notably of course Gabriel Tarde, have attempted do study a quimera, in the biological sense of the word, obtained by the unfortunate fusion of the political and the organizational mode of existence. The equation of a path that links the part and the whole is a crucial feature of a political regime. What I have called for this reason the circle of representation. Are we one or many? Is the whole more than the sum of its parts? Should the whole really consist of its constituents?
1:10 — the political circle that was called autophuos in Plato, has become “sui generis” in Durkheim´s hand. The two expressions are almost exactly the same. Except that one, the first, means the political question of bringing the part into a whole, while the other designates de mistifying invention of a social entity above and beyond its ingredients. While the first clarifies the political mode of existence, the second obfuscates the organization regime. In an organization there is never any “sui generis” corporate body. And that´s exactly where the difficulty lies.
2:04— Organization, in other words, remains always immanent the the instrumentarium that brings them into existence. This is why I call them flat.
3:18— I want to argue that it´s not because boths regimes are concerned with the complex question of composition that they should be mixed. By inventing the notion of a society on one hand and an individual at the other, and them wondering how the two are related, social theorists have made very difficult the detection of a precise path for witch organizations traces their zigzaging patterns. Their moral and political obsession for the composition of a whole has blinded them to the organizations. The shadow cast by the political view has made monsters of institutions. To be sure organizations are odd enough but there is no need to render them monsters.
4:09—- So how can we detect the oddity without additional mystery? First by putting aside the sociological artifact. Ann organization is not and will never be a super-organism, a Golem [...], a whole superior to it’s part, a corporate body, a moral entity. The addition of any concept of society to the inquiry will only blind us. Second, by accepting the metaphysical evidence that no entity lasts by having a substance on which to rely, a foundation on witch to rest or an essence to carry it further in time.
6:24— By contrast with its mystical version, the chimera of the political fusion with the organization mode, this is what I would like to call the secular definition of an organizing. How can it be pursued? Naturally, social scientists are no no fool, I know. They have detected in organizations trajectory a real enough phenomenon that has been transformed in an artifact only because of its passing resemblance with that of achieving the body political circle. This real enough phenomenon is that we live a different moment under and at sometimes above what I would call a script.
7: 12 A script is a set of goal or oriented instructions that delegate to some other actors more or less especific tasks dependind on those actors competence. A script also include, and this is a crucial feature, deadlines at witch it will be reconsidered. Altought the word “script” has been lifted out literary theory, we should be carrefull not to loose sight of the originalitty of the organizational sense of script.
7:50— When you read a novell you might be carried along whith the carachter identification, suspention of desbelieve, etc. But you are never witnessing the brutal transformation that is so common in the act of organizational writing. Certainly, instead or reading the script you are instructed by the script to do something. To be sure that exists in some patological cases even in novells, as when a kid reading about Batman feelings the instruction to become Batman and jumps by the window. But in organization this is not patological. This reversal authorship is must mundane. A script is what you write about, but then what is of sort of speak writing you.
———————–
Ps. Any help correcting the text will be very, very wellcome!!!!!!!
