Demodernizing psychology

first approximations to psychology from Latourian philosophy




symmetric anthropology, political epistemology, modern dualisms, psychology


What would be required to dismantle modern psychology? How could it be purged the pervasive dichotomies that turned this discipline highly asymmetrical? Could we focus on the practices of hybridization to reformulate psychology as a non-modern science? This overreaching project will be explored in a series of four essays. This first piece will begin by describing the difference between the approaches of classic epistemology and Latourian philosophy to scientific activities in general and psychology in particular. Then it will explain in greater detail the symmetric anthropology used by Latour to depict the Modern Constitution and its dualistic influence in the sciences. Not only is psychology problematic due to its deeply rooted dichotomies, but mainly because it plays a pivotal role in this Modern Constitution. The essay finishes by exploring alternatives proposed by Latour to achieve a symmetrical metaphysics, which consequentially would lead to a reformation of psychology itself.

Author Biography

David Antolínez, Independent Researcher

Independent Researcher and Clinical Psychologist with an Mg in Human Sciences. Ongoing research in Epistemology and Science and Technology Studies.


Amann, Klaus, and Knorr-Cetina, Karin. “Thinking through talk.” Knowledge and Society 8 (1989): 3-26.

Bloor, David. “The strengths of the strong programme.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 11, no. 2 (1981): 199-213.

Collins, Harry. “The TEA set: tacit knowledge and scientific networks.” Social Studies of Science 4, no. 2 (April 1974): 165-186.

Despret, Viciane. “The body we care for.” Body & Society 10, no. 2 (June 2004): 111-134.

Devereux, Georges. From Anxiety to Method. Paris: Mouton & Co., 1967.

Fuller, Steve. Philosophy, Rhetoric, and the End of Knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1993.

Harman, Graham. “Demodernizing the Humanities with Latour.” New Literary History 47, no. 2 (Spring & Summer 2016): 249-274.

Kuhn, Thomas. The Road since Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Latour, Bruno. Science in Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987.

Latour, Bruno. We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993.

Latour, Bruno. Pandora’s Hope. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999.

Latour, Bruno. On the Modern Cult of the Factish Gods. Durham: Duke University Press, 2010.

Latour, Bruno. “Reflections on Etienne Souriau’s Les différents modes d’existence.” In The Speculative Turn, edited by Levi Bryant, Nick Srnicek and Graham Harman, 304-333. Melbourne:, 2011.

Latour, Bruno. An Inquiry Into Modes of Existence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013.

Latour, Bruno. “¿Excarcelar los cuerpos?” Calibán 18, no. 1 (2020): 225-32.

Latour, Bruno, and Woolgar, Steve. Laboratory Life. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1986.

Mialet, Hélène. “Where would STS be without Latour?” Social Studies of Science 42, no. 3 (March 2012): 456-461.

Perry, Stewart. The Human Nature of Science. New York: Free Press, 1966.

Stengers, Isabelle, and Bruno Latour. “The Sphinx of the Work.” In The Different Modes of Existence, by Étienne Souriau, 9-94. Minneapolis: Univocal, 2015.






Academic articles