Alex WellersteinVerified account

Right. But that also seems like the much weaker claim. It’s the ‘we’re not about deconstruction’ bit and the implication that deconstruction is about attack that makes the statement weird. Also, the opposition between deconstruction and explaining robustness.

I mean, you and I both know that SJ is not exactly naive about the problematic nature of the authority of science.

Agreed. But there has been a trend among some of the founders of our field—at least the ones studying the contemporary—to try to pull back from the symmetry logics that once galvanized us. -[or, we could call it a partial return to the scientism of original SSK].

Sure. Though even Latour's ideas (as much as I can claim to understand them) seem to me to be very clearly not about a re-embrace of scientism, but rather a reframing of what the aims of epistemology are.

I actually had Collins in mind (I can understand him) more than Latour, the latest of which I’m still trying to get a handle on.

In L's famous critique/steam piece, he likens these tools to weapons and wonders if we are training for the right battle, etc. I think I might ask: how many old generals of past wars successfully retooled for the next wars? In my reading, very few.

I’d buy this more easily if the new critiques of deconstruction didn’t look suspiciously like the old critiques of deconstruction.

When I read L closely, I don't find his critique to be similar to the old critiques. But I agree that when he gets "reduced" for very popular consumption (cough cough NYT, but sometimes even scholars) it just turns into "deconstruction is dangerous!"