Bruno Latour’s narrative came from an anthropological perspective, clearly avoiding the of the lens general public. He investigates modernity in his book We Have Never Been Modern and concludes that this notion creates the divide between nature and culture. He even moves on to compare the movement of plate tectonics with the movement of nature and culture. He wants us to think of modernity as a type of faith. The prospect of keeping nature and culture as a hybrid is overwhelming, and Latour suggests that we rethink our definitions. Before modernity existed, the pre-modern society did not create such a division between culture and nature – they were unified as one.

Science these days, in modern time, is viewed as pure. Yet, Latour argues this is not the case. Science is tainted by governments, money, and other powerful regimes, forcing many scientists to become lobbyists. Of course, scientific studies are science, however, it is time for humans to realize its political and ideological impurities. It’s all in tus vs them psychological trend. The modern “us” and the primitive “them” blocks “us” from retracing our steps back into pre-modern times with the pretense that we are not them.

The interconnectedness of science and technology has created a discourse including many fields regardless of people’s socioeconomic class, education, race, gender, geographic location, and job status. This interconnectedness between these various entities is unavoidable. And this is the foundation for Latour’s argument that we have never been modern and are revolutionary.

Currently, the divides between the subjects in the past have been taken down. If we can explain all of the fields using the other, and find truth in each, then we can consider ourselves revolutionary. But we all change constantly, and looking at the timescale of human life, we have changed and evolved dramatically. Revolution is basically in our DNA. But, Latour’s point is that it’s not just what we have evolved from, it’s that we are almost expected to move with change. For example, when you look at the geologic timescale of the Earth, its dramatic changes are very evident. From extinctions to new life, the Earth is constantly changing. But would we consider these changes revolutions? I think that we could, because the Earth itself is creating change through its many spheres of energy. That is why I would like to reinterpret Latour’s argument that we have never been revolutionary and say that in fact, we are revolutionary and it is just a part of what makes us human.