ARAMIS

I'm having a really hard time writing a post this week. After finishing Aramis, I'm not sure where to begin or what to comment on. I feel like I've read 300 pages of really dense and complicated prose, and all that I've taken away is the idea that technologies will fail unless people compromise, negotiate, and change their minds. Aramis failed because people were unwilling to change it in relation to shifting circumstances and varying social demands. Latour writes that by insisting on the purity of the nominal Aramis, and avoiding the work of renegotiation, the engineers ended up with nothing. He claims that because the engineers hated research, its uncertainty and contingency, they were unable to succeed. Latour explains that, if something is physically impossible, then you must change it into something that is physically possible. You can't expect the thing to autonomously become possible. If you can't get funding for a project, you need to work to persuade people to fund the project. You can't expect to the project itself to persuade people. He avoids calling the idea untenable or infeasible because he insists that an idea can--and must--change. (At least, that's what I'm taking away--perhaps I'm misreading).



I think I buy into what Latour is saying, but, then again, there is a part of me that wants to reject him, or at least, reject the conclusion that the if you fail to compromise, then your project is a failure. In other words, I don't see a problem with giving up on an idea when you've determined that, in order to make it work, you would need to change it--or yourself--into something that you don't really want. The engineers who wanted nominal Aramis, but could not convince others to accept, or could not transform the material world to implement, nominal Aramis, had the right to terminate the project. They don't have to renegotiate and accept an Araval, if they don't want to.



Now, Latour would probably argue that it's better to make something--even if it's not exactly what you set out for--rather than come up completely empty-handed. He would say that it's human nature to compromise and negotiate, and it's the only way to get things done. I agree. But I also, think that there are times when people won't or can't accept a compromise. And, if they can't accept a compromise and can't convince people to see things their way, then the only thing they can do is shut things down. Maybe, their refusal to compromise, will force people to see things their way in the future.



I guess part of my insistence on this point is my tendency to draw parallels between those who wanted the nominal Aramis and those who wanted, say, civil rights in the 1960's (and still want them today). This is a stretch, so don't go with me if you don't want. But I think I see a parallel between the social negotiations that go on when trying to construct a more perfect technology and the social negotiations that go on when trying to construct a more perfect world. MLK, in a social justice project, was willing to negotiate on some things, but he was also unwilling to negotiate on basic principles (EG. non-violence) which he saw as vital to his project (if you've ever read Why We Can't Wait you know what I'm talking about). Meanwhile, the Aramis engineers were willing to negotiate on some things, but unwilling to negotiate on basic principles (EG. non-material couplings) which they saw as vital to their project. Neither King nor Aramis engineers would have their projects if they had to give up their basic principles. And, to me, that's okay. Maybe, both projects came to a halt because of this refusal to compromise. But maybe it's better to shut things down, then it is to change the project into something that you don't really want.