Academic Master


Bruno Latour’s book After Lockdown: Metamorphosis


Following the distressing experience of the epidemic and lockdown, both nations and people have been looking for methods to get out of the crisis, with many wishing to return to the world as it was before to the virus. There is, however, another method for life forms to absorb the lessons of damage (Clover, 2021). Because the global health crisis is entwined with a larger and more devastating disaster brought on by the New Climate Regime, humans may not be able to simply break free (Ellis, Steadman & Mao, 2020). Learning to live in lockdown might be a golden opportunity for a dress rehearsal. The climatic change has a chance to finally comprehend where the residents of the planet live, what type of place ‘earth’ is, and how people will be able to orient themselves and exist in this environment in the years ahead.

Humans could finally be able to explore the country in which they dwell (Horton, 2020). Humans, like all other living things, learn to understand the true character of the climate. They are undergoing transformation as well as determining what kind of freedom is possible, which is placed and understood in various ways (Delanty, 2020). Bruno Latour provides a compass for this necessary re-orientation of people’s lives. His best-selling Down to Earth book focuses at the mechanics of captivity. People will be forced to figure out how to deal with the unusual times they are living in. This paper will address the ideas that Latour offers in the book and the strengths of the analysis and weaknesses of his arguments.

The ideas Latour offers in the book

The ideas offered by Latour in his book are; On Latour and Sociology. Latour’s solution looks at life from a different perspective (Kamsteeg, Durrani & Wels, 021). To the irregular philosophy of past Science and Technology Studies, a new balanced conceptual framework dwells an organism comparable to the one in the Gaian biota (Ellis, Steadman & Mao, 2020). Latour’s strongest arguments for solid planning in the sociology of knowledge are built around the concept of life. Powerful programs claim that the explanation of knowledge is not clear. In other words, people should try to evaluate science scientifically in the same way they evaluate any other knowledge-producing system. However, records of knowledge are believed to have originated from human effort (Introini, Morelli & Pasqualini, 2021). This means that the strong program is still Science and Technology Studies which includes science and scientists. The belief systems are explored in the strong program (Snake-Beings, 2020). As Bloor points out, it is unlikely that a single person would have a view out of nowhere that would allow them to objectively see an area of ​​inquiry.

It is also theoretically conceivable to form social institutions capable of critical inquiry to be conducted in areas of knowledge. These institutions are still humanitarian programs that have emerged from a radically modified scientific program (Horton, 2020). As a result, one can visualize an object and a conception of an object within a powerful program. The object that needs knowledge using principles of receptivity is defined as an object created alone or through interaction with other entities (Kamsteeg, Durrani & Wels, 021). Individual and collective endeavors to create knowledge result in the establishment of stereotyped thinking patterns, which Bloor refers to as conceptions. This appears to be an aim that Latour may endorse as part of the strong program. Latour argues that he has abandoned the subject-object paradigm, which he sees as an attempt to explain nature through social explanation.

Latour and “Nature”

Latour’s claim that the strong program denies the power of things while preserving all power and authority over social processes is false (Ellis, Steadman & Mao, 2020). Having made this leap into scientific sociology, Latour now wishes to give free rein to non-humans, not just animals. He does this through the Gaia mechanism, which he interprets as the regulatory processes that led to life on Earth, excluding humans in the manner of Lovelock. Man is seen as an anomaly, a cancer of the earthly body that Gaia is now trying to eradicate a flaw Lovelock believes is doomed to fail (Introini, Morelli & Pasqualini, 2021). This is a far cry from previous versions of the Gaia hypothesis that Darwinian forces result in the creation of biologically mediated feedback loops that help maintain ecological balance.

Individuals favor possessing a trait that helps them survive regardless of whether or not their survival is useful to the biota in the long term (Horton, 2020). However, Latour’s current thinking, as seen in After Lockdown, raises some serious questions that have yet to be answered, assuming Gaia is some sort of entity-filled area worthy of representation on the Entity Council. Latour first referred to parliament, though not modernly, and explained the concepts of natural politics (Ellis, Steadman & Mao, 2020). Readers interested in Science and Technology Studies may agree with Latour’s environmental issues, but want more information and an understanding of his ontological theory (Kamsteeg, Durrani & Wels, 021). Readers who come to After Lockdown looking for the logical design features of arguments for the study of human knowledge will be disappointed.

Latour demonstrated his extraordinary ability to capture the mood of an event. After a year of confinement in human apartments reluctantly returning to a new world of social isolation and the demands of getting dressed and vaccinated people are all isolated (Delanty, 2020). Friendly and familiar pubs were closed, and the trip turned from a bit of jealousy to absolute misery. As Latour points out, every idea people have of COVID and every decision they make involves a bit of climate change (Ecks, 2020). But this idea is only for those who like Gregor Samsa, know that people have made it a unique kind of life. Life looks beautiful for someone who has not changed. For those who believe that today should be like three years ago, people consider themselves a big mistake. The best alternative is to get rid of it. Latour highlights the environmental disasters facing humans, and his view of the disruptive nature of the COVID siege and his focus on life’s vulnerabilities are clear and unforgettable.

On ‘Life’

Latour is an important step for chemist James Lovelock and microbiologist Lynn Margaris to understand how the world works in developing the Gaia hypothesis (Ellis, Steadman & Mao, 2020). In an interview with Jonathan Watts in 2020, Latour compared this importance to Galileo’s discovery of the planet-centered solar theory. According to Lovelock and Margolis, Gaia’s life system on Earth seeks to maintain acceptable physical habitat. Through homeostasis, a cybernetic feedback system unknowingly manipulates biomes (Horton, 2020). All life on Earth interacts, from microorganisms breaking down inert minerals in the soil to microorganisms constantly injecting solar energy into the food products of other living things. They in turn release gas and allow Gaia to become a food product for other living things (Kamsteeg, Durrani & Wels, 021). As Latour pointed out in 2010, mainstream science has failed to accept this notion.

This might be owing to a lack of technology to receive it, as speculated by Latour. The fairer statement is that this theory is not commonly accepted due to significant evidence to the contrary (Delanty, 2020). The activity of cyanobacteria caused a tremendous rise in oxygen in the Earth’s atmosphere and shallow water during the Paleozoic Era, some 2.2 billion years ago. The presence of free oxygen has led to the extinction of many anaerobic organisms, but it has also facilitated the evolution of multicellular life forms. Consider this event an example of life to maintain a balance without looking for facts from fossils and isotopes. It was a calamity for life on Earth at the time (Ecks, 2020). It was fortunate that several individuals arrived late. This episode, on the other hand, appeared to violate Gaia’s philosophy of balancing her livelihood. Products that make life possible for living beings and Gaia. The reason for this is that biological response networks have the net impact of increasing rather than decreasing the planet’s sensitivity to climate change as a result of human activities.

Biological byproducts will contribute to the warming of the planet due to anthropogenic climate change, according to analyzes of Antarctic ice core samples. The existing damage caused by anthropogenic climate change is becoming more evident over time (Clover, 2021). This idea, Latour said in 2010, is not yet widely recognized in mainstream science. Latour speculates that this may be due to a lack of resources, but it would be more accurate to say that the idea is not widely accepted, given strong evidence to the contrary (Ecks, 2020). Gaian’s ideas about planetary homeostasis are confused until they accept the fact that humans are not natural. Lovelock and his followers see humans as anomalies, a type of cancer as described. Humans are considered demons who die if dramatic changes are not made in time.

 The strengths of the analysis and weaknesses in the argument

According to Latour, there were no people on Earth before the lockdown. From the time of Galileo, there has been a terrifying modern belief that humans will live in another world, the universe (Horton, 2020). However, when looking at the Earth from a distance, people misinterpret it because they cannot recognize all the generational problems of the Earth the words represent the connection, intersection, and interaction of various human and natural species. The last three centuries of modern history have seen mankind increasingly eliminate engendering worries. Modern sentiments of growth, expansion, affluence, and freedom are taken for granted (Introini, Morelli & Pasqualini, 2021). Humans, termites, bumblebees, rocks, rivers, and air all have interwoven engendering problems that have been repressed. Humans have had the secularized religious emotion that they may escape from this planet and are not responsible for their expansions, according to supposed objective knowledge.

Humans became inhabitants of the Universe when they rejected engendering anxieties (Söderström, 2021). From a Gaia viewpoint, Earth refers to the connection, association, overlapping, and combination of all those who have subsistence and engendering interests, as explained by Latour. The Universe enjoys the idea of unrestricted expansion (Ecks, 2020). The COVID-19 lockdown tested a wide range of contemporary emotions. It harmed one’s sense of liberty. Moderns, being children of the universe, have always desired to dismiss their problems and seek refuge elsewhere (Ellis, Steadman & Mao, 2020). Regardless of how badly individuals want to get out of the lockdowns, they remain trapped between barriers. Lockdowns have shattered the secularized faiths that preach escape from this world, making them more empowering. On Earth, captivity has always been a direct experience for terrestrials.

People in lockdowns understand that there is no endless external longer, therefore they began to live at home, but in a new way. People did not reside anyplace in particular before the lockdowns. They were dreaming of independence and continuity as they lived in the era of globalization of the economy (Clover, 2021). Lockdowns finally brought folks back to earth. Lockdowns, allowed individuals to break free from the economic restrictions that were poisoning their minds. People had to cook for themselves in lockdowns, as Latour points out (Ellis, Steadman & Mao, 2020). To maintain the continuance of everyday life people must rely on critical personnel. Individuals are becoming more practical, pragmatic, and materialistic in many aspects.

Humans will no longer live in the Nature produced by the economists for their amounts to circulate freely in it, as Latour puts it. According to Latour, the world will be altered after the metamorphosis. He claims that Earth is becoming a location distinct from the planets of Globalization, Exit, and Security (Delanty, 2020). Instead, following the lockdowns, a new planet, Contemporary, has emerged. Countless individuals are rapidly decolonizing themselves. New political landscapes will arise, including all agencies, including every river, town, computer, earthworm, cell, and so on. Planet Contemporary will have a variety of ‘environmental disputes’ with all of these people (Introini, Morelli & Pasqualini, 2021). The primary battles on planet Contemporary, according to Gaia, will be between the Extractors and Menders. As Menders, Terrestrials would sew together territory that Extractors have abandoned after occupying and destroying them.

They will repair the damage without recourse to the nation-state’s legal, mental, moral, or subjective resources (Sturm & Albrecht, 2021). Political creatures will not proceed straight ahead as Descartes advocated, but rather disperse as much as possible and investigate their survival capabilities (Clover, 2021). Gaia is neither global in the traditional sense, but rather a series of interconnected systems. Latour examines the evolution of these beliefs in depth in Chapter Fourteen and suggests many further resources (Ellis, Steadman & Mao, 2020). In After Lockdown, Latour records a range of emotions felt by individuals in 2020-22 during the COVID-19 epidemic and utilizes these real-life experiences to investigate ideas like freedom, boundaries, globalization, and modern


Clover, J. (2021). The rise and fall of biopolitics: a response to Bruno Latour. Critical Inquiry47(S2), S28-S32.

Delanty, G. (2020). Six political philosophies in search of a virus: Critical perspectives on the coronavirus pandemic. LEQS paper156, 5-24.

Ecks, S. (2020). Coronashock capitalism: The unintended consequences of radical biopolitics. Medical Anthropology Quarterly30, 1-6.

Ellis, V., Steadman, S., & Mao, Q. (2020). ‘Come to a screeching halt’: Can change in teacher education during the COVID-19 pandemic be seen as innovation? European Journal of Teacher Education43(4), 559-572.

Horton, R. (2020). Offline: After COVID-19—is an “alternate society” possible? Lancet (London, England)395(10238), 1682.

Introini, F., Morelli, N., & Pasqualini, C. (2021). Neighbors’ Conviviality without Gatherings. Social Streets in Times of Lockdown. Partecipazione e conflitto14(1), 302-320.

Kamsteeg, F., Durrani, L., & Wels, H. (2021). Organizational ethnography after lockdown: “walking with the trouble”. Journal of Organizational Ethnography.

Lakitsch, M. (2021). Political topology in the Anthropocene: Reconsidering political space in light of Covid-19. E-International relations. https://www. eir. info/2021/01/05/political-topology-in-the-anthropocenereconsidering-political-space-in-light-of-covid-19.

Muldoon, P. (2021). Waking up as Terrestrials: Bruno Latour’s Ecological Fable. Australian Book Review438, 9-11.

Snake-Beings, E. (2020). The Quiet Earth: Re-Functioning Socio-material Knowledge in the Crisis of the Pandemic. Knowledge Cultures8(3), 34-41.

Söderström, O. (2021). The three modes of existence of the pandemic smart city. Urban Geography42(3), 399-407.

Sturm, T., & Albrecht, T. (2021). Constituent Covid-19 apocalypses: Contagious conspiracism, 5G, and viral vaccinations. Anthropology & medicine28(1), 122-139.



Calculate Your Order

Standard price





Pop-up Message