Bruno Latour’s AIME is no longer a project but a process, a performance converging towards a competence. The indicators of competence – technical jargon, one-dimensional timeline, academic diffusion – are increasing. AIME from project to process is crystallising as party. I have come out in favour of the project. I support it. I am a fellow-traveller of the AIME process, I am not a member of the AIME party. Who represents me and people like me in the diplomatic negotiation? The
There are some possible dangers of the AIME process that are worrisome in terms of its stated aims. I speak of David and Goliath, that is to say a potential “MOOC-effect” of
(1) non-interactivity at the base level. The AIME project has organised the diplomatic exchange in terms of a pluralism that does not clearly manifest itself at the micro-level.
(2) the individual being swamped in the ocean of large numbers. This is not necessarily a factor of suffering for the individual, but it may generate affective protest. The inquiry seeks to cultivate sensitivity to protest. Not all protest is suffering, but all affect is cognitive or veridictive (but not infallible, affect needs cultivation and potentially rectification).
(3) the existing hierarchies being strengthened rather than weakened by the process
4) a process of alienation or of disindividuation in which “negotiation” replaces dialogue. If one side of the negotiation has become a force of disindividuation there is no encounter.
(5) monistic pluralism: an auto-poietic pluralism that has no dialogue with other pluralisms (for example: Bernard Stiegler’s pharmakon project, Dreyfus and Kelly’s ALL THINGS SHINING project, François Laruelle’s non-philosophy project).