DE-BRIEFING BRUNO LATOUR’S AIME PROJECT

This paper attempts to evaluate Bruno Latour’s AIME project immanently, from the perspective of a participant, in terms of five criteria: digitality, diplomacy, religiosity, testability, and democracy. A sixth criterion runs through the other five: pluralism. I distinguish between AIME as project, as process, and as party line.

Text here.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to DE-BRIEFING BRUNO LATOUR’S AIME PROJECT

  1. Perhaps you are aware of the work of Engestrom and the Cradle Center in general. I think that you may find it interesting for your own pedagogical experiments as well. I send you some links and references in case you don’t already have them . Especially the methodology and rational of change laboratories

    (I liked your paper – although you understand that I have a different opinion in some cases- and I am very happy that it was inlcuded in the Reset Modernity! catalogue. It contributes to well intending discussion. On the other hand one feature that troubles me in AIME and Reset Modernity! in general is that no political movement seems to have found interest in making bridges with AIME and perhaps Reset Modernity! – I don’t see such signs in the tweets till now. I also agree that all this movement seems to me-as an outsider- to not have been sufficiently de-Latourized. It still seems as if Latour is not just a spokesperson but the central figure of these projects. But there is still time.)

    http://www.helsinki.fi/cradle/inspirations.htm

    Video:
    Engestrom’s EARLI 2015, Keynote lecture in Limassol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UgBw_4SpP4
    Engestrom Interview (Part1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCumH6Q4XKc , Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgiH_xnwo9E)

    These videos I think are very good introductions. The talk in Limassol deals with the issue of scaling an innovation that is one of the themes in your paper too

    Articles:
    Engeström, Y., Rantavuori, J., & Kerosuo, H. (2013). Expansive learning in a library: Actions, cycles and deviations from instructional intentions. Vocations and Learning, 6(1), 81-106.
    Engeström, Y., Kajamaa, A., & Nummijoki, J. (2015). Double stimulation in everyday work: Critical encounters between home care workers and their elderly clients. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 4, 48-61.
    Sannino, A., & Laitinen, A. (2015). Double stimulation in the waiting experiment: Testing a Vygotskian model of the emergence of volitional action.Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 4, 4-18.
    Sannino, A. (2015). The principle of double stimulation: A path to volitional action. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 6, 1-15.
    Engeström, Y. (2009). Wildfire activities: New patterns of mobility and learning.International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (IJMBL), 1(2), 1-18.
    Haapasaari, A., Engeström, Y., & Kerosuo, H. (2014). The emergence of learners’ transformative agency in a Change Laboratory intervention. Journal of Education and Work, 1-31.

    Like

  2. Pingback: CLEARING THE GROUND (3): Latour and the pluralist outside | AGENT SWARM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s