I tried to read Bruno Latour’s ideas on the Anthropocene, as explicated in his lectures FACING GAIA, against the background of his pluralist ontology (AN INQUIRY INTO THE MODES OF EXISTENCE).
I proposed some criticisms of this project based on my reading of Jung and Hillman, but these were rejected by Latour due to his presupposition that contemporary society is in some very refined (but still dogmatic) sense ontologically « Catholic ».
So my general conclusion is that it is not easy to be pluralist about theoretical matters of ontology nor about very urgent and practical matters of concern.
My Badiousian conclusion is that Latour’s sublimated Catholocism acts as a monist filter on his pluralist ontological project, re-submitting to the One a theoretical endeavour to go as far as it could in the direction of ontological pluralism.
AGENT SWARM 
Can we read Latours rejection of your comments somewhere? I am currently researching Latour and his writings on religion.
J’aimeJ’aime
No, he did not reply to me but just rejected my criticisms. To be fair, he published a text by me in his book RESET MODERNITY despite no doubt disagreeing with some of its content. Here is a text by me that incorporates some of those criticisms: https://terenceblake.wordpress.com/2014/12/22/bruno-latours-metaphysics-of-religion-a-position-paper/.
J’aimeJ’aime
« @evgenymorozov Oct 25
Whatever the sins of the French intellectual and academic life, its one undeniable good side is that no serious attention has ever been paid to Latour: he is the favorite French philosopher of the Anglo-Saxons. Which says quite a bit about quality control. »
is this your experience TB?
J’aimeJ’aime
He has been neglected, unjustly, in some circles in France, which remains too scientistic.
J’aimeJ’aime