I have already dealt with Galloway’s claim that Latour’s thought is « being without event » in a previous post, here: https://terenceblake.wordpress.com/2018/11/09/postscript-to-the-pluralism-wars-galloway-on-latour/
Galloway seems to think that the alternative to « democratic materialism » (cf. Badiou, LOGICS OF WORLDS), what he calls Latour’s « bodies-and-languages position », is the inclusion of the event.
However, in Badiou’s terms the alternative to democratic materialism is the inclusion of truths: « there are only bodies and languages, except there are truths ».
Galloway incoherently assigns Latour’s thought to the « bodies and languages position », while claiming that Latour is not postmodern. He forgets that in Badiou’s terminology postmodernism is the « bodies and languages » position.
The whole point of Latour’s AIME is the protection of truths against such a bodies-and-languages reticular reduction, via the modes of existence as modes of veridiction. Latour provides us with a « truths-position » over against a « bodies-and-languages position ». This is the central point of his AIME project.