Latour's full definition and usage of quasi-object/quasi-subject (which are the same category of thing) is We Have Never Been Modern. That is my key reference for the Latourian position on quasi-objects. But you really can't understand that book without reading the last part of Pasteurization of France. Similarly, to find the points between Latour and Serres, both contending and agreeing on the quasi-ish-isness of things you likely need to read more of Serres, and the series of interviews between Serres and Latour is a good place to start. Ontologically though, I think that Latour locates the quasi-ness as a between-ness of things, that strongly requires the things(where things exist on a spectrum between object and subject), whereas my reading of Serres holds his quasiness as fundamentally a relation and relations have much stronger independent existence in Serres, or at least that is my current argument.
jeremy hunsinger
Center for Digital Discourse and Culture
Virginia Tech
Information Ethics Fellow, Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (www.cipr.uwm.edu)
www.tmttlt.com
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail
/\ - against microsoft attachments
http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki
http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
|