Already 20 years ago, Bruno Latour was writing that "We Have Never Been Modern". In his definition, modernity was based upon a radical distinction between the human and the non human realms, between nature and culture, subject and object. He was pointing out that this position is not compatible with the proliferation of hybrid objects, when technical objects become the central issue of a human situation, such as congelated embryos, GMO's, clones, GHG's. Considering that such a distinction is no more credible, he was drawing the conclusion that we have never been modern. Still, this observation does not mean that our representation system is ready to comply with reality. With his definition, we can observe that our society remains deliberately "modern". This modernity is linked not to an analysis of the reality, but to the specialization of the actors. Each area of science, sociology, anthropoly or philosophy is surrounded by fences. A scientist is not accepted in the area of philosophy and vice-versa. We certainly need a transverse, multidisciplinary and systemic approach, but, clearly, we have not reached this stage and, unfortunately, our society is still "modern".
Bruno Latour écrivait il y a déjà 20 ans que "nous n'avons jamais été modernes". Il définissait l'attitude moderne comme établissant une distinction radicale entre humain et non-humain, nature et culture, sujet et objet. Pour lui, cette position était incompatible avec ce qu'il appelait "la prolifération des hybrides". Les "hybrides" correspondent au nombre rapidement croissant des situations où les objets de la technique se retrouvent au centre de situations humaines: embryons congelés, OGM, clones, gaz à effet de serre.
