On Latour and Simondons Mode of Existence

fragments of a fictional dialogue yet to come

Yuk Hui, intervention given in a Workshop on Latour@ Denkerei, 28 Jan,2013

This intervention from its outset searches a dialogue between Simondon and
Latour, a fictional dialogue, that nevertheless exists though it hasnt happened.
It hasnt happened, or should I say it was once about to happen, when Latour
praised Simondons Du Mode dexistence des objets techniques, and
commented that it is a work that didnt yet find its successor. But it does exist,
this fictional dialogue, or at least we can talk about its mode of existence if you
prefer since being fictional is also a mode of existence. We cannot draw a
squared circle but we can think of a squared circle, it has meanings, this was an
example given by Edmund Husserl as a critique of formal logic. The secrete
philosopher of Bruno Latour, tienne Souriau hold a similar idea in his Les
diffrents Modes dexistence. A fictional object or character doesnt occur in
time and space as a physical object, or a historical event, but it does exists in
works, in the socio-psychological life and imaginations of their readers and
witness. Modes of existence is always plural, it doesnt follow the rule of
contradiction, it is rather key to what Latour calls ontological pluralism.
The question of the mode of existence departs from the question
of Dasein posted by Martin Heidegger, and the meaning of Sein, eliminates
the Ontologische Differenz between Sein andSeienden in order to de-prioritize
certain mode of existence, with a kind of ontological politeness. Modes of
existence is a new organon to the analysis of modern life, and also one that

revolt against the 20th century philosophy aiming a unified theory of existence.
Now to enter the modes of existence, according to Latour one must employ a
new dispostif called diplomatic, meaning one should be aware of oneself,
resisting esoteric temptations, while being polite and try to negotiate different
terms. Hence Latour proposed to go back to an anthropology that starts with
reflection on European modernity instead of starting with dialogues with others.
It is also this word Mode of existence on the one hand brings together Latour
and Simondon to us since Simondon is a philosopher of the mode of existence
instead of existence; on the other hand, it allows us to go beyond the question
of network in actor-network theory, as Latour himself said in an interview
with la vie des ides what is complicated to understand, maybe, for those who
know the rest of my works, it is that network is no longer the principle mode of
driving, of vehicle. The world became a bit populated: there is more vehicles
moving in different forms1.That is to say, network is only one mode of
existence out of 15 different modes, among which we also find Reproduction,
Metamorphose, Habit, Technics, Fiction, Reference, Politics, Right, Religion,
Attachment, Organization, Morality, Preposition and Double Click. Network
can no longer alone monopolize the academic social research (by saying so,
network still seems to be the framework of the whole book2). Instead it is
necessary to re-articulate this specific mode of existence with other modes of
existence. For Latour, new position or preposition on the mode of
existence allows us to open up the new field of philosophical investigation of
the Moderns. The task is no longer how we have never been modern, a project
done 20 years ago, but rather according to Latour it is an effort to complete the
uniquely negative title we have never been modern with a positive version
this time of the same affirmation3.
Mode of Existences and Ontological Politeness

How could one find an entrance to the question of mode of existence?

Philosophy starts always with dialogue, the most ancient mode of dialectics,
and Socrates has always been the model of such a tradition. Now, we want to
ask what could this dialogue between Latour and Simondon be? How could us
continue a fiction which was started by Latour? For Latour, the significance of
the work of Simondon is that he has moved far beyond subject and object, and
more importantly when the like and dislike of Heidegger which still shadows
the research in philosophy of technology. Latour wrote: Simondon has grasped
that the ontological question can be extracted from the search of substance, from

the fascination for particular knowledge, from the obsession for the bifurcation
between subject and object, and be posed rather in terms of vector. Latour
quoted a paragraph from Du Mode dexistence des objets techniques:
This de-phasing of the mediation between figural characters and background characters
translates the appearance of a distance between man and the world. And mediation
itself, instead of being a simple structuration of the universe, takes on a certain density;
it becomes objective in the technical and subjective in religion, making the technical
object appear to be the primary object and divinity the primary subject, whereas before
there was only the unity of the living thing and its milieu: objectivity and subjectivity
appear between the living thing and its milieu, between man and the world, at a moment
where the world does not yet have a full status as object, and man a complete status as
subject.4
But then he continues abruptly: yet

Simondon remains a classical thinker, obsessed as

he is by original unity and future unity, deducing his modes from each other in
a manner somewhat reminiscent of HegelMultirealism turns out to be nothing
more, in the end, than a long detour that brings him back to a philosophy of
being, the seventh of the modes he sketched. Latour copied and pasted these
paragraphs in numerous articles, this commentary on Simondon is only a
passage to the work of tienne Souriaus Les Diffrents modes dexistence. For
Latour, it was Souriau but not Simondon who really showed us how can one
affirm an ontological pluralism without falling back to the old and weak
anthropological relativism and philosophical monism.
In this passing [passe] in Latours own sense, Simondon was portrait as an
original thinker who wasnt able to break away from classical philosophy,
then unfortunately fell back to the shadow of the original unity and future
unity. But what does it really mean by this quote from Simondon? What does
it mean by this de-phasing of the mediation between figural characters and
background characters translates the appearance of a distance between man and
the world and what would be the context of such a quote? If we allow ourselves
a bit of patience, Simondon was referring to the figure and background
distinction as explained in Gestalt psychology. The figural reality expresses the
possibilities of human action in the world, and the background reality expresses
the power of nature. Simondon was trying to explain the relation between
technics and religions, that originated from the incomparability between man
and the world. A society of magic, sees Simondon as the moment where subject
and object, human world and nature, figure and background were not fully

distinct. But it is also the result of the resolution of incomparability between

human being and its milieu, the unity described by Latour is only the possibility
for incompatibility. If it could be counted as the repetition of the gesture of
classical philosophy in searching of an unity, then biology, physics and
chemistry may also have to bear the same accusation.
What is indeed profound in Simondons concept of the mode of existence is
that this tension or incompatibility has to be resolved constantly both in the
process of individualization of technical objects, and also individuation of
living beings. It is also by the notion of incompatibility that one has to affirm
the multiplicity of objects and their modes of existence. Indeed, Simondon
doesnt think that one can seize an object by its end, there exists espce
technique, it is rather more productively to think of analogies between different
technical species, for example a pendulum clock and a cable winch 5.We must
recognize here that Simondons didnt only talk about the mode of existence of
technical objects, for Simondon, the theory of ontogenesis and individuation is
also an inquiry into how different modes of existence interact with each other
and and in constant process of evolution. In other words, there is no peace for
us, and there hasnt been a mode of existence called peace the goal of some
kind of all diplomatic activities. Any pursuit of stability is only an illusion,
though lets say such an illusion is also a mode of existence. There is no unity
of identity, or recollection, of unity composed of parts and united according to
certain method of classification6. For Latour, or his reading of Souriau, the
ontological pluralism/multi-realism must affirm the existence of phenomenon,
things, soul, fictional beings, god, without recurring to a phenomenological
account. It must revolt against the Kantian tradition and move towards a
speculative realism without correlationism. Some commentators on Simondon
such as Xavier Guchet sees the similarity of the approaches between Simondon
and Souriau, especially the common word modulation they used to signify
the internal transformation in being, which is exactly dephasing in Simondons
own vocabularies, and quoted by Latour above. As Guchet states for Simondon
unity of existence is not an unity of identity, of recollection from an situation
of scattering[parpillement], an unity obtained by composition of part and
according to a method of classification7. If there is an unity in the thoughts of
Simondon, then this unity is nothing other than tension and incompatibility.
Simondon didnt use often the word realism, but rather reality, and what is
human reality is actually always in tension with technical reality, while what
signified by technical reality is not a single unity or a single phenomenon, but
a reality conditioned by many other factors, such as geographical, industrial,

natural, etc. For example, the production of white boots and raincoats is
conditioned by limitation of the research in material, the visibility of certain
colour in that environment, etc. If we can translate into Latours own
vocabularies, it is the heterogeneous actors in play with different values.
Latour didnt elaborate all these, except an abrupt assertion that seems a bit
brutal, and lack of ontological politeness to certain extent. In the book Enqute
sur les Modes dexistence, we can find another commentary from Latour on
Simondon. The section collected in the book is from his earlier article Prendre
le Pli des techniques, in which Latour praised Simondon, but at the same time,
proposed to look at the mode of existence of technics instead of the mode of
existence of technical objects. Latour and Simondon are just like two
acquaintances, you smile and say hi without shaking hand, but he has to node
his head anyway since there must be a politeness if one wants to be diplomatic.
Latour thinks that it is impossible to find the technical mode of existence in
objects themselves but rather technics itself. Since technical objects dont give
us visibility, in fact they make technics opaque to us. One can probably find a
similar concern from Heidegger, especially the question of Besorgen. We are
concernful beings and we always forget what is in front of us, what we are
using, especially Being which we are and in which we dwell: we are far away
from what is closest to us.
But this dialectic movement of visible and invisible seems to be a general
tendency of all technical objects, and it is the particular mode of existence of
technical objects and technics, which has been widely recognized in the study
of technologies. Latour was right that technics hides itself deeper than altheia.
The mode of existence of technics is only visible through technical objects, and
it is also rendered invisible by technical objects, since on the one hand there is
no technics without materialisation, or leaving traces; on the other hand
materialisation doesnt assure visibility, that is to say one cannot find identity
or essence from eidos. I would rather say compared to Latours proposal of
going back to the transcendence of technics,Simondon shows a more concrete
account of the levels of existence of technical objects: namely usage, historical
characters, and the profound structure of technicity. And these modes of
existences also account different level of visibility and invisibility. For
example, how can we think of the diode in your computer? Or lets take away
the subject who speculates, how does the diode in your computer exist by itself,
a diode that really exists in a black box even if you open the case of your
computer and check every component? How can we think of Mercedes Benz,

the different models that nevertheless associate with the brand name Mercedes
Benz? When are are visible to us and invisible to us, without being reduced to
question of transcendence and immanence?
Be diplomatic without double-clicks
Another Latourian commentary on Simondon comes indirectly from Graham
Harman, if we can use Latours own vocabulary on the modes of existence, it
is the overlap between Reference and Network that bring forth this mode of
existence: another fictional dialogue between Latour and Simondon in
the regime of enunciation of Harman. Speaking of the relational philosophy of
Latour, Harman compared it with kinds of monism that supposes a single lump
universe, a world devoid of any specific realities at all8. Among these
monisms, Harman found one peculiar one, that is one related to Deleuze, and
more specifically Simondon, if we now count how much Deleuze has taken
from the concept of individuation of Simondon. In contrary to the single lump
universe, this monism try to enjoy the best of both worlds, defining a unified
realm beneath experience that is not completely unified. Instead of a total lumpworld, it is one animated in advance by different pre-individual zones that
prevent the world from being purely homogeneous.
As Alberto Toscano describes Simondons position, whilst [preindividual being] is yet to
be in- dividuated, [it] can already be regarded as affected by relationality. This
preindividual relationality, which takes place between heterogeneous dimensions, forces
or energetic tendencies, is nevertheless also a sort of non- relation []. Being is thus
said to be more-than-one to the extent that all of its potentials cannot be actualized at
once. Simondon like DeLanda wants the world to be both heterogeneous and not

yet parcelled out into individuals. In this way, specific realities lead a sort of halfhearted
existence somewhere between one and many9.

Harman further explained that this is certainly not the case for Latour, since
his actors are fully in- dividual from the start; his philosophy contains no such
concept as pre- individual. His actors are not blended together in a continuous
yet heterogeneous whole, but are basically cut off from one another. There is
no continuum for Latour despite his relationism, and this thankfully entails that
his relationism is less radical than it is for philosophies of the virtual (note that
Latours rare flirtations with monism seem to coincide with his equally rare
flirtations with the term virtual). In fact, maybe it is because Harman didnt
read Simondon since he relied on Alberto Toscanos reading, he hence has a
rather vague idea of individuation. Here we see another problem of not being

diplomatic enough, that is due the disagreement of word without looking into
the content. The question for us is how can we negotiate different ontologies,
not to generate an unity, but to affirm different realisms without a double click?
In other words, how to become a professional diplomate as Latour suggests?
The fact that there are always individuals for Simondon, but individuals didnt
disclose us anything of operation or process, which can only be studied through
individuation. Taking individual as isolable individual or as part of collective,
according to Simondon is the problem of the substantialism of sociology and
psychology. For Simondon, as well as Latour, individuals cannot be reduced;
but for Simondon, who sees further than Harman, the individual cannot be
reduced to itself. Each individual is not individual in itself, but always
accompanied by the pre-individual, which is the potential and energetic that
provide the motivation for individuation: it is a transindividual rather than an
individual. And if actor-network aims to look into the complexity and the
process of social phenomenon, didnt Simondon and Latour walk in parallel?
Now if Actor-Network theory has to be re-articulated according to the modes
of existence of the modern according to Latour, we must pay attention to the
translation that is not necessarily diplomatic but sincere. We must also note that
this notion of translation is so important in Actor-Network theory, since
according to the annotation of Latours Ebook, it is calledla sociologie de la
traduction, sociology of translation. But lets be a bit careful here, with the
word traduction, Latour distinguish it from translation. For him, the particular
mode of existence he calls Double Click is a translation without traduction,
meaning without transformation, without process, it is simply a jump from one
process to another. But isnt Latour and Harmons reading of Simondon also
such a double click?
I am not rejecting Latour and Harman due to their double clicks on a button
called Simondon, since we have to be diplomatic and polite. But maybe we
need to pay attention that, there are different style of being diplomatic, and I
feel like a more productive dialogue is possible if we are able to negotiate like
diplomates who try to translation different terms and requests into conditions
and agreements, as Latour himself suggests. These negotiations may allow us
to peek into a more profound investigation on the modes of existence of
Moderns. Actor-Network, a concept according to Latour needs to be renewed
in the inquiry into the mode of existence, the remaining task is to re-situate
network in the broader framework of the modes of existence.

Lets start and conclude with something lighter and more motivated and leave
something heavier and more specific behind, so that we can find ways to start
a real negotiation even though you may criticise this is also a double-click of
some kind later. Instead of going into every mode of existence, lets me outline
a framework for such a dialogue. These are four pairs of beings: 1) Actor
Individual; 2) Network Milieu; 3)Relations Affectivo-emotive/Socialpsychological; 4) Traduction Transduction. We wouldnt be able to go
through all these pairs in details, since they deserve a work of its own. Here I
can only offer a very brief detour, shows how Latour and Simondons interest
in describing processes and operations can give us a synthetic reading of both.
We will see that how different modes of existences can hardly be classified into
15 categories and simple overlap between these categories could already bring
us a lot of headaches. What seems to me problematic is that actors as individuals
according to Harman are too rigid. Of course, each individual exist, me, I
am speaking in front of you as an individual, but I am not an individual to you
as a total other, since you are listening to me, and we are thinking together, at
least you are thinking according to my voice. You are listening to my demands,
my ontologies, with your politeness. And I am observing you, some of you
smiling, some of you shaking head, many of you checking Facebook, and I must
adjust my speech, my tone, the volume of my voice, my perception of my
speech and even myself. There are many possibilities that is totally outside me,
but they are the pre-individual for me as a transindividual as Simondon
proposed.
Simondon is more persistent with trans-.Note that it is a transindividual but not
an individual; atransduction and not only a traduction, transduction is at the
same time change and exchange that triggers transformation of structure.
Latour, he himself wants to dissolve network into the question of the mode of
existence, and here we can see again the possibility of reconstitute it in the
concept of milieu. The network of Latour is too much into international
relations due to its diplomatic nature, and for Simondon the milieu has to be
socio-psychological and emo-affective, it is also why Simondon was able to
talk about an social-psychology of technicity. This is not a simple defence for
Simondon, since it wouldnt be fruitful to do so, but in order to search the
possibility of a dialogue that doesnt dismiss each other in a double-click. For
an inquiry into the modes of existence is possible, it seems that one must not
repeat what has happened in the history of the inquiry into existence, like how
Jorge Luis Borges made fun of Bishop John Wilkins ontology and the funny
Chinese encyclopedia; indeed 12+310 categories doesnt seem to be much

different from15 categories except when the + counts. If we dare to take it a

step further, then it is how a metaphysics departs from its history, not only in
terms of content, but also style.
1Le diplomate de la Terre Entretien avec Bruno Latour, par Arnaud Esquerre & Jeanne
Lazarus [18-09-2012], www.laviedesidees.fr/Le-diplomate-de-la-Terre.html
2Thanks to Jeremy James Lecomte and Markus Burkhardt for insisting on this point
3Latour, EMD, 23
4In Latour, Reflections on Etienne Souriaus Les Modes dexistence , in (edited by

Graham Harman, Levi Bryant and Nick Srnicek The Speculative Turn Continental
Materialism and Realism re.press Australi, pp. 304-333, Melbourne, Australie
5Simondon, MEOT (2012), Aubier, p.21
6Guchet, Pour un humanisme technologique. Culture, technique et socit dans la

philosophie de Gilbert Simondon, PUF,2011, 35

7Ibid, lunit de lexistence nest pas une unit didentit, de rcollection partir dune
situation dparpillement, une unit obtenue par composition de parties et selon une
mthode de classification
8Harman, Prince of Networks: Bruno Latour and Metaphysics, 159
9ibid
10Latour, EMO, 477