Some context: Bruno Latour (French: [latuR]; born 22 June 1947) is a French philosopher, anthropologist and sociologist. He is especially known for his work in the field of science and technology studies (STS). After teaching at the Ecole des Mines de Paris (Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation) from 1982 to 2006, he became Professor at Sciences Po Paris (2006-2017), where he was the scientific director of the Sciences Po Medialab. He retired from several university activities in 2017.
In a 2004 article, Latour questioned the fundamental premises on which he had based most of his career, asking, "Was I wrong to participate in the invention of this field known as science studies?" He undertakes a trenchant critique of his own field of study and, more generally, of social criticism in contemporary academia. He suggests that critique, as currently practiced, is bordering on irrelevancy. To maintain any vitality, Latour argues that social critiques require a drastic reappraisal: "our critical equipment deserves as much critical scrutiny as the Pentagon budget." (p. 231) To regain focus and credibility, Latour argues that social critiques must embrace empiricism, to insist on the "cultivation of a stubbornly realist attitude -- to speak like William James". (p. 233)  Latour suggests that about 90% of contemporary social criticism displays one of two approaches which he terms "the fact position and the fairy position." (p. 237) The fairy position is anti-fetishist, arguing that "objects of belief" (e.g., religion, arts) are merely concepts created by the projected wishes and desires of the "naive believer"; the "fact position" argues that individuals are dominated, often covertly and without their awareness, by external forces (e.g., economics, gender). (p. 238) "Do you see now why it feels so good to be a critical mind?" asks Latour: no matter which position you take, "You're always right!" (p. 238-239) Social critics tend to use anti-fetishism against ideas they personally reject; to use "an unrepentant positivist" approach for fields of study they consider valuable; all the while thinking as "a perfectly healthy sturdy realist for what you really cherish." (p. 241) These inconsistencies and double standards go largely unrecognized in social critique because "there is never any crossover between the two lists of objects in the fact position and the fairy position." (p. 241)  The practical result of these approaches being taught to millions of students in elite universities for several decades is a widespread and influential "critical barbarity" that has--like a malign virus created by a "mad scientist"--thus far proven impossible to control. Most troubling, Latour notes that critical ideas have been appropriated by those he describes as conspiracy theorists, including global warming skeptics and the 9/11 Truth movement: "Maybe I am taking conspiracy theories too seriously, but I am worried to detect, in those mad mixtures of knee-jerk disbelief, punctilious demands for proofs, and free use of powerful explanation from the social neverland, many of the weapons of social critique." (p. 230)  The conclusion of the article is to argue for a positive framing of critique, to help understand how matters of concern can be supported rather than undermined: "The critic is not the one who lifts the rugs from under the feet of the naive believers, but the one who offers the participants arenas in which to gather. The critic is not the one who alternates haphazardly between antifetishism and positivism like the drunk iconoclast drawn by Goya, but the one for whom, if something is constructed, then it means it is fragile and thus in great need of care and caution."
Are there any other interesting aspects about this article?
A: The conclusion of the article is to argue for a positive framing of critique, to help understand how matters of concern can be supported rather than undermined:
Some context: Natan-Zada was born to an Israeli-Jewish family that had immigrated to Israel from Iran and Yemen. Natan-Zada's parents describe him as having been a "bright and studious Israeli schoolboy" prior to his becoming involved with the Jewish extremist Kahanism movement, to which he was introduced via the Internet. He then began spending weekends in Kfar Tapuach, an Orthodox West Bank settlement. During his national service in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Natan-Zada deserted the army and hid in Kfar Tapuach to avoid further service.
Natan-Zada's funeral was a controversial matter. Jewish law requires a swift burial, but nationwide outrage against his attacks left his body without a willing resting place for two days.  An initial agreement between IDF officials and the Natan-Zada family would have allowed burial in a military cemetery, but with no military honors such as a 21-gun salute or placement of the Israeli flag upon his coffin. However, Meir Nitzan, the mayor of Rishon LeZion intervened before the funeral. The morgue which housed Natan-Zada's body, Abu Kabir Forensic Institute, refused to release the body to friends and fellow Kahane activists to bury, resulting in a bitter protest.  Residents of Kfar Tapuach were divided on the issue. Kfar Tapuach resident Moshe Meirsdorf said Natan-Zada's connection to the community "has been destructive for us. We totally reject everything he did." Meirsdorf claimed that Natan-Zada and other extremist youth were not official community members, despite the fact that Natan-Zada had legally updated his address to Kfar Tapuach. "He was never accepted by the absorption committee," said Meirsdorf, whose wife is a member of the committee. Others supported Natan-Zada, including four teenagers from Tapuach who were arrested following the incident. Most locals, however, voiced opinions in line with Tapuach leader David Haivri, who expressed pain over the loss of Natan-Zada and emphasized the tragedy of his death.  Some Israeli media outlets initially suggested that Natan-Zada be buried in the West Bank settlement of Kiryat Arba, where Baruch Goldstein, who committed Cave of the Patriarchs massacre 11 years earlier, is buried. Natan-Zada's body resided for two days in the Abu-Kabir morgue, pending an appeal to Prime Minister Sharon by his parents. On 7 August 2005, the Prime Minister's Bureau overruled Meir Nitzan's ban against burial in Rishon LeZion, and decreed that Zada should be buried in the civilian cemetery there. He was buried in the Gordon neighborhood. Because of the delays, Natan-Zada was buried two days after Jewish law allows. Three of the hundreds of mourners at the burial were arrested with administrative arrest orders, including "New Kach" leader Efraim Hershkovits, American citizen Saadia Herskof, and former Kach activist Tiran Pollack's son Gilad.
What was the controversy?
A:
Natan-Zada's funeral was a controversial matter.