constructions.Andthevariabilityof
theseconstructionscomingfromthe
cultural variabilityof thehumande-
siresandmentalityfromwhichthey
flowlaidthephilosophical founda-
tionsof relativism.Thatis thedistant
conceptualsourceof onekindof re-
lativism (therelativism regarding
valueandculture)thataresaidto
characterise thepostmodern.And
so,inmyview,themodernisttend-
encyto scientismis entirelycompli-
citinthegeneration of theeventual
postmodernformsof the relativisms
regarding value, indeed nihilism
aboutvalues,thataredistinctiveof
ourowntime.
I haveonlytolda storyaboutthe
riseofrelativismandnihilismre-
garding valuesthat linksit tothe
conceptualfoundations ofcapital.
Thequestionof relativismaboutsci-
entific truthis a different setofis-
sues. The most powerful and
interesting critiques ofobjectivist
notions of truthhavecomefromhis-
toriansandphilosophers of science,
notphilosophers likeNietzscheor
[Jacques]Derrida.I wouldnotcall
theircritiquepostmodern.Thomas
Kuhn,forinstance, in hisveryinflu-
entialbook The Structure of Sci-
entific Revolutions canhardly be
seen as postmodernist, though I
don’tdoubtthatsomeonewillingto
trample withgreatbigbootsonobvi-
ousdistinctionswillwantto assimil-
atehimto postmodernism.
Kuhnshowedtheextentto which
something cognitive likescientific
inquirywasneverthelessa practice.
Heshowedhowmuchit wasaffected
byinstitutions,byfunding,etc.He
demonstrated howanidealofsci-
entific inquiryinwhichscientists
justgiveup ontheories thatare
presentedwithrecalcitrantevidence
andseeknewhypothesesinsteadis
simplynotapplicableto howscient-
istsactuallyproceededthroughthe
historyofscience.Heshowedhow
muchscientists sticktotheirguns,
makeadjustments,addauxiliary hy-
pothesesto theirexistingonesin or-
der to retain their cherished
hypothesesandsavetheirtheories
fromrefutation. PierreDuhemhad
already anticipatedKuhninthis,as
hadthephilosopher[WillardVan
Orman] Quineinmuchmoreab-
stractterms.Butit wasKuhnwho,
lookingat a longspanof thehistory
ofscience,tookontheidealofthe
objectivityof scientific inquirersvery
explicitly andarguedthatit justdid
notfit thepracticeof science.
BrunoLatour, someyears after
Kuhn,continuedwiththissociolo-
gicalcritiqueof theobjectivistideal
ofscientific inquirywithfarmore
flamboyantrhetoric andissome-
timesdescribed, perhapscorrectly,asa postmodernist. ButI wouldbe
surprisedif hehimselfhasnotcome
toregrettheeffectthatsomeofhis
polemics havehadindiscrediting
scienceitselfandhelpingto giverise
toallsorts oflunatic denials ofthe
conclusionsaboutclimatechangeby
climatescientists. Latour, whohas
greatconcernsabout theenviron-
mentandhaswritteninterestingly
onit,is,of course,stronglyopposed
to theseclimatechangedeniers.
There aremanythingsonwhichIBENITOMUSSOLINIwith Adolf Hitler during a march past at the Temple of
Heroesin Munich on September27, 1937. “If we are talkingabout India,you
then haveto decide[whether]...[certaincriteria]amountto an approximation
of what was happening in Germany and Italy in that fascistperiod” (the 1930s
and 1940s).THEHINDUARCHIVES