Latour's theory might be described as the combination of empathy and relativity. Empathy involves the willing submission of one's first-person point of view, and by practicing empathy, the person attains a sense for what the other person's life might feel like emotionally, whereas disputing the truth of their beliefs will not yield a study of anything.
The question here is about objectivity and subjectivity. For Latour, the trick is something like this: If people's beliefs (even the false ones) help to construct a sense of identity and purpose in their lives, than ontology must study those real emotional experiences without reference to the actual truth of people's religious or social claims. For Latour, ontology implies a careful, patient study of the subjective lives of many people.
There are some similarities, it turns out, between most of us. Basically, the kinds of things that motivate us have either to do with our sense of identity, because those beliefs cause us to behave in a network of related roles, as actors.
This is complicated in language, but the concept is fairly simple. If a person identifies as a religious person, they feel a sense of duty to participate in a religious culture where they will have to abide by socially constructed roles in order to belong. This is also true of every aspect of their self-perception. By identifying oneself as a spouse, they involve themselves with an obligation to their husband or wife.
These questions, combined with the general ambitions or desires of a person, help to give a picture of the complex networks of social pressure that keep people behaving or acting or feeling any certain way. It's a study of the hyper-pluralism of the human experience, and the result is a study of agency as well. How do we choose? Do we create ourselves, or do we participate in social structures that inform our sense of self? If so, how can we study those fairly, without compromising our commitment to objectivity. These are the subjects treated in this work.
