What is second-degree objectivity and how could it be represented by Tommaso Venturini One of the most intriguing notions developed by Bruno Latour as a part of his ‘controversy mapping’ approach is the idea of second-degree objectivity. Such notion is vital to the study of controversies because in controversial situations it is impossible to use the standard definition of objectivity: something on which everyone agrees (‘first-degree objectivity’). In controversies, there is no objective viewpoint, neither internal nor external. To exit this paradox Bruno Latour invented the notion of ‘second-degree objectivity’, that is an objectivity obtained by the multiplication of different viewpoints; an objectivity that comes from diversity rather than from uniformity; an impartiality that comes from exploring a multitude of partial bias, rather than abstracting from them. The problem about the intriguing notion of second-degree objectivity is that Bruno Latour never took the time to explain how should it be obtained. In particular, he never made clear whether different viewpoints should be combined together and how. In this communication, we will propose a visual way to do so. One of the most intriguing notions developed by Bruno Latour as a part of his ‘controversy mapping’ approach is the idea of second-degree objectivity. Such notion is vital to the study of controversies because in controversial situations it is impossible to use the standard definition of objectivity: something on which everyone agrees. Such definition (‘first‐degree objectivity’ as Latour calls it) is perfect to describe the ‘handbook state of the art’ of a given science or technology, but it falls terribly short when applied to controversies. Sociotechnical disputes exist precisely because the actors are incapable to find (or impose) an agreement. In controversies, by definition, there is not first‐degree objectivity. You may think that the light of truth will eventually be revealed over the darkness of error. You may think that might will make right and winners will write history. You may think that objectivity will be constructed as a heterogeneous network of actors. You may be positivist, relativist or constructivist, the problem remains the same. Until the controversy is not over, it is difficult to decide who’s right and who’s wrong. Such simple recognition puts controversy mapping in an awkward situation: if there is no objectivity in controversies how can they be studied objectively? Would it not be wiser to wait? Give the debate a few years or decades, wait for one viewpoint to prevail and then it will be easy to be objective and tell the story from that point of view. Forget about the sociology of scientific research, it will never be anything more than journalism. Do science history instead. Sociotechnical controversies can be safely described only when they are decided. This is a safe statement indeed, but it implies accepting that social sciences can offer no timely contribution to social life. Even worse, it implies renouncing to half of the fun: as interesting as it is to know how Pasteur won his battle with Pouchet, it would be even more interesting to understand how we are fighting on climate change, biotechnologies, energy production, wealth distribution,