Actor-Network Theory

From CS260SP09

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Reading

Chapter 1 from "Science in Action" Bruno Latour, Harvard U. Press, 1987.

Notes on the Theory of the Actor Network: Ordering, Strategy and Heterogeneity published by the Centre for Science Studies, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YN, UK.

Discussions

Please post your critiques/commments on the required readings below. To do that, first login by using your user name and password, then click the "edit" tab on the top part of this page (between the "discussion" page and the "history" page), New to wikis? Read the Wiki editing guide. . Hint - Please put a whole line == ~~~~ == (literally) at the beginning of your submitted critique, so the wiki system will index, sign and date your submission automatically.

KetrinaYim 12:24, 31 March 2009 (PDT)

Actor Network Theory provides a fascinating look at not only people, but also all of the materials they interact with. Given how important the interactions between people and materials are (as well as the fact that almost all interpersonal relations involve mediation, whether it is through language or through physical objects), I'm slightly surprised that most other sociological approaches try to take materials out of the equation. As Law suggested, would we be the people that we are without the things we constantly interact with?

Seth Horrigan 00:28, 1 April 2009 (PDT)

I am still not entirely sure why it is entitled Actor-Network Theory (once the concept is well-defined, I can see who the actor and network are, but the term itself does not convey a sense of the actual content of the theory), but I found the concepts presented in the Latour paper both engaging and useful. I concur that rhetoric historically had a mostly unwarranted "bad name." Due to the misapplication or misappropriation of the tools of rhetoric for ignoble or trivial purposes, or due to the common misconception that rhetoric is a classical field of study that bears no investigation in the modern period, many modern scholars disregard this set of tools at their own peril. To be fair, most of the principle of rhetoric are eventually incorporated by successful authors simply via trial and error and osmotic processes resulting from immersion in other successful writing. Implicit in the previous sentence is the assumption that successful authors use traditional rhetorical methods whether they know it or not. I am fully willing to make that statement explicitly, and will happily discuss the evidence on which I base it, but in this context, I will not provide the extensive footnotes that Latour correctly indicates lend weight and credence to other declarative claims.

Edit: After reading the second paper, the title of the theory makes more sense (the author actual explains it).

Brian Tran 09:22, 1 April 2009 (PDT)

Something I was thinking about was the interaction that people have with institutions. Much like objects, an institution influences the way that people communicate. The teacher takes his/her place at the front and the students listen expecting to acquire some newfound knowledge. I think actor-network theory hints that authority is not inherently tied to a person, but rather to a network. People are attributed certain roles by society and then act them out. A good example of that would be the prison guard experiment at Stanford University where students took the roles of prisoners and prison guards and the participants fulfilled their roles to the extreme.

Kenrick Kin 10:08, 1 April 2009 (PDT)

@Seth - As I understand it, the first step to Actor-Network Theory is to deconstruct everything into interactions, whether it be interactions between objects and people, and then look at how these little interactions build up to become something larger socially. An actor relies on props and movement and dialogue to build up a character that he can sell to the audience. We do this too on an every day basis without maybe realizing it. An actor explicitly/consciously does what we do unknowingly. That's my take on the name of the theory anyway.

David (Tavi) Nathanson 21:52, 1 April 2009 (PDT)

My first comment is regarding the assumption that knowledge always takes material form. I know that one of the leaves on the tree outside my window looks more red than its neighbors, but I might never share that knowledge or utilize it in any way (now being an exception). The Law paper seemed to be referring only to knowledge that is built upon, such as scientific discoveries, rather than all knowledge.

Also, I have a bit of an issue with the idea that all of our interactions are mediated through objects. I understand than there are objects present in any interaction, but let's look at Law's projector example: if I am standing in a room lecturing, with a projection behind me, is the projector really *mediating* the interaction? I would argue that it *part* of the interaction (and "participates," as Law also puts it), but I don't feel that it *mediates* it.

Nicholas Kong 03:28, 2 April 2009 (PDT)

I found the notion of truth as consensus of opinion, and or discussion in class concerning this notion, really fascinating. As scientists we like to believe we are pursuing some sort of objective truth, while ANT states that knowledge is created through the actors and their interactions. Latour expanded on this notion very well, raising the points that a piece of knowledge "cannot" if the actor (scientific paper, in this instance) was not a participant in the network. If it cannot or is not cited then it essentially does not exist.

@Tavi I think the projector does mediate the interaction, at least for some students, in that they may attend primarily to the slides and use the instructor's speech to clarify those slides. They may also then switch attention to the instructor, with the slides then supporting. Perhaps I am conflating "mediation" and "participation", but I am not sure of the difference between these two.

Priyanka Reddy 03:47, 4 April 2009 (PDT)

I agree with Law that most of the interactions between people are mediated by materials, but I wonder if that's necessarily a positive thing? Right now, if one wanted to communicate a message to someone else, he has many ways of doing so with different materials (ie. letter, phone, email, text, etc). However, before any of these were invented, one would have only one choice - walk to the same location as the other person and talk face to face. The former method is certainly more convenient, efficient and fast, but many would argue that the quality of interaction is lower. This leads me to ask if materials are somehow making our interactions less enriched and lower quality.

Simon Tan 01:01, 22 April 2009 (PDT)

The concept that the interactions between the people in Actor-Network Theory are mediated by objects reminds me a lot of Activity Theory with tools acting as mediators between subject and object. To make the connection even more apparent, a lot of the objects that mediate the communication between people keep track of histories, such as the ever-present logging capabilities built into almost all modern methods of electronic communication. These histories are used to build on the relationships between people, as the history of tools enable the subjects to better act on objects.

I found the ethical question of classifying people as no different than objects to be unnecessary - I don't believe that the theory is implying that humans do not have the rights and behaviors that we normally attribute to them; rather, they are simply one element in the broad generalization that the theory provides.

Personal tools