Actor-network theory

Actor-network theory, sometimes abbreviated to ANT, is a theory of scientific, technological, and organizational factdeveloped by two leading French STSscholars, Michel Callonand Bruno Latour, and a British anthropologist, John Law. Broadly speaking, it is a constructivisttheory in that it refuses to accept essentialistexplanations of innovation (for example, explaining a successful theory by saying it is 'true' and the others are 'false'). However, it is distinguished from other STSand sociological network theoriesin that an actor-network contains not merely people, but also material objects and organisations. These are collectively referred to as Actant. One central part of this approach is the principle of generalized symmetry, which stipulates that human and non-human actors should be treated with the same vocabulary. Some scholars incorrectly use the term Actant to denote only the non-human actor. A successful actor network is achieved when innovators succeed in building a network that is capable of resisting external attack from human as well as non-human actors. ANT is among the theories commonly used by scholars in the interdisciplinaryfield known as Science and technology studies. It is also used in sociologyand feminist studies.

Concepts

The Heterogenous Network

The primary tenet of actor-network theory is the concept of the heterogenous network, a network that is achieved by a great deal of work that "disciplines" the various social and non-social elements so that they work together, instead of "making off on their own."^{[{{fullurl:Template:FULLPAGENAME}}#endnote_Law-Notes]} For example, 16th century Portuguese navigation successfully combined improved sailing vessels, the magnetic compass, knowledge of trade winds, and a new method for the astronomical determination of latitude. The result was a "durable network" that was capable of resisting hostile forces, including currents, winds, and Muslim navigators.^{[{{fullurl:Template:FULLPAGENAME}}#endnote_Law-Portuguese]}

From an ANT perspective, everything in social life can be seen as the result of successfully negotiated networks. When buying produce from a supermarket, for example, the actor-network involved would include the purchaser and the cashier, as well as the cash register, the money and the produce involved. It also includes other, less obvious objects, such as the clothesthe purchaser wears, without which they would most likely not be served. The task of trying to identify all of the heterogeneous elements in an actor-network like this can be difficult, and is ultimately up to the discretion of the researcher. This is known as the problem of selection.

Actor-network theory claims that any actor, whether person, object (including computer software, hardware, and technical standards), or organisation, is equally important to a social network. As such, societalorder is a series of effects generated through the smooth running of various actor-networks. Social order, or more accurately orderings of the 'social', can break down when certain actor-networks are removed or are rearticulated. For example, the removal of telephones, banksor the presidentmay all result in significant break-downs in social order.

The Overlapping Stages of ANT

1. Inscription

Technology embodies the beliefs, practices, relations etc of the society it emerges from

2. Translation

When the actor-network is actually created, and when actors other than the primary actor become involved. A powerful actor is able to translate another's interests to his own. This is the stage when negotiation takes place.

3. Framing

As the key issues and debates are resolved within a network, technologies can become stabilised over time.

The concept of translation

Central to ANT is the concept of translation, in which innovators attempt to create a forum, a central network in which all the actors agree that the network is worth building and defending. In his widely debated 1986 study of how marine biologists try to restock the St Brieuc Bay in order to produce more scallops,^{[{{fullurl:Template:FULLPAGENAME}}#endnote_Callon-scallops]}, Michel Callonhas defined 4 moments of translation. These four moments are derived from studying :

1. Problematisation What is the problem that needs to be solved? Who are the relevant actors? Delegates need to be identified that will represent groups of actors. So, a union head represents workers or an MPrepresents his constituency. During problematisation, the primary actor tries to establish itself as an obligatory passage point(OPP) between the other actors and the network, so that it becomes indispensable.

2. Interessement

Getting the actors interested and negotiating the terms of their involvement. The primary actor works to convince the other actors that the roles it has defined them are acceptable.

3. Enrolment

Actors accept the roles that have been defined for them during interessement

4. Mobilisation of allies

Do the delegate actors in the network adequately represent the masses? If so, enrolment becomes active support.

Punctualisation

If taken to its logical conclusion, nearly any actor can be considered merely a sum of other, smaller actors. An automobileis an example of a complex system. It contains many electronicand mechanicalcomponents, all of which are essentially hidden from view to the driver, who simply deals with the car as a single object. This effect is known as punctualisation, and is similar to the idea of abstractionin object-oriented programming.

When an actor network breaks down, the punctualisation effect tends to cease as well. In the automobile example above, a non-working engine would cause the driver to become aware of the car as a collection of parts rather than just a vehicle capable of transporting him or her from place to place. This can also occur when elements of a network act contrarily to the network as a whole. In his 'Pandora's Hope' Latour likens depunctualization to the opening of Pandora's box.

Tokens/Quasi-Objects

In the above examples, 'social order' and 'functioning car' come into being through the successful interactions of their respective actor-networks, and actor-network theory refers these creations as tokens or quasi-objects which are passed between actors within the network.

As the token is increasingly transmitted or passed through the network, it becomes increasingly punctualized and also increasingly reified. When the token is decreasingly transmitted, or when an actor fails to transmit the token (e.g., the oil pump breaks), punctualization and reification are decreased as well.

Applications

Actor-Network Theory is useful in the exploration of why technologies, scientific theories, and/or social endeavors succeed or fail as the direct result of changes in their network integrity. In such an analysis, the technology or theory is positioned as the token.

In an early example of ANT entitled 'Aramis: The Love of Technology,' Latour described the crumbling of a network as the reason for failure of a particular technology (point-to-point public transport). Most often used to describe the demise of a quasi-object, ANT can also be used to examine how some quasi-objects (e.g. evolution, gravity, social norms) have been extremely successful due to their robust networks.

Criticism

Much of the controversy surrounding actor-network theory is caused by its lack of distinction between people and objects. A commonly held view is that people are fundamentally different from animals, and also fundamentally different from objects. However, although only humans can purposefully act, their actions are strongly influenced by non-human actors. In addition, bringing nonhuman actors into the picture helps ANT avoid the exaggerated and highly criticized epistemological relativism(see Science wars) that is often associated with constructivisttheories, especially those inspired by the sociology of scientific knowledge(SSK).

ANT has also been criticised as amoral. Bijker has responded to this criticim by stating that the amorality of ANT is not a necessity. Moral and political positions are possible, but one must first describe the network before taking up such positions.

Another criticism is that it suggests that all actors are equal within the network. It does not account for pre-existing structures, such as power, but instead sees these structures as emerging from the actions of actors within the network. Power emerges with the ability of an actor to align other actors to its interests. For this reason, ANT is sometimes seen as an attempt to re-introduce Whig historyinto science and technology studies; like the myth of the heroic inventor, ANT can be seen as an attempt to explain successful innovators by saying they were successful.

Case studies which use ANT are often highly descriptive, and can sometimes seem pointless to some critics. ANT (like historical studies) calls for judgement calls from the researcher as to what actors are important within a network, and which are not. Otherwise, it can be an endless process - six degrees of separation - we are all networked to one another - who are the most important in the construction of a particular technology?

In a workshop called "Actor Network and After", Bruno Latourwas noted to say that there are four things wrong with actor-network theory: "actor", "network", "theory" and the hyphen. In a later book however (Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory), Latour reversed himself, accepting the wide use of the term. He also remarked how he had been helpfully reminded that the ANT acronym ?was perfectly fit for a blind, myopic, workaholic, trail-sniffing, and collective traveler? (the ant) ? qualitative hallmarks of actor-network epistemology.

References

1. ^  John Law (1992). "Notes on the Theory of the Actor Network: Ordering, Strategy, and Heterogeneity."
2. ^  John Law (1987). "Technology and Heterogeneous Engineering: The Case of Portuguese Expansion." In W.E. Bijker, T.P. Hughes, and T.J. Pinch (eds.), The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
3. ^  Michel Callon (1986). "Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay." In John Law (ed.), Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul).

See also

• Callon, Michel
• Latour, Bruno
• Law, John
• Science studies
• Science and technology studies(STS)
• Scientific community metaphor
• Social constructivism
• Social construction of technology(SCOT}

External links

STS and STS theory

• STS Wiki

Bibliographies

• John Law's actor-network theory resource
• John Law, Notes on the Theory of the Actor Network (web archive)

Readings

• Article at the International Society for Information, Complexity and Design

Scholars' home pages

• Bruno Latour's Page

Scholars' discussion boards

• ANT discussion networkcs:Actor-network teorie

fr:Théorie des acteurs-réseaux

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
It uses material from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor-network+theory Wikipedia article Actor-network theory.