Actor-Network Theory (original) (raw)
Related papers
What is actor-network theory? What are its strengths and limitations as a sociological theory? The paper offers an introductory overview of actor-network theory, mapping its relation to and consequent divergence from traditional sociology. The paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of ANT as both method and theory and argues that it is because, rather than despite, the fact that it is so polemical, that ANT succeeds in capturing the attention of sociologists and providing a fresh way of approaching both method and theory.
Actor-Network Theory (Social Theory Now)
Social Theory Now, 2017
In a lecture delivered in 1997 Bruno Latour identified the "things that do not work with actor-network theory." These were four: the word actor, the word network, the word theory, and, last but not least, the deceptively unobtrusive hyphen. These four inadequacies represented, Latour argued, "four nails in the coffin" of actor-network theory (ANT) and revealed the design flaws that had been built into this "careless experiment" in empirical metaphysics (Latour 1999).
Modifying Actor-Network Theory to
2014
Die ZBW räumt Ihnen als Nutzerin/Nutzer das unentgeltliche, räumlich unbeschränkte und zeitlich auf die Dauer des Schutzrechts beschränkte einfache Recht ein, das ausgewählte Werk im Rahmen der unter
Actor-Network Theory and/as 'Global Social Theory'
Encyclopedia of Global Social Theory, 2023
Actor-network theory (ANT) took form in the 1980s at the Centre de Sociologie de l'innovation of the École des mines in Paris. Based on its strong thematic focus on technological development and scientific innovation, it came to play a crucial role in the emerging field of science and technology studies (STS). In conceptual terms, ANT quickly proved to be a more unusual beast than other sociological and historical approaches. Drawing eclectically on semiotics, ethnomethodology, and much else, it constructed an image of fluctuating networks comprised by human and nonhuman actors, which were, in turn, fully constituted by their mutual relations. This was a sociology of translations, which, though it has remained controversial, over time came to influence many disciplines beyond STS.
2014
This is the author's final version of the work, as accepted for publication following peer review but without the publisher's layout or pagination.
Soziale Welt, 1996
Three resources have been developped over the ages to deal with agencies. The first one is to attribute to them naturality and to link them with nature. The second one is to grant them sociality and to tie them with the social fabric. The third one is to consider them as a semiotic construction and to relate agency with the building of meaning. The originality of science studies comes from the impossibility of clearly differentiating those three resources. Microbes, neutrinos of DNA are at the same time natural, social and discourse. They are real, human and semiotic entities in the same breath. The article explores the consequence of this peculiar situation which has not been underlined before science studies forced us to retie the links between these three resources. The actornetwork theory developped by Callon and his colleagues is an attempt to invent a vocabulary to deal with this new situation. The article reviews those difficulties and tries ot overcome them by showing how they may be used to account for the consturction of entities, that is for the attribution of nature, society and meaning.
Critique of Actor-Network Theory
Actor-Network Theory attempts to set aside issues of internalism versus externalism. I would suggest that a subject and object articulate meaning in discourse very differently, such that it presents a problem for ANT. A thinking thing constructs meaning through F.A.C.E (formation, articulation, contemplation, and expression). An idea is formed through stimuli (perceptual, imagination, memory, or combinations of those categories). The idea is articulated within the mind through its faculties. The articulated idea is checked for coherence, such that mental glossolalia will not be expressed (those with dissociative mental conditions, withstanding). If the articulated idea is coherent then it is expressed as a notion or concept. The notion will have to go through the FACE process of meaning-production once more to become a concept. The notion implies some form of novelty whereby the mind articulating it must show how it fits into pre-existing discourse in order to become a concept. Meaning is produced by minds through a process such as FACE (this is the process I am offering). A process such as this constructs a spatiotemporal register dynamically and because of the checks on coherence, it could be argued that the process by which subjects articulate meaning is inherently based in dialectics (contemplation is a synthetic stage, converting notions to concepts is a synthetic process). Objects do not construct meaning through a process such as FACE, as the object need not prove to itself that it is rational prior to expression. As such, I have serious reservations on the viability of ANT as a methodology for explaining how meaning is produced in discourse. *Everything uploaded to my Academia.edu in 2017 is considered a draft. I was required to do regular graduate course work for the first year of my doctoral studies and took the opportunity to play out some personal theories. It's all a prolegomenon for a bigger project down the road and these ideas will require a more rigourous distillation to be of real value to the scholarly community.
Discovering Actor-Network Theory: a Personal Research Journey
2011
This preface traces my own personal journey through the discovery and use of actor-network theory (ANT) for information systems research. It begins with my introduction to ANT in a small way during my research Master of Arts degree in the early 1990s and continues with the use of ANT to frame my PhD. Next it looks at how I was able to make use of ANT, and in particular Innovation Translation, with my research students and in my own research on technological innovation in business organisations. Although, in my view, Innovation Translation provides a better framework for investigation technological innovation than either Innovation Diffusion or the Technology Acceptance Model, I have been quite prepared to supervise doctoral students using either of these other approaches as well as those using my preferred approach. This preface discusses examples of these various research projects.
Actor-Network Theory: Objects and Actants, Networks and Narratives,
Technology and World Politics: An Introduction”, edited by Daniel R. McCarthy, Abingdon: Routledge,, 2017
This book chapter provides a succinct introduction to Actor Network Theory (ANT) and how it has been discussed in International Relations. Arguing that ANT offers "empirical theory" we review a range of classical ANT studies and discuss what concepts they develop. We continue in exploring what one can 'do' with ANT to study international relations and global politics.