Critique of Actor-Network Theory (original) (raw)
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.
Related papers
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).
What Can Actor Network Theory Learn From Contemporary Art?
My basic claim is that Actor Network Theory (ANT) is a practice, like art, rather than a specific theory. This equivalence has four dimensions. First: both practices are a consequence of the conditions of contemporaneity. Second: as a result of this consequence, both describe and exemplify those conditions which are characterised by logic of information as it is distributed over systems of communication and control. Third: these conditions are underwritten by a particular understanding of what the human subject is; that is as one distributed and dispersed over those social systems. Fourth: ANT is as much an aesthetic as it is epistemic practice.
Iterating DRAFT People don’t have ideas - they make them 1 Iteration is the process of testing and developing ideas through repetition, inquiry and reflection. This is the daily practice that we experience both as learners and teachers in attempting to produce an interlinked sequence of outcomes. Each iteration is the starting point for the following one. The process embeds components of repetition, evolution, innovation and sometimes revolution. This new issue of Draft is a new iteration, adding to the two issues published together last year, one process[ing] and two project[ing]. Draft Three is produced in a single volume to consolidate the flow of ideas, connecting to past iterations and looking forward to those of the future. This iteration has a new format and a new graphic identity in line with our strategy to refresh every year and to reflect the constantly evolving teaching and learning landscape. Draft Three is a summary of the diversity of activity experienced by our students and academics throughout this year. 1. Carruthers, M. (1998), The Craft of Thought: Meditation, Rhetoric and the Making of Images, 400–1200, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) p. 5.
theory@buffalo, "doing theory" issue 20. 1 (2018)
2018
In recent years, the value of critical theory has been questioned by various thinkers for reasons that may seem contradictory. On the one hand, it has been subject to criticism for its excess, for being redundant in the face of actual facts. On the other, it has been seen as lacking, impoverishing the object of analysis by forcing upon it a limiting framework. In response to this, humanities scholars have sought out new analytic tools, for example in the fields of neuroscience, cognitive science, and biology. This 20th anniversary issue of theory@buffalo speaks to this “existential crisis” being experienced in the humanities. Is it time to move on from theory and cultivate other ways of thinking? Or is it time to rethink the way we do theory and clarify its importance as a mode of engaging with the world—one that is just as indispensable as the scientific?
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.