Difference between revisions of "Actor Network Theory"
Caseorganic (Talk | contribs) |
Caseorganic (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===Definition=== | ===Definition=== | ||
| − | + | First proposed by sociologist Bruno Latour, Actor Network Theory, or ANT, has proven to be one of the most valiant theories of understanding how these different elements work together to produce techno-cultural phenomena. Actor-Network theory is a way to understand the phenomena as distributed networks with interrelated nodes. It draws from emergence theory, computing, and other disciplines to understand both the nodes of the system and the lines of communication that allow for information flow between different nodes. | |
| − | Latour situates actors/subjects as actor nodes that function within larger distributed networks of mutual interaction and feedback loops. Through this approach, Latour avoids the two extremes of a purely materialist system in which humans have no agency, as exemplified in Mintz' "Sweetness and Power",<ref>Mintz, Sidney. Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History. Penguin Books, 1986.</ref>and a radically anthropocentric approach that mitigates any agency of supra-human elements (humans are the only agents). | + | Latour situates actors/subjects as actor nodes that function within larger distributed networks of mutual interaction and feedback loops. This means that relations need to be repeatedly “performed” or the network will dissolve. Social relations, in other words, are only ever in process, and must be performed continuously. Social relations, in other words, are only ever in process, and must be performed continuously.<ref>Latour, Bruno. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor–Network Theory. Oxford University Press, 2005.</ref> Through this approach, Latour avoids the two extremes of a purely materialist system in which humans have no agency, as exemplified in Mintz' "Sweetness and Power",<ref>Mintz, Sidney. Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History. Penguin Books, 1986.</ref>and a radically anthropocentric approach that mitigates any agency of supra-human elements (humans are the only agents). |
Questions of subjectivities, agencies, actors, and structures have been of perennial interest in Anthropology. In Cyborg Anthropology the question of what type of cybernetic system constitutes an actor/subject becomes all the more important. Is it the actual technology that acts on humanity (the Internet), the general techno-culture (silicon valley), government sanctions (net-neutrality), specific innovative humans (Steve Jobs), or some type of combination of these elements? | Questions of subjectivities, agencies, actors, and structures have been of perennial interest in Anthropology. In Cyborg Anthropology the question of what type of cybernetic system constitutes an actor/subject becomes all the more important. Is it the actual technology that acts on humanity (the Internet), the general techno-culture (silicon valley), government sanctions (net-neutrality), specific innovative humans (Steve Jobs), or some type of combination of these elements? | ||
Revision as of 19:36, 3 July 2011
Definition
First proposed by sociologist Bruno Latour, Actor Network Theory, or ANT, has proven to be one of the most valiant theories of understanding how these different elements work together to produce techno-cultural phenomena. Actor-Network theory is a way to understand the phenomena as distributed networks with interrelated nodes. It draws from emergence theory, computing, and other disciplines to understand both the nodes of the system and the lines of communication that allow for information flow between different nodes.
Latour situates actors/subjects as actor nodes that function within larger distributed networks of mutual interaction and feedback loops. This means that relations need to be repeatedly “performed” or the network will dissolve. Social relations, in other words, are only ever in process, and must be performed continuously. Social relations, in other words, are only ever in process, and must be performed continuously.[1] Through this approach, Latour avoids the two extremes of a purely materialist system in which humans have no agency, as exemplified in Mintz' "Sweetness and Power",[2]and a radically anthropocentric approach that mitigates any agency of supra-human elements (humans are the only agents).
Questions of subjectivities, agencies, actors, and structures have been of perennial interest in Anthropology. In Cyborg Anthropology the question of what type of cybernetic system constitutes an actor/subject becomes all the more important. Is it the actual technology that acts on humanity (the Internet), the general techno-culture (silicon valley), government sanctions (net-neutrality), specific innovative humans (Steve Jobs), or some type of combination of these elements?
Actor Network Theory is applicable to Cyborg Anthropology because the discipline needs to be able to analyze the fluid exchange between technological actors and human actors, especially since the technologies being studied actively dismantle our ontological pre-suppositions as to what constitutes a "human" or a "technology".
References
- ↑ Latour, Bruno. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor–Network Theory. Oxford University Press, 2005.
- ↑ Mintz, Sidney. Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History. Penguin Books, 1986.
