ANT, and interweaving threads

Van Ittersum (2008) provides a clear explanation of Actor Network Theory (ANT) which helps draw together several of Latour’s works. Van Ittersum says that ANT is a process of "mapping," including both humans and non-humans, and focusing on "acts of translation" (p. 145). He also explains, following from Latour, that ANT investigates mediators and intermediaries as types of actions possible for actors. Mediators invoke some sort of translation or transforming, whereas intermediaries act as a conduit.

The style of Latour’s Aramis (2006) was engaging, and the content certainly thought-provoking, but simultaneously, the theoretical implications were wide-ranging and at times a bit overwhelming. Consequently, I found Van Ittersum’s article helpful as a means of pulling together several of the important terms and strands from Latour’s work, many of which also appear in other works we've read so far.

Several of the key points, many which seem to carry across the other readings we’ve done this semester so far, include:

* A rejection of retrospective, Whiggish accounts (e.g. Van Ittersum, p. 146). STS, at least in my exposure so far, seems to consistently resist the Progress motif.

* Symmetry- Latour identifies the importance of symmetry by noting the meaningless of calling something a success or failure (p. 78). He suggests in place of such useless categories, we employ a “relationism” (p. 79). Relationism recognizes the interconnections between actors, including both humans and non-humans, and the ever-multiplying (?) interpretations possible. This is further suggested late in the text when Latour suggests the RATP itself had identified Aramis as both success and failure (p. 263) and as the engineering/sociology student struggles to compose a report about Aramis.

* Follow the actors. Latour explains, “Since every study has to limit its scope, why not encompass it within the boundaries proposed by the interviewees themselves?” (p. 19) and “We just follow the players” (p. 10). This also resonates with Bijker’s justification of his snowball sampling technique.

* Allowance for flexibility/indeterminancy. Latour explains the necessity of “respect for indeterminancy” (p. 30) and Van Ittersum observes, “ANT argues against accounts that attempt to produce a singular, definitive analysis of a project” (p. 148).

I’ve also found several entirely new (to me) ways of thinking/speaking/writing about technology within this coupling of texts. Probably the most striking one is the treatment of the technologies themselves as “characters.” I didn’t find this happening overtly in the earlier texts this semester. When Latour discussed the lack of depth in his characters (p. 55), it felt like some of the critiques we give and receive in creative writing classes. Initially, likely due to this association, I read it as a self-imposed critique of his human characters, e.g. the engineer turned sociology student. However, as I continued reading, it became clearer to me that the technology of Aramis and all its literal and potential component parts were also being depicted as potential characters. This takes personification to a whole new extreme. Upon a re-reading of the introduction, I identified this 'machines as characters' approach as stemming from Latour’s concern with acknowledging the density and context of the machines in order to encourage greater respect for machines as “cultural objects” (p. viii).