Don't step on the ANT! (Part 1-- the actors)

(Post 1 for next week, 10.12-10.17):

For my new post on Latour, I decided to continue focusing on delineating the tenets of Actor-Network Theory. In my first post last week I began grappling with an understanding of ANT, but things have become a little clearer for me since then. I’m writing, then, in response to Pam’s third question: “identify & discuss the ANT principles that Latour outlines in his book. That is, focus on the explicit statements about methodology…& on the methodological model the book itself provides.”

Actors: For Latour, the actors are where it’s at. ANT is all about following them and seeing where they lead us. This reminded me of an ethnographic approach. However, I think one important distinction that ANT makes is technological things/projects/artifacts are just as important as human actors. ANT opens up a role for the non-human. Here’s where I ran into a roadblock. I began to wonder about the role of intentionality— this is something we surely can’t attribute to non-humans objects. It seemed initially that Latour was arguing for some sort of intentionality when he wrote the rather odd passage with the pieces of technology speaking and talking about their roles (p. 59). However, I think I missed the point on that first reading though.

Instead, I needed to look at two segments.

1) “Men and things exchange properties and replace one another; this is what gives technological projects their full savor” (p. 61) and

2) p. 162, where Latour suggests that actors do not have strategies themselves—rather these come from other actors.

In light of these two sections, (if I’m now understanding correctly) Latour appears to resist ascribing intentionality to any actors. The emphasis is placed on reactivity and relationism, and consequently (?), the breakdown of geographic and metaphoric dichotomies. (which I'll write about next)