Post 2 for 10.12-10.17: [To follow up my last post, here I'm continuing to try to work out tenets of ANT. I'm focusing on 2 main points though: the breakdown of geographic and metaphoric dichotomies and the role of context in ANT.]
Breaking geographic and metaphoric dichotomies: Allowing for fluctuation and flexibility seems exceptionally important in ANT. Latour notes that actors’ size, goals and even “isotopy” are all negotiable. Actors are not stable (p. 176). Actors can no longer be viewed as large vs. small, for instance. Instead, they’re constantly in flux due to the ever changing relationships with each other. The scope or frame is inscribed by the actors themselves, not the researchers.The ANT approach observes the acts of inscription, and avoids imposition of a pre-existing context. The imposition of context is a sort of geographical frame which delineates what is and what is not available as an object of study. Latour though, resists this pre-imposition of context and insists instead on an emergent sense of context initiated by the actors.This article was particularly helpful to me in thinking about how ANT works to break down spatial dichotomies: http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9801/msg00019.html In this article, Latour details how ANT disrupts near/far, local/global,small/large, and inside/outside dichotomies.Contexts: Returning to Aramis, I’ve pulled out a couple of quotes to further explain his approach to context.1) “A technological project is not in a context; it gives itself a context, or sometimes does not give itself one” (p. 133) and “Contextualization is fabricated and negotiated like everything else” (p. 143). These two quotes demonstrate resistance to a priori assumptions of context and they help demonstrate Latour’s insistence that we focus on the network itself, not our own scientific/philosophical agendas. Every methodology is imbricated with assumptions. Latour wants us to resist those assumptions. Of course, the challenge here, is even a resistance to those assumptions is filled with its own methodological assumptions and values.2) “Every context is composed of individuals who do or do not decide to connect the fate of a project with the fate of the small or large ambitions they represent” (p. 137). This last quote demonstrates the actors’ role in constituting the context, and it further shows ANT’s intense focus on observing actor-driven research.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Beth - I guess my comment is a bit late, but I've been going over some of the Aramis posts to try and understand ANT a bit better. The Latour article you discuss here is really helpful. I'm going to delineate some of the things he points out (mostly for my benefit, but if it helps someone else, that's awesome). If I repeat what you've stated, sorry, I'm only trying to clear up my hazy understanding of ANT.
1) The term ‘network’ in ANT does not mimic the network we understand in a technical/computer situation. This type of network could only occur in a final/stable situation in ANT. The network involved in ANT may actually be more of a ‘local’ network than that understood in a technical sense (i.e. a global computer network).
2) ANT does not limit itself to social networks, but instead (again) looks at the actors on a more local (micro?) level. This is how actors can drop out and in as noted in Aramis. This allows Aramis (the PRT – a non-human entity) to be considered an actor.
3) The term ‘network’ is used to avoid Cartesian dichotomies: it allows for ANT to have a more rhizomatic view of the world. Rather than a surface-level, simplistic understanding of the world, ANT offers below-the-iceberg explanations.
4) Rules, order, and universal truths are the exception, and should be questioned.
5) What is really interesting is that Latour then gives a list of properties involved in all networks (rules? Truths?).
a. Far and close are irrelevant; distance and proximity are relative to the situation and context.
b. The notion of scale (small/large) should be disregarded. Hierarchy has no place in ANT: there are simply networks that range in length and connections. The scale is left to the actors involved.
c. Inside and outside are also irrelevant because a network involves only connections between actors.
Latour uses the subdivisions in #5 to explain why ANT is more helpful than other sociological (etc) theory to study social interactions. Without the spatial constraints of traditional disciplines, ANT is free to study the connections and interactions between actors.
To be an actor one must simply act (or be allowed action by other actors). Latour argues, “the key point is that every entity, including the self, society, nature, every relation, every action, can be understood as ‘choices’ or ‘selection’ of finer and finer embranchments going from abstract structure – actants- to concrete ones –actors.” He continues on with a discussion of semiotics and ANT, which I think I will try to discuss later on. This is more than enough for now.
I really would like to study ANT further, because, from what I’ve read, it seems to address many of the things traditional methodologies do not (i.e. from sociology or psychology). It also goes beyond making mere dichotomies to explain the why, who, how, etc of a situation. Any thoughts?
http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9801/msg00019.html
Post a Comment