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)

Gmail Goggles?

Gmail has added a new downloadable function "email goggles." This new function is to help people not send drunk emails. So, between the hours of, I believe, 11pm Friday to 4am Sunday, if you have this function enabled, you will be given a short math quiz before your email will be sent. If you fail the quiz, the email will be saved in your drafts folder, and gmail tells you ""Water and bed for you."

And, you only have a short amount of time, 60 seconds, to complete the 5 question math quiz. What a sly way to bring math into the email (writing) world. What do we value more? 12 secs to answer a math question, or the lessons learned from sending a drunk email? How does this program influence our email literacy? The second link below has some interesting quotes that seem to connect to some of our class discussion - a technology development that solves all drunk communication problems: "But even if Google deems you too inebriated to correspond with your boss or your ex, what about all the other ways to communicate something stupid?" Or "But there's still no technological catch-all solution for drunk dialing and texting. And no one's tackled some of the other foolhardy activities associated with a night out, like consuming a gross burrito at 3 a.m." It may not be the rape wagon, but........

Huffington Post Article

Chicago Tribune

So interesting!

Doug Engelbart Link

1968 Demo

[no. 322]: We want information! <---->[no.xx]: You won't get it!: What relevant social group....

subtitle: How would you react if you were on the "rape wagon"[1] with Frankenstein and his big dick? What if he just wanted to go to the same place as you, and is really a swell guy that wouldn't even hurt anyone? Would you get off the wagon?
----------

In our discussions of relevant social groups, there has been some questioning of the inclusion of consumers (both in the sense of those that purchase and those that use) into breakdowns of these groups. Latour's book pulls out the paranoid in me, in regards to consumers in this light. We are not relevant to those with the power to offer or withhold technology (information, distribution of power...I could go on and on, but I will try my best to remain focused...). Sitting in "inscrutable seats of power" [2], politicians and businessmen decide for how what we will be allowed to use (and in vain attempts at further means of control, how we use the products they offer us; however, I am not jaded enough to believe that they have finally taken this away from us, no matter how hard they try). For example, we have the businessmen buttering their own bread: "While the automobile still seems to be the fastest (though costliest) solution for urban transportation in the short run, its very proliferation will increasingly cut down on its speed, which will soon become unacceptably slow; at the same time, automobiles will increase to dangerous levels the atmospheric pollution that they inevitably produce." (p. 31) [3] That's certainly one spin on cars, which I agree with on some levels, as I have been caught in both Baltimore and D.C. traffic. However, for all the economic spin (in regards to a businessman or group of businessmen selling their product), the weight of the automotive industry didn't budge one bit in the 70's and 80's with the idea of PRT's bouncing off their gargantuan necks like so many unnoticed gnats.

This leads me to my next paranoia: Political might. How much was the decision to scrap emergent technologies like the Aramis project the result of heavy-weight commercial entities--such as the automotive industry [4]--putting economic and political (again, can these two things realllllllly be separated?) pressure on leading politicians? "'I tell myself that if somebody came up with the idea of the automobile today and had to go before a safety commission and explain, I don't know, let's say, how to get started on a hill...! I just think how complicated it is: shifting gears, using the hand brake, and so on. He wouldn't stand a chance! He'd be told: 'It can't be done.' Well, everybody knows how to start on a hill! It's the same with Aramis. We hadn't gotten all the kinks out, but yes, I think it was doable. [no. 23]" (p.48) [5] Rather than ask whether or not a technology would be beneficial (in theory) or economic (in theory) this is the sort of bureaucratic insistence on the "impossibilities" of technology we are offered. It is a slight of hand. That the Aramis project lasted through four different administrations of French Government is a mystery to me. At the very first change in power, Giscard d'Estaing replacing de Gaulle in 1974 (p. 13), one would have thought that the project would have been capped right there and then. New power, new economic pressures...oops, budget cuts! Do I really need to research and list examples of this? We see it every 4-8 years here.

(I just ran out of time...will rant and rave more later...for now, watch out for Frankie! We know his intentions! And they are always the worst possible case...)



Elliot


[1] "Senator Wallace: 'Well, I'll tell you what happens, she gets raped! And the rapist has all the time in the world, in this automated shell of yours with no doors and no windows. You know what you've invented? You've invented the rape wagon!'" (p. 21) Why is it that when I read this passage, I was not remotely shocked that after a brief discussion of logistics, the very first place our politicians and supposed leaders go, is fear? At the very least, as I will quote above, the French politicians and business men offered up some tangible analysis of the Aramis project--although still not directly addressing the political and economic (if they can be separated) reasons why the project was ultimately scrapped--between finger wagging and blame shifting. On some levels I am proud of my ability to laugh at this caricature of US Political Discourse (really...how much of a caricature is it?), but I am also sickened. This is, on some base level, how our society functions: through waves of fear and cowering. And we just let ourselves be sucked into it.

[2] "Dogma." Kevin Smith. Viewaskew productions. (1999)

[3] I am unsure of any of you have seen the French new-wave film "Week End" by Jean-Luc Goddard (1967), but in the film there is a lengthy "pan and scan" shot that goes on for 15-20 minutes of automobile backup and carnage in the French countryside. It makes one wonder if this is being specifically referenced in this passage. If you have an hour and a half of free time, and are interested in seeing "A Clockwork Orange" without a plot, I highly recommend this experimental film.

[4] At some point this semester, I want to bring up the marriage of oil and automotive industries and the obvious lag in "greener" technologies. Am I again paranoid here? Am I seeing ghosts in the meadow?

[5] [no. 23] is M. Henne, "head of the bureau of technological studies of Aeroport de Paris".

the little engine that couldn't

Like a few others, Aramis gave me a few problems; it was a pretty dense book, and while the investigation was in chronological order (or at least it seemed to be), the information/interviews/data being used wasn’t—or was it? It didn’t seem to flow in any logical way, but maybe it wasn’t supposed to? Still, I managed to take some good ideas away from the book—and from the failure of Aramis.

On a related note, it surprised me that such an advanced mass transit system was being developed at a time when the technology necessary to create it was relatively simple. Twelve years after the release of this book, Aramis seems to be more technologically possible; though obviously, not in America. Of course, the autopsy of Aramis shows that it was more than technological hurdles that stopped the project.

What interested me in this failed technology was the chance for it to be misused; I’m thinking mainly of the “rape wagon” story from the chapter—who is going to be around to protect the little old ladies? Invariably, someone will always use technology for a purpose far removed than what the technology was intended for. With Aramis, we saw the possibility of sexual assault (not to mention regular assault) and vandalism that the designers of the project had to work around. As Elliot said in class, technologies can be expropriated for uses that range from “deviant” to “illegal;” but can these unintended uses redefine the technology?

The Internet, once used for military and university correspondence, is now facilitating the transfer of illegal downloads, pornography, drugs (check Craig’s List), and sex (check Craig’s List). And for as much as everyone celebrates second life, I have to wonder how many people have actually spent time within this virtual world. One of the sites I write for had a series of articles of all the sexual deviance going on in second life: simulated pedophilia, incest, bestiality, prostitution, torture etc. And whenever a “famous person” has an event in Second Life, it will inevitably be invaded by virtual anarchists; this is possible because Second life tries to sell itself (even though it’s free) on this kind of freedom.

And this “griefing” (that’s the terminology) leaks into the real world, too. Second Life inspired the interruption of a real-life event with a flying penis-copter—and keep in mind that raining phalluses are a common event during virtual Second Life press conferences. Of course, this is all very entertaining—to me, anyway—but it makes me think about the safeguards of technology (to prevent this sort of behavior), and how people get around these safeguards—or even exploit the technology in ways that the designers never though of (as with the “rape wagon” story).

In the end, Aramis taught me that there’s no way that technology can possibly be autonomous; in this case, the creation of Aramis is a 15-year mess that can barely be contained within 300 pages.

Latour, Latour

Ok—to be very honest, I (like John), was overwhelmed by this week’s readings. Unlike
Lindsay or Nikki, I never got to a place of completely enjoying or wrapping my head
around Aramis. I hated—even resented Latour’s format—more so than when reading multi-genre novels that use various fonts, etc.

Overall, I struggle with Latour. I have wanted to understand his work from the time I first stumbled upon his Politics of Nature, a book in which Latour purportedly establishes the conceptual context for political ecology. Except now, I’m not sure what he means by “context.” In any case, in PON, Latour seeks to disabuse readers of their notion that political ecology has anything to do with “nature,” Which he dismisses as a jumble of Greek philosophy, French Cartesianism, and American parks” (from the book’s back cover [I never even got past the book’s intro and a cursory inspection of subsequent chapters of PON]). However, I did glean that Latour reads nature as a way of assembling political order rather than as a domain of the real. In fact, he claims that political ecology must relinquish “nature.” Explicitly, he says that “if ‘nature’ is what makes it possible to recapitulate the hierarchy of beings in a single ordered series, political ecology is always manifested in practice by the destruction of the idea of nature” ( p. 25).

Sorry for the digression into another of his texts, but I am relating this by way of an analogy as I try to understand his application to “technology” in Aramis, because in PO, Latour argues for the inclusion of nonhuman actors in an analysis of environmental and ecological issues. Because I am interested in environmental discourse(s), I have been frustrated when that when conducting Critical Discourse Analysis, nonhuman actors are never accounted for—even when they are manipulated within the discourse; while they are actors, they are never counted as actors because they are not human!

Back to what I am gleaning from Latour in Aramis: although Latour is a kind of social constructionist, he departs from SCs at just my last point: it does not account for inanimate or nonhuman objects or subjects (like plants or animals). But in reality, all these actors—which he calls actants—are recruited, almost hailed or interpellated (though not discursively) in the Althusserian sense, into a network. We should, however, not confuse this network with a web-like structure such as the Internet. IT is more like a jumble of marionettes, whose strings are entangled and pull on both one another and the puppeteers—animating all involved. So all intertwined actants work one another; none are privileged—not even the political—so no delimitation or delineation exists within the construct of the network among actants, network, artifacts, technology. I am guessing that is his same take on “nature.” (Interestingly, Michael Pollan, author of Omnivore’s Dilemma and Botany of Desire makes a similar, if more poetic argument).

I am still working all this out in my head; it has not clicked completely fro me in terms of why this is so important vis a vis technology…but I am sometimes dull of mind. Van Ittersum brings it home for me much more solidly—if less “creatively” than Latour. I so struggle when someone like Latour or Eco weds theory with fiction.

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).

Aramis and writing technologies

After the first page in chapter one, I was pretty confused (but it got easier): Latour wasn’t kidding when he described the book’s format in the prologue. I thought this was going to be like Bijker and Gitelman, but the format of the book actually fit the content really well. Latour adjusted his writing to his argument: a technology is multifaceted and involved in a network of contexts: social, political, financial, scientific, etc.) Therefore, his book wasn’t a novel, an academic treatise, a collection of historical documents, or an opinion, but took advantage of all aspects involved in the creation of such a study.
“Either you change the world to adapt it to the nominal Aramis, or else, yes, you need – you needed – to change Aramis” (Latour p. 292). Aramis died because those involved in its creation “believed in the autonomy of technology” (Latour p. 292). To connect with Van Ittersum, “objects are neither passively dominated by people’s will, nor all-powerful in their ability to control humans. Instead, objects and people shape each other through their interactions” (p. 145). Aramis wasn’t an all-powerful idea incarnate, but instead it needed to interact with the society in which it would be placed.
To connect this text with writing and writing technologies:
-Latour supports the careful consideration of the interrelations between technology and the social, thereby acknowledging the effects of writing technologies on society (the writer) and vice versa.
-To reappropriate Latour: “[Writing/writing technologies is/are] not in a context; [they give themselves] a context, or sometimes [do] not give [themselves] one. What is required is not to ‘replace [writing/writing technologies] in [its/their] context’…but to study the way [writing/writing technologies is/are] contextualized or decontextualized” (p. 133). I think this relates to the relevant social groups (Bijker) that engage with a technology. According to Latour, “The context is not the spirit of the times which would penetrate all things equally. 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). The context for Aramis was not the zeitgeist of the 24 or so years of its ‘life,’ but instead was composed if the spaces, people, ideas, politics, etc. that drove its creation. So, how is writing contextualized through different social groups using different writing technologies today? How do these technologies contextualize the writing done by those different social groups?
Therefore, to return to Latour, “Aramis had not incorporated any of the transformations of its environment. It had remained purely an object, a pure object. Remote from the social arena, remote from history; intact” (p. 280). Thus, as Latour’s sociology intern argues, “they really succeeded in separating technology from the social arena! They really believe in the total difference between the two” (p. 287).
(Warning: rant below…)
Aramis was an object on a pedestal with, what seemed to be, rather stubborn engineers that made sure it stayed away from revision, adaptation, and, God forbid, an actual consumer. This is the same problem with traditional writing instruction (i.e. my high school and undergrad English courses): here’s your mode, here’s your medium, this is writing, and it’s alphabetic, linear, print, and that’s all you need to know. Writing technologies have been perfected, we are comfortable with them, and nothing is allowed to change.

What’s so wrong about changing things? Or at least allowing for the fact that literate practices aren’t static?

Aramis and Me

Maybe I am crazy (which could be), maybe the sore throat medicine I was taking this weekend messed with my mind, or maybe I watched too many episodes of Saved by the Bell, but I loved Latour’s book. Now, I hope I just got the message right!

First, I have read articles and web pages online, but this is the first time I have read an entire book online. And it really changed how I read versus reading the physical book. Since I couldn’t highlight and comment in the book or even download and save the book, I decided to take notes, which proved to be really helpful. I didn’t really think much about reading online until after I finished the book, but I am more than willing to read more books online – maybe an Amazon Kindle will find its way on my Christmas list after all.

Onto the book, what I gathered from the creative work was the influence of research and environment on technological ideas and innovations. Research seemed to be a reoccurring theme toward the end of the book. Those working on Aramis didn’t research throughout the project (as the environment, context and time changed) – Aramis stayed constant, which was related to its death (I just loved the murder mystery aspect of the book - so creative!). It didn’t seem as if the actors involved with the project really communicated as much as they should have to keep the project alive.

Some other key things that stuck out to me were, ‘technology follows ideas,’ ‘innovations have to interest people and things at the same time,’ ‘no technological project is technological first and foremost,’ ‘technological project is not in a context, it gives itself a context’ and calling projects innovated projects or research projects. I was also interested in the idea of anthropomorphism – I don’t know why, it just seemed like a really neat concept.

Overall though, I feel as though this book brought together readings from earlier in the semester. I could see some use of relevant social groups, and actors, and who is in control (ie politics). And, I must say this is one of the few technology books that have made me laugh.

ARAMIS

I'm having a really hard time writing a post this week. After finishing Aramis, I'm not sure where to begin or what to comment on. I feel like I've read 300 pages of really dense and complicated prose, and all that I've taken away is the idea that technologies will fail unless people compromise, negotiate, and change their minds. Aramis failed because people were unwilling to change it in relation to shifting circumstances and varying social demands. Latour writes that by insisting on the purity of the nominal Aramis, and avoiding the work of renegotiation, the engineers ended up with nothing. He claims that because the engineers hated research, its uncertainty and contingency, they were unable to succeed. Latour explains that, if something is physically impossible, then you must change it into something that is physically possible. You can't expect the thing to autonomously become possible. If you can't get funding for a project, you need to work to persuade people to fund the project. You can't expect to the project itself to persuade people. He avoids calling the idea untenable or infeasible because he insists that an idea can--and must--change. (At least, that's what I'm taking away--perhaps I'm misreading).



I think I buy into what Latour is saying, but, then again, there is a part of me that wants to reject him, or at least, reject the conclusion that the if you fail to compromise, then your project is a failure. In other words, I don't see a problem with giving up on an idea when you've determined that, in order to make it work, you would need to change it--or yourself--into something that you don't really want. The engineers who wanted nominal Aramis, but could not convince others to accept, or could not transform the material world to implement, nominal Aramis, had the right to terminate the project. They don't have to renegotiate and accept an Araval, if they don't want to.



Now, Latour would probably argue that it's better to make something--even if it's not exactly what you set out for--rather than come up completely empty-handed. He would say that it's human nature to compromise and negotiate, and it's the only way to get things done. I agree. But I also, think that there are times when people won't or can't accept a compromise. And, if they can't accept a compromise and can't convince people to see things their way, then the only thing they can do is shut things down. Maybe, their refusal to compromise, will force people to see things their way in the future.



I guess part of my insistence on this point is my tendency to draw parallels between those who wanted the nominal Aramis and those who wanted, say, civil rights in the 1960's (and still want them today). This is a stretch, so don't go with me if you don't want. But I think I see a parallel between the social negotiations that go on when trying to construct a more perfect technology and the social negotiations that go on when trying to construct a more perfect world. MLK, in a social justice project, was willing to negotiate on some things, but he was also unwilling to negotiate on basic principles (EG. non-violence) which he saw as vital to his project (if you've ever read Why We Can't Wait you know what I'm talking about). Meanwhile, the Aramis engineers were willing to negotiate on some things, but unwilling to negotiate on basic principles (EG. non-material couplings) which they saw as vital to their project. Neither King nor Aramis engineers would have their projects if they had to give up their basic principles. And, to me, that's okay. Maybe, both projects came to a halt because of this refusal to compromise. But maybe it's better to shut things down, then it is to change the project into something that you don't really want.

PRTs STILL IN DEVELOPMENT

Out of curiosity, I google searched "personal rapid transit system." I recommend doing it yourself to see the wealth of opinions about the "feasibility" of such a system in the United States. The following links provides some interesting accounts of what a system would look like, cost, do, etc. The first link contains the most information--arguments and counterarguments regarding the PRT. The second link has some really cool videos, worth watching if you have a minute. The third link is an abstract about the PRT in Chicago mentioned at the end of Latour's book. Apparently, the "system found no market"there, but it is now "free" to seek investment capital and become commercial.

http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_prt001.htm
http://prt.blip.tv/rss
http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?0105298