Actant
From Geography
| (9 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
An actant is strongly related to the [[Actor network theory]], created by [[Bruno Latour]]. The ANT perspective attempts to explain and interpret social and technological evolution using neither technical -material nor social reductionism, but rather it incorporates a 'principle of generalized symmetry', that what is human and non-human should be integrated into the same conceptual framework. Hereby network should not be seen as a structure like the World Wide Web, so much as a set of transformations. The meaning of actor then engages his thought at considerable length, much of which does not concern us here, but some does. Actor and network are not to be seen as two things - like individual and society - but rather as two faces of the same phenomenon. He then turns to theory, and lastly, briefly, to the hyphen (Gregory, Johnston, Pratt, Watts & Whatmore, 2009). | An actant is strongly related to the [[Actor network theory]], created by [[Bruno Latour]]. The ANT perspective attempts to explain and interpret social and technological evolution using neither technical -material nor social reductionism, but rather it incorporates a 'principle of generalized symmetry', that what is human and non-human should be integrated into the same conceptual framework. Hereby network should not be seen as a structure like the World Wide Web, so much as a set of transformations. The meaning of actor then engages his thought at considerable length, much of which does not concern us here, but some does. Actor and network are not to be seen as two things - like individual and society - but rather as two faces of the same phenomenon. He then turns to theory, and lastly, briefly, to the hyphen (Gregory, Johnston, Pratt, Watts & Whatmore, 2009). | ||
| - | In this case of the Actor | + | In this case of the [[Actor network theory]] actants are referred to non human actors. The ANT community often use the word actant rather than 'actor', in order to overcome the human connotations of the latter word. However in most of the times non-humans as wel as humans are both referred tot as 'actants'. What has raised concerns about [[human agency]] and identity, the ideas of volunteerism and determinism, as well as to whom (which scientists) would fall the task of discovering, interpreting and defining the parameters of vast networks of people and things (Latour, 1997). In addition, ANT attempts to dissolve the micro-/macro- distinction which it asserts as historically problematic in social theory (Gregory et al., 2009). |
| - | Main question here is what it does mean to be an actant. Bruno Latour (1997) said the following about | + | It is important to note that when the position of an actant in the context changes, the meaning of the actant itself changes as well. Therefore an actant cannot be seen separate from other actants and it's context in society. |
| + | |||
| + | We can conclude that we can see actants as specific elements in a system. When the system changes, so changes the actant. We must analyse the actants to understand the system but we also cannot understand the actants if we do not understand analyse the system and it's context. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Main question here is what it does mean to be an actant. [[Bruno Latour]] (1997) said the following about being an actant: | ||
"actantiality is not what an actor does ... but what provides actants with their actions, with their subjectivity, with their intentionality, with their morality." | "actantiality is not what an actor does ... but what provides actants with their actions, with their subjectivity, with their intentionality, with their morality." | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
'''References:''' | '''References:''' | ||
| + | |||
Gregory, D., Johnston, R., Pratt, G., Watts, M. & Whatmore, S. (2009). The Dictionary of Human Geography, 5th edition. London: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing. | Gregory, D., Johnston, R., Pratt, G., Watts, M. & Whatmore, S. (2009). The Dictionary of Human Geography, 5th edition. London: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing. | ||
Latour, B. (1997). The trouble with the Actor-Networktheory. Danish philosophy journal, vol. 25, n°3 et 4, pp. 47-64, 1997. | Latour, B. (1997). The trouble with the Actor-Networktheory. Danish philosophy journal, vol. 25, n°3 et 4, pp. 47-64, 1997. | ||
| + | ====Contributors==== | ||
| + | ''Published by Luuk Robers & Paul Leemans | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''Links added by --[[User:SusanVerbeij|SusanVerbeij]] 07:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| + | [[Category: Social System Theory]] | ||
| + | [[Category: Actor Network Theory]] | ||
| - | + | ''Evaluated by Doris Roelvink, October 26th 2012'' | |
Latest revision as of 05:09, 26 October 2012
An actant is strongly related to the Actor network theory, created by Bruno Latour. The ANT perspective attempts to explain and interpret social and technological evolution using neither technical -material nor social reductionism, but rather it incorporates a 'principle of generalized symmetry', that what is human and non-human should be integrated into the same conceptual framework. Hereby network should not be seen as a structure like the World Wide Web, so much as a set of transformations. The meaning of actor then engages his thought at considerable length, much of which does not concern us here, but some does. Actor and network are not to be seen as two things - like individual and society - but rather as two faces of the same phenomenon. He then turns to theory, and lastly, briefly, to the hyphen (Gregory, Johnston, Pratt, Watts & Whatmore, 2009).
In this case of the Actor network theory actants are referred to non human actors. The ANT community often use the word actant rather than 'actor', in order to overcome the human connotations of the latter word. However in most of the times non-humans as wel as humans are both referred tot as 'actants'. What has raised concerns about human agency and identity, the ideas of volunteerism and determinism, as well as to whom (which scientists) would fall the task of discovering, interpreting and defining the parameters of vast networks of people and things (Latour, 1997). In addition, ANT attempts to dissolve the micro-/macro- distinction which it asserts as historically problematic in social theory (Gregory et al., 2009).
It is important to note that when the position of an actant in the context changes, the meaning of the actant itself changes as well. Therefore an actant cannot be seen separate from other actants and it's context in society.
We can conclude that we can see actants as specific elements in a system. When the system changes, so changes the actant. We must analyse the actants to understand the system but we also cannot understand the actants if we do not understand analyse the system and it's context.
Main question here is what it does mean to be an actant. Bruno Latour (1997) said the following about being an actant: "actantiality is not what an actor does ... but what provides actants with their actions, with their subjectivity, with their intentionality, with their morality."
References:
Gregory, D., Johnston, R., Pratt, G., Watts, M. & Whatmore, S. (2009). The Dictionary of Human Geography, 5th edition. London: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.
Latour, B. (1997). The trouble with the Actor-Networktheory. Danish philosophy journal, vol. 25, n°3 et 4, pp. 47-64, 1997.
Contributors
Published by Luuk Robers & Paul Leemans
Links added by --SusanVerbeij 07:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Evaluated by Doris Roelvink, October 26th 2012
