Actor network theory

From Geography

Revision as of 16:19, 9 October 2011

Actor-network theory, or ANT, emerged out of work from Bruno Latour and Michel Callon in 1996 during the 1980’s (Latour, p.ix & Gregory et al., 2009, p.6). Initially it was created as a new social theory adjusted to science and technology (Latour, 2005, p.10). Actor-network theory assumes that “the world is composed of associations of heterogeneous elements, that it’s task it is to trace” (Latour, 2005, p.6). A network is the trace left behind by some moving agent. The task is to deploy actors as networks of mediations. The ANT theory has proved to be helpful to gain an understanding of the relationships between humans and non-humans.

Actor-network theory emphasizes and considers all surrounding factors. Whether human or non-human, both are incorporated within the theory. (Gregory et al., 2009, p.7) Thus the theory drew attention to features of the world which are normally ignored in classic social science accounts (Gregory et al., 2009, p.6). Other important point that this confirms is that agency is distributed, it is a relational effect that is the outcome of the compilation of all sorts of material pieces. (Gregory et al., 2009, p.7). An ‘actor’ in this respect is not the source of action but “the moving target of a vast array of entities swarming toward it.” (Latour, 2005, p.46).

Actor-Network Theory does not typically attempt to explain why a network exists; it is more interested in the infrastructure of actor-networks, how they are formed, how they can fall apart, etc. It explores the ways in which different materials are enrolled in networks (key thinkers). Hence to show that actors are related to one another in the form of a network is not yet an ANT study (Latour, 2005, p.143) Interactions differ from actor-network in the frame that the number and the span of their type of actions and the ‘span’ of their inter-relations has been vastly underestimated. Stretch any given inter-action and it becomes an actor-network. A structure is an actor-network in the sense that there is scant information or whose participants are so quiet that no new information is required. (Latour, 2005, p.202)

Koch in his text (2005) is linking ANT with system theory, to emphasize the social construction of space, ANT could be a way to overcome the relationship between space and soiciety, as an attempt to integrate space in social systems.For instance Koch uses the family as an example of a social system and the home as an example of a spatial system. A social system is similar to a communication system, the elements of each social systems are communications, and not the indivdiuals. ANT admits society, organisations, agents and machines all as effects generated in patterned networks of diverse (not simply human) materials.

Although definitions and purposes of ANT seem clear cut, one could argue that several authors still disagree on basic definitions. A basic definition as knowledge seems to be perceived by experts in different ways. For example Foucault sees it as power while the ANT approach argues it to be a social product (rather than something generated through scientific method).

Some criticisms regarding ANT are the following: The absurdity of assigning agency to nonhuman actors and that ANT is amoral because it assumes that all actors are equal within the network, there cannot be made that ANT is amoral and that because it assumes that all actors are equal within the network, no accommodations for power imbalances can be made.

References

Published by Marjolein Selten & Fleur van der Zandt