Week11 - Actor Network Theory



Actor-Network Theory  (ANT)  can be considered to be a constructivist approach and it has a distinguished “material-semiotic” view. By  “material-semiotic” I mean that it maps relations that are simultaneously  material  (between things) and semiotic  (between concepts). As per the class discussion, it appears to be more of a method than a theory. The underlying concept of this theory is based on descriptions. The theory helps to describe how activities, habits and procedures sustain themselves. ANT  tries to explain how these networks of things and concepts come together to act as a whole. One of the essential features that came out of the class discussion is the fact that ANT also considers non-human actors  (actants)  as valid nodes in a network, while in structuration theory covered in the previous week only considers human agents in the scope of agency and structure. ANT seems to be one of the better theories that can explain technological inventions. For example, if we try to understand  the various processes that go into the creation of an automobile, all the components  – batteries, tires, audio system and brakes, are considered equal nodal points within the actor-network.

Class Readings
1.  Mathewman text, Chapter 6 The Sociotechnical Construction of Society: Actor Network Theory. Pages 104-125.

2.  Latour, Bruno, “Where are the Missing Masses—The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artifacts.” From Wiebe E. Bijker and John Law, eds., Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1992), pp. 225–258. http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/50-MISSING-MASSES-GB.pdf

3.  Harris, Jan, The Ordering of Things: Organization in Bruno Latour.”  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2005.00548.x/abstract

Weekly Essay
Weekly essay here.

Comments on the essay.

Other Resources
Some other resources discussed in class here.