Bibliography
Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
Review by Michael Beach
As the subtitle suggests, Bruno Latour explains the main discussion points in this specific framework. In the discipline of Science, Technology, and Society (STS), Actor-Network-Theory (ANT) is widely adopted in terms of how to view interactions of people, organizations, and artifacts in making policy and technology choices. Unlike some of the other social frameworks, Latour argues that the adoption and stability of a given scientific fact or technological artifact is a function of the strength of the networks that support them. For Latour, fact or artifact selection results if more actors (people) or actants (objects) interact on a consistent basis than competing facts or artifacts. If the strength of a network begins to wain in relation to different facts or artifacts, then a theory or technology is supplanted. Context for Latour is less important. Context may influence parts of a network, but contexts differ among network nodes (actors or actants), and they also change over time. He puts less weight to social factors that may seem stable in some ways. Instead it is how much actors and actants tend to support a given policy, technology, or scientific finding that will determine how stable it tends to be.
Latour argues “sociology has confused science with politics” (253). When discussing what influences a network, he further states, “it makes no difference if it’s ‘natural’ or ‘social’” (Ibid.). One way to think about it, when actants are involved, there is no ‘social’ effect on such. Natural resources are an example. Efficiency is more a question in terms of human use of non-renewable resources, yet renewables can be overtaxed as well. The resources themselves impact network choices but are not influenced directly by social forces.
ANT has been shown to have weaknesses that even Latour admits. For example, ANT does not consider non-users. When the cost of a specific technology excludes people living in poverty, there are perspectives excluded that might offer improvement. Lower costs and fewer options might add user count, especially if many of the options are not really used by purchasers of the more expensive versions of technology. How many channels of TV do people actually view of the hundreds they pay for through some service? Today we might think the song lyrics “57 channels and nothin’ on” rather quaint. Who has a service with only 57 channels? One could also argue that if ANT is less interested in 'context', wouldn't a network itself constitute a form of context?
Bruno Latour’s ANT lens can be applied to many aspects of life. Essentially he argues that facts and artifacts most supported by a network of people and things will win, even if they cost more, are less efficient, and not universally available.
Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
Review by Michael Beach
As the subtitle suggests, Bruno Latour explains the main discussion points in this specific framework. In the discipline of Science, Technology, and Society (STS), Actor-Network-Theory (ANT) is widely adopted in terms of how to view interactions of people, organizations, and artifacts in making policy and technology choices. Unlike some of the other social frameworks, Latour argues that the adoption and stability of a given scientific fact or technological artifact is a function of the strength of the networks that support them. For Latour, fact or artifact selection results if more actors (people) or actants (objects) interact on a consistent basis than competing facts or artifacts. If the strength of a network begins to wain in relation to different facts or artifacts, then a theory or technology is supplanted. Context for Latour is less important. Context may influence parts of a network, but contexts differ among network nodes (actors or actants), and they also change over time. He puts less weight to social factors that may seem stable in some ways. Instead it is how much actors and actants tend to support a given policy, technology, or scientific finding that will determine how stable it tends to be.
Latour argues “sociology has confused science with politics” (253). When discussing what influences a network, he further states, “it makes no difference if it’s ‘natural’ or ‘social’” (Ibid.). One way to think about it, when actants are involved, there is no ‘social’ effect on such. Natural resources are an example. Efficiency is more a question in terms of human use of non-renewable resources, yet renewables can be overtaxed as well. The resources themselves impact network choices but are not influenced directly by social forces.
ANT has been shown to have weaknesses that even Latour admits. For example, ANT does not consider non-users. When the cost of a specific technology excludes people living in poverty, there are perspectives excluded that might offer improvement. Lower costs and fewer options might add user count, especially if many of the options are not really used by purchasers of the more expensive versions of technology. How many channels of TV do people actually view of the hundreds they pay for through some service? Today we might think the song lyrics “57 channels and nothin’ on” rather quaint. Who has a service with only 57 channels? One could also argue that if ANT is less interested in 'context', wouldn't a network itself constitute a form of context?
Bruno Latour’s ANT lens can be applied to many aspects of life. Essentially he argues that facts and artifacts most supported by a network of people and things will win, even if they cost more, are less efficient, and not universally available.
RSS Feed