On the Possibility of Actor-Network Theory of Action

Authors

  • Maria Erofeeva Center for Sociological Research (RANEPA) Автор

Keywords:

actor-network theory, agency, action, context, material turn, relationism, Harman Graham, faire c''est faire faire, ant, AIME

Abstract

The following article engages the problem of agency in actor-network theory, working towards a foundation for an ANT-based theory of action. The problem of agency in contemporary sociology concerns questions about material objects in social interactions. The author analyses two current strategies of ascribing agency to material agents. The first strategy uses the 'aquarium model', allowing us to treat agency as a result of human interaction with the material environment. Material objects are not actors, as they do not have intentionality. Consequently, human and non-human agencies are fundamentally different. This strategy does not allow one to analyze the joint action of people and things, since either the environment or the actors possess agency. The second strategy, peculiar to ANT, is based on denying the ontological status of both humans and non-humans, transferring it to their relations. Agency is understood as the distributed effect of interaction between heterogeneous agents. This allows one to consider hybrid action of human and non-human. However, the actor- network conception of agency encounters some obstacles that stem from its radical relationism. The author analyses Graham Harman's critique of the philosophical assumptions of ANT and explicates the potential pitfalls of the conception of distributed agency. Firstly, there is the problem of the mechanics of ascribing agency, since - by denying any essential differences between humans and non-humans - any kings of relations have to be described in the modality of 'oughtness'. Secondly, there is a problem with the mechanics of distributing agency. This problem is a consequence of the inherently mediated character of action, manifesting itself in the inability to evaluate the relevance of any given object in interaction prior to an observation. In the final sections, the article discusses the solution to those problems as suggested by Bruno Latour in his inquiry of the modes of existence, tracing the directions of future work on an actor-network theory of action.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Вахштайн В. С. (2013) К микросоциологии игрушек: сценарий, афорданс, транспозиция. Логос, 92 (2): 3-37

Вахштайн В. С. (2015) Три «поворота к материальному». Антропологический форум, 24: 22-37

Ерофеева М. А. (2015a) Акторно-сетевая теория и проблема социального действия. Социология власти, (1): 17-36

Ерофеева М. А. (2015b) Люди и/или технологии? Релевантность материальных объектов в повседневном взаимодействии. Социология науки и технологий, 6 (4): 140-153

Кузнецов А. Г. (2015) Латур и его «технолог»: вещи, объекты и технологии в акторно -сетевой теории. Социология власти, (1): 55-89

Латур Б. (2006) Нового Времени не было. Эссе по симметричной антропологии, СПб.: Изд-во Европейского ун-та в СПб

Латур Б. (2007) Об интеробъективности. Социологическое обозрение, 6 (2): 79-96

Латур Б. (2012) Политика объяснения: альтернатива. Социология власти, (8): 113-143

Латур Б. (2014) Пересборка социального: введение в акторно-сетевую теорию, М.: ИД ВШЭ

Малышкин Е. В. ОМОНИМИЯ Я И РАСПРЕДЕЛЕННОЕ ЗНАНИЕ //ВЕСТНИК ТОМСКОГО ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОГО УНИВЕРСИТЕТА. ФИЛОСОФИЯ. СОЦИОЛОГИЯ. ПОЛИТОЛОГИЯ. 2015. № 4 (32). С. 54-64.

Напреенко И. В. (2013) Семиотический поворот в STS: теория референта Бруно Латура. Социология власти, (1-2): 75-98

Напреенко И. В. (2015) Делегирование агентности в концепции Бруно Латура: как собрать гибридный коллектив киборгов и антропоморфов? Социология власти, (1): 108-121

Попов С. П. (2014) Рецензия на книгу: Law J. After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. London: Routledge, 2004. Социология власти, (1): 262-266

Харман Г. (2012) О замещающей причинности. Новое литературное обозрение, 114 (2): 75-90

Breslau D. (2000) Sociology After Humanism: A Lesson from Contemporary Science Studies. Sociological Theory, 18 (2): 289-307

Callon M., Latour B. (1992) Don't throw the baby out with the Bath School! A reply to Collins and Yearley. A. Pickering (ed.) Science as practice and culture, Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 343-368

Emirbayer M., Mische A. (1998) What Is Agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103 (4): 962-1023

Fuchs S. (2001) Beyond Agency. Sociological Theory, 19 (1): 24-40

Harman G. (2009) Prince of Networks: Bruno Latour and Metaphysics. Melbourne: repress

Latour B. (1988) A Relativist Account of Einstein's Relativity Application. Social Studies of Science, 18: 3-44

Latour B. (1996) On Interobjectivity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3 (4): 228-245

Latour B. (2013a) An Inquiry Into Modes of Existence, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Latour B. (2013b) Biography of an inquiry: On a book about modes of existence. Social Studies of Science, 43 (2): 287-301

Muetzel S. (2009) Networks as Culturally Constituted Processes. Current Sociology, 57 (6): 871-887

Pickering A. (1993) The Mangle of Practice: Agency and Emergence in the Sociology of Science. American Journal of Sociology, 99 (3): 559-589

Pickering A. (2000) The Objects of Sociology: A Response to Breslau's 'Sociology After Humanism'. Sociological Theory, 18 (2): 308-316

Wang Y. (2008) Agency: The Internal Split of Structure. Sociological Forum, 23 (3): 485-486

Downloads

Published

2015-07-15

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Erofeeva M. On the Possibility of Actor-Network Theory of Action // Sociology of Power. 2015. Vol. 27, no. 4. P. 51–71.

Коды статьи

  • EDN VLEYYZ
  • Тип статьи (РИНЦ) Научная статья (Научная статья)