Material Semiotics as a Method: From Uncertainty to Order and Back Again
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2023-2-18-37Keywords:
actor-network theory, material semiotics, uncertainties, meaning, disability studies, partial connectionsAbstract
John Law notes that - by the early 1990s - Latour's approach contained the entirety of the principles of actor-network theory: attention to heterogeneous relations, use of semiotic tools, adherence to symmetry in describing the truth or false statements, performativity of practices, focus on circulations, predisposition to case studies. Expanding the list of approaches and tools used in the ANT, Law turns to material semiotics. He aspires to show it as a set of themes that stimulate the researcher's sensitivity to the problem of polysemanticity in a particular field. At the same time, his version of material semiotics implicitly contains a critique of the of Greimas' semiotics developed by Latour. Law's vision describes practices of producing multiple realities, maintaining uncertainties and the polysemantic. In contrast, Latour's semiotics are more instrumental, showing how particular actors eliminate multiplicity by creating common rules. The article shows that the contradiction between Latour's semiotics and Law's material semiotics is related to the question of tracing the networks' length created by heterogenous actors. However, this question is empirical. The article explores a particular case of interaction from the practices of a center for the development and socialization of children and adults with mental disabilities. It is shown that the problem of polysemanticity and uncertainties has two solutions: limiting the network through a "shifting in” of the "enunciator” and maintaining polysemanticity through "partial connections”.Agencies
Статья подготовлена в рамках гранта, предоставленного Министерством науки и высшего образования Российской Федерации (№ соглашения о предоставлении гранта: 075-15-2022-326).Downloads
References
Де Лает М., Мол А. (2017) Зимбабвийский втулочный насос: механика текучей технологии. Логос, 27 (2): 171-232.
Колядов Д. (2020) Значение говорящего: проблема участия людей с речевыми нарушениями в коммуникативном взаимодействии. Laboratorium: журнал социальных исследований, 12(3): 100-125.
Кузнецов А. (2018) Метод Латура: семиотика между литературой и наукой. Логос, 28(5): 85-112.
Латур Б. (2006) Об интеробъективности. В.С. Вахштан (ред.). Социология вещей, М.: Изд. дом «Территория будущего»: 169-198.
Латур Б. (2013) Наука в действии. Следуя за учеными и инженерами внутри общества (пер. К. Федоровой), СПб.: Издательство Европейского университета в СанктПетербурге.
Латур Б. (2017) Биография одного исследования: к работе о модусах существования. Логос, 27(1): 217-244.
Латур Б. (2012) Политика объяснения: альтернатива. Социология власти, 8: 113-143.
Ло Дж. (2006) Объекты и пространства. Социологическое обозрение, 5(1): 30-42.
Ло Дж. (2015) После метода: беспорядок и социальная наука (пер. С. Гавриленко, А. Писарева и П. Хановой), М.: Издательство института Гайдара.
Напреенко И. (2013) Семиотический поворот в STS: теория референта Бруно Латура. Социология власти, (1-2): 75-93.
Петров К. А. (2023) Разделить и стереть: формирование агентности у детей и взрослых с ментальными нарушениями. Этнографическое обозрение, 5; 178- 193.
Соколовский С.В. (2016) Материальная семиотика и этнография материальной культуры. Этнографическое обозрение, 5: 103-115.
Akrich M., Latour B. (1992) A Summary of a Convenient Vocabulary for the Semiotics of Human and Nonhuman Assemblies. Wiebe E. Bijker and John Law (eds.) Shaping Technology/Building. Society Studies in Sociotechnical Change, Cambridge, Massachusetts London: The MIT Press: 259-264.
Battaglia D. (1993) Partial Connections. Marilyn Strathern. American Anthropologist, New Series, 95(1): 189-190.
Beetz J. (2013) Latour with Greimas — Actor-Network Theory and Semiotics, Academia. URL: http://academia.edu/11233971/ Latour_with_Greimas_—_Actor-Network_ Theory_and_Semiotics
Beetz J. (2016) Materiality and Subject in Marxism, (Post-)Structuralism, and Material Semiotics, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
De Laet M. and Mol A. (2000) The Zimbabwe Bush Pump: Mechanics of a Fluid Technology. Social Studies of Science, 30(2): 225-63.
Høstaker R. (2005) Latour — Semiotics and Science Studies// Science Studies, Vol. 18. № 2.
Latour B. (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor network theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Latour B. (1999) Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies, Cambridge, Mass. & London: Harvard University Press.
Latour B. (1990) Technology is Society Made Durable. The Sociological Review, 38(1): 103-131.
Latour B. (2004b) Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern. Critical Inquiry, 30: 225-48.
Law J. (2019) Material Semiotics. URL: http://www.heterogeneities.net/publications/Law2019MaterialSemiotics.pdf
Law J. (2009) Actor-network theory and material semiotics. Bryan S. Turner (ed.) The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lenoir T. (1994) Was the Last Turn The Right Turn? The Semiotic Turn and A. J. Greimas. Configurations, 2(1): 119-136.
Mol A. (2012) Mind your plate! The ontonorms of Dutch dieting. Social Studies of Science, 43(3): 379-396.
Star S.L. (2010) This is Not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept. Science Technology Human, 35(5): 601-617.
Strathern M. (1991) Partial Connections, Savage, MD: Rowman & Littlefi eld.
Strathern M. (1996) Cutting the Network. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 3(2): 517-535.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Petrov K.A.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
Коды статьи
- EDN WBYMOD
- Тип статьи (РИНЦ) Научная статья (Научная статья)