Transcript SOC3061 - Lecture08

SOC3061 - Lecture08
Actor-Network Theory
Bruno Latour, Michel Callon, John Law
A critique of previous sociological approaches
inspired to SSK.
Artefacts to do reflect society, they transcribe
and displace the contradictory interests of
people and things.
All we can do is to follow the translations of
human and non-human competences, instead
of referring to “human agency.”
• Social constructivism inspired byb
SSK is an idealist position
• Society is more than bodies and
norms.
What is missing from social theory is
the non-humans (example of
baboon society)
1. Latour on the “missing masses”
From: Bijker-Law, Shaping technology/building society
The sociology of a door hinge.
Delegation to non-humans: prescriptive role of the
mechanism. We delegate force, but also values,
duties, ethics.
We others see human relations (society)+non human
relations (technology), Latour sees only actors
exchanging their properties.
The case of the “Berlin key”
Inscribing a programme of action into the the
shape of the key. The lock proscribes certain
moves.
Artefacts are part of programmes of action
(which include people+artefacts).
Therefore we should rethink society
completely:
Society= a collective of humans and nonhumans.
2. Latour on machines
Latour, Science in action, chapter 3
The invention of Diesel’s engine: no stages, no
trajectories (unlike T. Hughes)
The engine itself is part of an idea of society.
Diesel needs:
- To enroll others
- To control their behaviour
Possible strategies to achieve these results.
1. Translation of interests
Offering new interpretations to recruit allies.
2. Keeping the interested groups in line.
Enroll + control others by making their
behaviour predictable.
e.g. building a machine (different from a
tool)
The windmill=negotiations to interested the
wind in the fabrication of bread (channeling
its action).
All elements have to be made interested in the
work of each other. Hence the increasing
complexity of machines.
Translation versus diffusion
Diffusion derives from technological determinism:
facts / artefacts exist and move around by
themselves. Ideas and machines are diffused within
“society” (a fictitious creation).
See sociogram-technogram
The case of the Post-it
Closure of technological controversies: the settlement
stabilise society (not the other way around).
3. Michel Callon, “Society in the making…”
From: Bijker, Hughes, Pinch, The social construction of
technological systems
Study of technology=tool of social analysis
Heterogeneous technoscience (no distinct phases in the
process of innovation: technical economic, marketing, etc.)
Failure of the electric car in France.
New machine=new society
Renault engineers needed to rebuild French society as well.
Actor-networks = heterogeneous associations of unstable
elements, which influence and re-define each other
continuously.
ANT=new description of the dynamics of society.
Notice some differences from
Hughes’ notion of “technological
system”:
1. No stages
2. No distinction between the
system/ its environment
3. Question of agency (human, nonhuman)
Some of the criticisms raised against ANT
1. No “explanation” is provided
2. Potentially conservative implications of the
neutral, descriptive attitude of the
sociologist.
3. Back to the narrative of technological
determinism? I. e. things described as they
appear to technologists/scientists and users.
(The key move of SSK was precisely the
deconstruction of technoscience in social
terms).