Actor-Network-Theory

Latour wanted to challange the world leading sociologist about the idea how do we understand society and the "social". At the begnning of his essay, he said "if sociology has been marked from the start by the discovery that action was overtaken by other agencies, it has been spurred even more forcefully by the ethical, political and empirical discovery that there exist hierachies, asymmetries,and inequalities; that the social world is just as differentiated a landscapte as a rugge and mountainous terrain; that no amount of enthusiasm, free will, or ingenuity can make those asymmetries go away". Clearly, Latour wanted to point out that it would be mistakenly when sociologist often think of society as a groups of human interactions rather than object agency. For instance, he would ask a question like what made up of power and domination. And if asymmetries exist, where do the come from and what are they made of? To answer such phenomenon, Latour proposed a sociology of association or actor-network-theory in which he argued objects, by the nature have its interconnectedness with humans. In other words, objects appear associable with one another and with social ties. With respect to the content, Actor-network-theory is contraversial because it brings the non-humans into the equation. In particularly, the sociology of association emphasizes on the ideas that object is attached to conventional constructs of agency involving the capacity to make choices and act on the basis of conscious choice. In this regard, social scientists need to take into account the non-human associations. Latour talked about the word'social' also refers to a type of material, in a comparable way to an adjective such as "wooden" or "steely". In studying object innovations, Latour discussed four assumptions (1) object live a multiple and complex life through meetings, plans, sketches, regulations, and trials. Here they appear mixed with other more traditional social agencies; (2) objects live in distance in space, in time and in skills (3) objects are made of frantically moving humans with heavy equipment; (4) Objects are made through artifical, through historian's accounts, the state of crisis in which machines and devices were born.
Latour's article has provided the reader with a good insight of the actor-network-theory. He has welly explained the 'social' as can be thought as a kind of non-human material to provide a social explanation of other states of affairs. Perhaps, "the third source of uncertainty : objects too have agency" is only a chapter of his book, I do not have a foresight of what other sources of uncertainty. Overall, I found Latour's arguement with very clear headlines have provided sufficient evidences and reasons to support his claims.
There are two question I would like to address on:
1-The idea of object agency has been very controversial because it brings the idea of non-human into the equation. So far we have learned different theories of objects, how does this theory has been similar and different from the others? How do we connect stories that we have read to the actor-network-theory?
2-If objects have the meaning and social relations attached to them, should they or should they not deserve to have a rights for making their choices and act upon that choice as the way we treat human being?