Latour’s third chapter focuses on proving that objects have agency, and are an often over-looked, but nonetheless indispensible part of studying social relations. By using the tenants of action network theory (ANT) to narrate through this claim, Latour examines the ways sociologists of the social construct society without objects, and compares by illustrating society as a result of processes between objects and humans to show that social is a momentary association through movement, displacement, transformation, enrolment. Latour asserts also that this collective action is momentary: “objects, by their very nature of their connections with humans, quickly shift from being mediators to being intermediaries…the greater their importance, the faster they disappear [into the background]” (79-80).
I am convinced by Latour’s argument that objects are actors working in combination with human actors to construct society. However, I am unsure how important this distinction is. I’m afraid the significance of ‘correcting’ the sociologists of the social with the asserts of ANT and the sociologists of associations is lost on me (as a non-sociologist, let alone sociologist of the social who needs to be corrected). I found this reading, and increasingly with other readings as well for instance last week’s miller and Thomas readings on the value of object exchange, to be particularly uninspiring. I can’t help but feel that they are trying to convince me of something I am already aware of. Constructivist arguments such as stuff as the agents of our socialization (as Miller asserts) and object interaction with humans as the agents of our society (as Latour asserts) seem to be increasingly repetitive attempts to make the mundane into a point of revelation. It’s a like a Zadie Smith story, and very trendy, but albeit hard to justify. Maybe it’s just me. Here is my question for this week: Does anyone else feel this way? And if not, here is my second question for this week: How have Latour’s assertions progressed your understandings of your object of focus?
As a side note: I apologize for being absent this week, I'm part of a reading at the AGO on disability and anti-colonialism if anyone is wanting to come check it out after class -- starts at 6pm and goes til 8 and it's free.
As a side note: I apologize for being absent this week, I'm part of a reading at the AGO on disability and anti-colonialism if anyone is wanting to come check it out after class -- starts at 6pm and goes til 8 and it's free.
Hey Kenji,
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this article, I also found myself questioning the necessity of Latours argument. While I would not know how to go about disagreeing, and quite like to notion that objects are actors, it seems to me that either way you look at it, the outcome is much the same. However, your second question has made me recognize, that this new perspective gives way to different understandings to our relationships to objects. In turn, my project on my great-grandmothers ring seems even more important now, because it is not only the social relations which I hope to do justice, but the ring itself...
Im not sure that that makes much sense, but it is a good feeling.
Thanks for the invite to your event. I wont be able to make it, but all the best!