Latour is making a very simple argument, exceedingly complicated and so tormenting to read I lose sight of what he is actually getting at. In any event, he posits that object agency is well living in all objects and their ability to perform in relation to social constructions are too often a failed attempt (by sociologists) to illustrate the importance which they hold to the very fabric that ties our social relationships together. (Run on sentence intended) From what I can gather further from his argument, and some of my own understanding of his other writing, can be somewhat explained in the very idea of object and agency as a oxymoronic concept. Alfred Gell comes to mind here when he states more or less that this is an artificial fusion of senses of activity and passivity into a what we think is a evocative joining of words, that in reality conflict with one another. But this is where I think Latour kind of picks up some of the pieces by explaining that these objects are in direct relation to the people that use them, and thusly cease from simply being actors to observers, the more “prolific” they become in our framework. They are intertwined in the web of agency we, as people, already have, and are then able to gain agency through US.
That is the short and sweet of what I understand is his MAIN proposal, the rest being pretty much fluff.
Question #1: So Latour is essentially saying what we have already discovered (that is the relationship between us and objects are intertwined) and that we DO give objects power, what is to be said about the opposite... do they empower us? And if so HOW?
Question #2: The focus on objects has lead to them being pushed to the backdrop, this is absolutely true... but how do they regain our focus in the forefront?
hey neil,
ReplyDeletei think latour is not just saying that objects only gain agency through us, but that they need to be thought of as actors that construct our society through their actions. its a web, so for instance: i turn on a tap and the tap's running water triggers a memory in my friend of the time she almost drowned as a child while play fighting with friends in a pool with a hose. so i acted on the object, the object acted from my action on it, the object acted on my friend, who's memory is of a time her friends acted on an object, that object then acted on her causing her to almost drowned.
And then the society is created as a result of these actions, by making it significant and placing value on parents' watching out for their kids when groups of kids are playing, society is created by making it expected to understand that actions can trigger memories and acceptable to validate my friend in her fear etc...i dont know how far i can carry this, but yeah - a touring answer to your first question.
Hey Neil,
ReplyDeleteI quite like your posting title.
In response to your second question, I wonder whether it is the need for objects to move forward, or if objects will gain their forefront roles as social relations move back. Without sounding too dismal, I feel that we are part of a movement which foregrounds material goods, and diminishes the importance of social interactions.
Looking at your question again, I think I have completely missed what you are saying. Do you mean to say that our focus on objects has defined them in a way that limits there agency?
Hi,
ReplyDeleteSo, I am going to actually comment on your comment in and of itself, and not really what you say about Latour. It's really quite interesting to read your thoughts on this chapter, compared, for example, with Joni's thoughts below. I think that Latour's piece is, or so it seems to me, to be rather polarizing. Hopefully this will translate into an interesting discussion tomorrow!
Hi,
ReplyDeleteMiyaakiyama: No, you got the gist of where I was going with that question. But that second part actually had me thinking about the idea of agency again... I don't think our focus (or lack there of) has much of an effect on its agency, I think it's a matter of valuation.. I don't know, I keep coming back to the idea of value... It's the "wannabe" economist in me.
And Laurel:
What? I have no idea what you are talking about... so confused