Latour's Actor Network Theory (ANT)

Latour definitely has a good point to make but he also loves to make simple argument complicated

Latour didn’t make his purpose clear until later in the article. His purpose is to give a new insight to the reader that sociology should be object- oriented and it is for object- oriented humans. He then started the article by explaining briefly the first two sources of uncertainties as groups are “constantly” being performed and that agencies are “ceaselessly” debated. He has first acknowledged there are asymmetries such as hierarchies, inequalities in the society and he also made a distinction in two relations that are often mixed up. The first uncertainty Latour clarified is Explanandum, the cause and the explanans, the effect. Through the cause the effect, it becomes a process which is important to maintain the power hierarchy in the society. He continued pointing out the second uncertainty is in order to keep the original intuition of social sciences, they had adamantly reject the impossible solution that was proposed, namely that society is unequal and hierarchal. There is a difference between “social” as in “social ties” and “social” as in “associations”. Latour made a distinction between “social ties” and “associations” when social ties can be formed by basic social skills and they can be difficult to isolate in human societies because they are not durable and made of social stuff. (66) He also stated that “social ties” would be something that has great trouble spreading in time and space, that has no inertia and is to be ceasinglessly renegotiated which means they can’t be relied on to maintain the society. Latour has used complicated words and sentences to explain this point. I personally think it is not necessary to use metaphorical language like “load things into social ties”. Instead of “social ties”, it should be the intertwining of actions and social skills which will render more durable shifting interactions. This intertwining actually explains the previous point on “association” of “social”. The example of Shirley Strum’s baboons is used to explain the shocking discovery that males had no dominance hierarchy that baboons possessed social strategies. Latour has used this to explain the precursors of our early human ancestors must have behaved like the baboons as well. I personally am not a big fan of evolution but I agree social strategies are is a loaded version of social ties to maintain the society. Latour then clarified one last time about the tautology of “social ties” if it is confined to the understanding of just social dominance with no thing (strategies and the involvement of actors in their actions) before the article moved on. He then helped reader understand the notion of “social forces” as social action that is shifted or delegated to different types which are able to transport the action further through other modes of action, other types of forces altogether. Objects can now be participants because the definition of “social” has been renewed as “association” not just “social ties” and also the very definition of actors and agencies most often chosen. Even though it is a hard text to understand, Latour is creative enough to use imagery to explain the difference between using actors and agencies. Latour is funny to re-explain himself every time after introducing his new theory to the reader because his re-explanation can sometimes make readers greatly confused instead. Continuing with his mighty explanation, he mentioned there might exist many metaphysical shades between full causality and sheer inexistence. He also suggested the question of who and what participates in the action is important because the objects as actors also explains the contrasted landscape we started with, the overarching powers of society, the huge asymmetries, the crushing exercise of power. The importance of having object and persons is supported by Durkheim’s “definition of action” (73)

Latour later acknowledged the difficulty reader encounters because materials and social entities are on two different shelves (incommensurability). And an action that collects different types of forces woven together because they are different and he elaborated “collective” will take the place of “society”. The continuity of any course of action will be a zigzag that consists of human-to-human connections or of object-object connections. To be symmetric, for us, simply means not to impose a prior some spurious asymmetry among human intentional action and a material world of causal relations. He further acknowledged the reasons for sociologists to hesitate before letting this social fluid takes them which is to understand both continuity and discontinuity among modes of action through an imagery of moral conduct an suspension springs. After this section, Latour made a conclusion of a clear framework of how objects are taken into the account of a whole new definition of social as a fluid visible only when new associations are being made. Objects become intermediates because of their connections with humans. Latour then explained there are different types of forces which the mode of action will not make usual social ties as before. They are innovations in the artisan’s workshops; traditional, silent implements, stop being taken for granted when they are approached by users; offered by accidents, breakdowns, and strikes; when objects have receded into the background for good, it is always possible- but more difficult- to bring them back to light by using archives, documents, memoirs, etc. and lastly the resource of fiction. Latour made a clear conclusion that objects are not studies and often neglected because it is due to a lack of data, but rather a lack of will. When commensurability and incommensurability have been lifted up, all of the remaining problems are matters of empirical research. I don’t too understand the last part of the article “Who has been forgetting power relations?” But in the end, Latour said in Sociology, powerful explanations should be counterchecked and counterbalanced. Power is unequally distributed- they also have to explain how domination has become so efficacious and through which unlikely means. He suggested a fourth uncertainty to be accepted too. Last but not least, Latour has made a good transition from this chapter to the next.

2 Questions for Thought:

(1) Is the question on pg. 78, “How long can a social connection be followed without objects taking the relay?” a relevant one to ask?

(2) On pg. 72, what does it mean that there might exist many shades between full causality and sheer inexistence?