Third Source of Uncertainty

I surprisingly found “Third Source of Uncertainty: Objects too Have Agency” to be an uplifting read, despite the cynical, biting, and critical nature of the text. Latour argues that, in contrast to what sociologists of the social have presented, society does not function independent of objects. Rather, that objects, as well as social relations, are intertwined. This relationship remains in a state of flux, and cannot be isolated or separated. Latour speaks in favor of Action network Theory (ANT), and presents is it as if a solution to what he depicts as short-sightedness of dominant sociological outlook. To the best of my understanding, that requires an acceptance that objects have their own agency and are capable of action. They are more than symbols or expressions of human social action, but hold their own, and work in connection.

While his snide remarks were at times quite cutting and unkind, I did appreciate the humorous tone that ran throughout. Using examples that we encounter in our daily routines, Latour is able to draw on our ability to “recognize” what he is saying. By this I mean, that his argument appears so evidential because it is presented in a way that resonates with us. However, at times, I found these anecdotal stories (in contrast with his academic writing style), to come across as a little bit “holy than though”. In these instances, I found myself looking for holes in his claims, or at least questioning the necessity of this argument.

As a non-sociologists, it appears that what Latour is claiming is obvious, and that, even for those who are sociologists, there must be a greater degree of object acceptance than portrayed. He speaks of the “shades between full causality and sheer inexistence”, and I would imagine that more people would find themselves amongst the shades then the extreme ends. Perhaps this is my lacking, but perhaps it is that Latours slagging of sociologist’s boxes them in so tightly that it becomes difficult to believe. And thus, it becomes difficult to believe it is necessary to make such a to do about the all of this.

Regardless, I felt that there was much to take out of the reading, and I would like to take a second go through to try and get a better understanding.

Questions:

1. While reading through I found that what was being argued was quite evident. I wonder if this is perhaps a sort of sign of the times kind of thing. This whole discussion around social ties and relations brought to mind the rising social network, and our reliance on technology as a means or social connection. Do you think that out of our reliance on technology, object agency has become more apparent?

2. In the end what is accomplished by recognizing the object? What does this change?