SOC 3601: Lecture 9

ANT (and the sociology of contemporary biotechnology)

What do we already know about ANT?

• Based on the work of Bruno Latour, Michel Callon and John Law

• Callon (1987) provides some definitions...

➡“Actor-networks = heterogeneous associations of unstable elements, which influence and re-define each other continuously”

➡“Actor-Network Theory = new description of the dynamics of society”

• Involves the study of both, human, and non-human, competences (i.e. how these are distributed):

➡ “Where others see human relations (society) + non human relations (technology), Latour sees only actors exchanging their properties”

➡ “Society = a collective of humans and non-humans”

• Key terms:

➡ delegation, translation, inscription, programmes of action, collectives, ...

What do we already know about ANT?

• What happens in practice:

➡ Callon, M. (1986)

➡ Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1979)

• Some new terms:

➡ actant, generalised symmetry, ...

• Exploring ANT in the laboratory:

➡ Collins, H. & Kusch, M. (1998)

• A diversion ... The “Science Wars”

What are we going to learn about ANT?

• Based on the application of 3 key princples

• Identifies 4 (more or less overlapping)moments in the process of translation

➡ problematisation

➡ interessement

➡ enrolment

➡ mobilisation

• advantages v. disadvantages

• N.B. vocabulary of translation

Callon (1986):The Sociology of Translation

• Based on laboratory ethnography which predates the term “Actor-Network Theory”

• Establishes the foundations of parts of ANT:

➡ no a priori distinction between social and technical

➡ highlights the mobilisation of objects and processes in the social construction of TRF

➡ incorporates the concept of embodiment

➡ erasure of history as the precursor to “black boxing”

• A seminal study in STS

Latour & Woolgar (1979): Laboratory Ethnography

• What is “generalised symmetry”?

➡ Derived from Bloor’s (1976) symmetry principle, but a critical reaction to its application

➡ Callon (1986): “the commitment to explaining conflicting viewpoints in the same terms” (1986: 196)

• What does it mean to apply this in practice?

➡ From ANT’s perspective

➡ From a critical perspective

• Why is it so problematic?

A New Vocabulary:Applying the principle of “generalised

symmetry”

• Collins & Kusch (1998): Action Morphicity

➡ Concerns the difference between the types of actions that humans and machines can do

➡ Turns on the observation that machines can never be socialised, therefore they can never carry out actions that refer to social context

• These issues can be investigated empirically:

➡ Latour (1993) “The Sociology of a Door-opener”

• My research: Can actions that humans carry out with reference to social context be replicated by machines? (i.e. can laboratory processes be automated sucessfully?)

Responses to this problem:In theory ... and in practice

• My research:

➡ Can actions that humans carry out with reference to social context be replicated by machines?

➡ i.e. can laboratory processes be automated sucessfully?

• Laboratory observation which focusses on the differences between actions which can be:

➡ A) carried out by humans, and

➡ B) replicated by machines

Responses to this problem:In theory ... and in practice

A Diversion:The “Science Wars”

A Diversion:The “Science Wars”

A Diversion:The “Science Wars”

A Diversion:The “Science Wars”

A Diversion:The “Science Wars”

• The when and how ANT can be used

• “Generalised Symmetry”

➡ What it is

➡ The advantages of this approach

➡ The problems and debates it sparks

• How generalised symmetry can be explored in practice

• Aside: Lessons from the “Science Wars”

In Summary:

• Callon, M. (1987). "Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for Sociological Analysis", In Bijker et al. (eds) The Social Construction of Technical Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, London: MIT Press. pp. 83-103.

• Callon, M. (1986). "Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay", In Law, J. (ed). Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. pp. 196-233

• Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory Life: the Social Construction of Scientific Facts, Los Angeles, USA: Sage.

• Collins, H. M. and Kusch, M. (1998). The Shape of Actions: What Humans and Machines Can Do, Cambridge, MASS.: MIT Press.

References (1)

• Bloor, D. (1976). Knowledge and Social Imagery, 2nd Edition, Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press

• Latour, B. (1988). “Mixing Humans and Nonhumans Together: The Sociology of a Door-Closer” Social Problems, Vol 35, No. 3, pp. 298-310.

References (2)