Actor-Network Theory COM520

ANT The Actor-Network Theory (ANT) was developed by Bruno Latour, Michel Callon, and John Law. In 2005, Bruno Latour published «Reassembling the Social», in which the author aims to explain why the definition of «social» as a phenomenon is outdated.

ANT In his working paper, Actor-Network Theory and Material Semiotics, John Low quotes Thomas Hughes, an historian of technology, and his article about Thomas Edison. Hughes emphasized that the architecture of the system was the key. Its individual elements, people or objects, were subordinate to the logic of that architecture, created or reshaped in that system. (Hughes: 1983) This metaphor, ANT as architecture of the system, is powerful and clear.

ANT As stated by Richard Munro, the fulcrum of power—according to ANT—is not consciousness anymore. The focus of ANT is on the organizing power of combinations, or agencement (2014: 125) That explains Van Dick’s argument: «ANT does not examine the social as such, but aims to map relations between technologies and people, and tries to explain how these relations are both material and semiotic» (2014: 26)

ANT Is ANT based on the rejection of humanism? ANT does not reject humanism, but states that both human and nonhuman actor change and contribute in reshaping the process. Platforms are considered a set of relations, as ANT is focused on a «coevolving network of people and technologies», that depend one another. They change each other, and their network not only creates a new form, but also a new content.

ANT Van Dijck criticizes ANT as—he states—it lacks in explaining, in taking into consideration the way contents evolve, as social media platforms and sociality evolve “in the context of a rising culture of connectivity” (28) Technology + Users + Content = platforms as sociotechnical constructs

ANT – Questions, doubts The thing that I find more intriguing about ANT—and Van Dijck’s critical analysis—is the definition of protocols as a funding instrument in a platform’s coded architecture. We are “forced to obey” (31) to protocols, to instructions. If we want to join a platform, we must accept some rules. We must be transparent, we must share, we must open the door on our personal information. Is there a way for us as users/actors/producers to be free in this complex network? Or is the system just a sophisticated form of coercion? The idea that “likes” and “followers” bring or define contemporary social values is scary. What is a social value, in first place? What happens when we let social media define our moral values? Your virtual visibility is somehow determined by others, sharing the same virtual space. If your virtual counterpart doesn’t “like”, you are condemned to a virtual oblivion. The relevance of the content you share is given by the number of “likes”, RT, comments, interactions. Your self-image, your virtual “other”, the existence of your double—another “you” replicated in the social network—depends on the network of people around you.

Further Information Check Latour’s Photographic Essay, Paris the Invisible City at: http://www.bruno- latour.fr/virtual/EN/index.html

References Hughes, T. (1983). Networks of Power. Electrification in Western Society (1880-1930). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Low, R. (2007). Actor-Network Theory and Material Semiotics. http://www.heterogeneities.net/publications/Law2007ANTandMaterialSemiotics.pdf