Just Sociology

Exploring Actor-Network Theory: Assemblages Actants and Translation

Actor-Network Theory (ANT) is a sociological and technological approach to understanding the complex network actors and their interactions in social structures. ANT assembles actors such as people, objects, and technologies to observe their influences and contributions to the formation of social structures.

ANT provides a counter to social and technological determinism, which only sees social structures as produced by either social or technological factors. This article explains the overview, concepts, principles, adoption and critiques of ANT, and the comparison of ANT with social and technological determinism.

In addition, this article explores the concepts of assemblages and actants in detail, including their definitions, controversies, and examples.

Overview of Actor-Network Theory

ANT has its origins in the sociology of science and technology. It aims to account for the complexity of social structures by introducing the concept of actor-networks.

An actor-network consists of actors that include people, objects, and technologies that act together to produce social structures. These actors, both human and nonhuman, are considered to have equal agency in shaping the social structure.

ANT contends that the social and the technical are inseparably linked and can not be considered independently.

ANT is a counter to social and technological determinism, which sees social structures as produced only by either social or technological factors.

Social determinism argues that culture, norms, and values dictate how people interact and constitute social structures. In contrast, technological determinism is the conviction that technology shapes society by acting as a driving force behind the production of social structures.

ANT is an approach that was developed by French sociologists Michel Callon and Bruno Latour in the mid-1980s. It has gained immense popularity in the social sciences over the last few decades.

The studies of ANT have expanded beyond sociology and now include anthropology, philosophy, and technology studies.

Concepts and Principles of Actor-Network Theory

ANT relies on several concepts and principles that help explain how actors interact and produce social structures. These include assemblages, actants, translation, agnosticism, generalized symmetry, and free association.

Below is a brief discussion of each of these principles. Assemblages: An assemblage is a set of interconnected actors formed by linking actors together.

These actors are linked by processes, activities, and relationships that produce a social structure. It is best to think of an assemblage as a temporary configuration of actors that does not depend on a pre-existing structure.

Actants:

Actants are those entities that affect or are affected by the assemblage.

Actants could be humans, objects, or technologies.

Importantly, they are treated equally in ANT, meaning humans and non-humans are treated as having the same agency in shaping the social structure. Translation: The concept of translation in ANT means that the interactions among actors in the assemblage are continually evolving, as different social actors interpret and reshape their interests, values, and identities.

Thus, translation describes the process where the interpretation of the actors changes when they enter into a network. Agnosticism: Agnosticism is the practice of remaining neutral about the existence of an actor.

In ANT, agnosticism asserts that there is no prerequisite or pre-existing social structure that actors encounter when they enter into an assemblage. Generalized Symmetry: ANT argues for the need for generalized symmetry in examining actor-networks, to see how social scientists shape the object of its study in the network through the application of humanistic values.

Free Association: Free association is ANT’s assertion that assemblages emerge through uncoordinated and spontaneous homogenization of the actors’ interests within the network.

Adoption and Critique of Actor-Network Theory

ANT has been adopted in various fields, including politics, education, medicine, and technology. ANT is particularly useful in understanding how social structures form and how the influence of different actors in the network shapes the final structures produced.

An example of this is the study of scallops by Callon, where he showed how environmental and social factors significantly affected the texture and taste of scallops. Despite its popularity, there have been significant critiques of ANT.

One critique is that it attributes agency to non-humans, such as objects or technologies, which some argue is unreasonable. Critics also fault ANT scholars for neglecting the ethical implications of this naturalization of non-humans.

Another critique is that ANT is amoral since it doesn’t differentiate between good and bad actors. Instead, the ANT scholar adopts a neutral position.

Some claim this lack of moral clarity or values makes it difficult to take any action in the face of social injustice. However, ANT continues to be useful in illuminating aspects of social life that were previously invisible or underexplored.

For example, in education, ANT offers opportunities to explore how social relations shape access to education. Actor-Network Theory vs.

Social and Technological Determinism

Both social and technological determinism are flawed for precisely the same reason: neither considers the interactions between social and technological factors. Social structures are not solely influenced by culture, norms, values, and technology.

The interactions between social and technological factors shape social structures, as ANT explains. ANT offers an alternative to the traditional view of either social or technological determinism.

By providing a broader context for exploring the social and technical factors that shape social structures, ANT affords a socio-technical account of networks. ANT suggests that it is necessary to study actor-networks, which consist of both human actors and non-human actors, working in tandem to produce social entities.

Assemblages and

Actants

Assemblages

As mentioned in subtopic 1.2, assemblages are sets of interconnected actors formed by linking different actors together. Examples of assemblages include social movements, organizations, and networks.

An assemblage is temporary, and the actors can be replaced or substituted within the network if a more appropriate actor emerges. Assemblages can be either productive or non-productive.

Productive assemblages produce a social structure that is beneficial to the actors, whereas non-productive assemblages do not produce any social structure. For example, a birthday cake assemblage produces a social structure that is beneficial to the actors during the birthday party.

Actants

Actants refer to entities that have an effect on, or are affected by, the assemblage. Most commonly, actants refer to humans, but ANT as a framework considers non-humans as agents with equal influence.

In other words, actants may be either human or non-human, such as technology or an object.

Actants have the same level of agency, meaning human and non-human actors have equal influence in shaping the social structure. In social movements, actors who are initially less influential may become more effective and shape the social structure.

Thus, agency is not a property that an actor retains independently but is informed by their location within the network. An example of actants in Facebook demonstrates that both humans and technology can serve as actants.

Facebook users and algorithms can provide information that is shared through the network to shape the social structure. In this instance, it may be unclear which actant has more agency in shaping the social structure because neither should be privileged over the other.

Conclusion

This article has illustrated the principles, concepts, and applications of Actor-Network Theory. ANT proposes an alternative framework to social and technological determinism by understanding networks’ complexity that includes multiple and varying actors’ interests.

Through the concepts of assemblages and actants, this article has elucidated some of the ways ANT can be used to explore the social world. While ANT has been criticized for its supposed techno-optimism and amorality, it remains an essential and relevant framework for exploring complex networks.

ANT affirms the importance of taking a socio-technical approach and illuminates the complexity and nuance of social structures.

Expansion

Translation

For ANT, networks do not create the social structure or the world that actors live in. Instead, actor-networks emerge from the translation of ideas and objects across different networks.

Translation refers to the transport of ideas and objects through different networks, and the emergence of modified versions of knowledge during this journey. This process of transportation and the resultant modification can cause conflicts between actors and produce network effects that are significant for shaping the social structure.

Definition of Translation

As mentioned above, translation is the journey, both conceptual and actual, of an actor in a network. In doing so, the actor may be transformed as well as the ideas they promote.

Translation involves both the transport of objects or information and the deformation of these objects or information. It draws attention to the multiplicity of things contained in an actor’s identity and their relationship to other objects in a network.

For instance, the translation of steel production technology across different regions would change the process, to adapt to the tools and knowledge of workers in the new region. The translation process is not merely a transfer of knowledge or ideas from one network to another; rather, it is a transformation of these objects or ideas.

As an object or idea moves through different actors, it becomes differently interpreted, adapted to differing culture or context. Actors’ mediation of an object or idea changes the object or concept’s identity, meaning, and social significance.

As a result, the process of translation itself affects actors’ identities and social structures, thereby producing significant changes in society.

Ordering Structures and Power Dynamics

As the process of translation shapes and influences the production of a social structure, it also sets the stage for network effects to emerge. Network effects are the outcomes of the social interaction among actors in the network that leads to a change in social structure.

Network effects can be positive or negative depending on the nature and intentions of the actors and the type of system that emerges.

In the process of translation, actors in a network may disagree or have a different perspective on the ultimate value or meaning of the object or concept they’re championing.

The outcome can be a dispute between actors trying to standardize the object or idea to a preferred form. As such, power dynamics come into play to seek out an ordering structure that lends clarity and stability to the object or concept.

Actors use power to order the network through the process of standardization or framing their perspective as one that is more relevant or effective in negotiating order. However, this ordering struggle may not be smooth, and displacement may occur, primarily when the network actors resist the attempts to standardize the object.

These interruptions can lead to spontaneous reordering of the network, moving from one structure to another.

In situations where the actor’s perspectives or interests clash, actors may engage in disputes that lead to the emergence of ordering structures.

These disputes can lead to a resolution, through arbitration where an actor gains dominance in the network or acceptance of general symmetrical stance, where all actors carry equal weights in the process of translation. Generalized symmetry means neither human nor object-oriented identities are privileged in the act of creation.

The concept of power and ordering struggle is significant for ANT since it argues that the ordering structure of the network is determined through the power struggles between actors. Actors then use this ordering structure to influence the sociotechnical systems of the network that emerge from the process of translation.

In other words, actors’ invested interests lead to particular ordering structures that shape the social structure.

Conclusion

In conclusion, translation is at the core of ANT since it explains how social structures are produced through the transport and evolution of knowledge and ideas. It highlights the continuous modifications that actors and objects undergo as they move in and out of different networks.

Furthermore, the ordering struggle and power dynamics between actors in the process of translation is an essential component of understanding network effects. Ordering structures that emerge from this ordering struggle is significant for shaping the sociotechnical systems of the network.

Thus, the concept of translation and its associated ordering struggles is an essential aspect of ANT since it explains the emergence and transformation of social structures through the interaction of different actors. Concluding Paragraph:

In conclusion, Actor-Network Theory (ANT) is a valuable sociological and technological approach to understanding how diverse actors and their interactions shape social structures.

This article has explained the overview, concepts, principles, adoption, and critiques of ANT, along with the detailed subtopics of assemblages, actants, and translation. Through ANT, we understand that social structures are shaped by various factors, including non-humans and technologies, whose agency must not be ignored.

Furthermore, the ordering struggle and power dynamics that emerge during translation highlight the various perspectives that actors hold regarding objects or ideas in different areas, which can lead to a reordering of the network system. Therefore, ANT provides a useful theoretical framework for exploring and conceptualizing the complex network interactions that shape the nature of social structures.

FAQs:

Q: What is Actor-Network Theory? A: Actor-Network Theory is a sociological and technological approach that aims to understand the complex network actors and their interactions in social structures.

Q: What is the significance of assemblages for ANT? A: Assemblages are temporary configurations of interconnected actors formed by linking actors together, and they provide a useful way to understand how social structures form.

Q: What are actants in ANT? A:

Actants are entities that have an effect on, or are affected by, the assemblage, and could be human or non-human.

Q: What does translation refer to in ANT? A: Translation refers to the transport of ideas and objects through different networks and the emergence of modified versions during this journey.

Q: How do power dynamics play a role in ordering structures? A: Actors may use power to establish a standard form or framing for an object, which can affect the ordering structures that emerge from network effects.

Q: What are some critiques of ANT? A: Some argue that ANT ascribes agency to non-humans, neglects the ethical implications of naturalizing non-humans, and lacks moral clarity or values.

Q: What are network effects in ANT? A: Network effects are the outcomes of social interactions among actors in the network that lead to a change in social structure, both positive and negative.

Q: How does ANT compare to social and technological determinism? A: ANT provides a socio-technical account of networks, whereas social and technological determinism only considers social or technical factors in shaping social structures.

Popular Posts