ANT

I found the theory hard to understand at first but after watching this video -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2YYxS6D-mI it became more apparent. I think the comparison between technological determinist approaches (all outcomes of technological change can be attributed to the technological rather than the social), social determinism (technological changes can only be explained by social categories) and actor network theory when it comes to studying networks, helped me to understand it a lot better.


Basically the theory treats both human and non-human agents, called actors, as equal and neither social nor technological positions are privileged.


A good example of this is this paragraph from David Bank’s article:

“After several hours, the IT working group resolves that 4G hotspots will not cooperate with their encampment. The 4G signal refuses to visit the park with the same regularity as the activists. Without the 4G signal, those in the park are unable to reach their fellow activists, computers, protest signs, and supplies located throughout the Hudson Valley region. The IT working group decides instead, to project a wireless signal from a nearby apartment into the park. They devise an assemblage of signal repeaters and routers that will provide a more reliable stream of data that will show up on time to general assemblies, and in sufficient numbers. The working group believes that the attendance of broadband Internet will allow the geographically and temporally dispersed occupiers to be enrolled within the larger actor-network of Occupy Albany. This increased attendance by activists, broadband connections, and networking hardware, according to the facilitation working group, will lend more authority to the decisions that come out of the GA and keep the occupation going through the winter.”


He uses the same language to describe both human and nonhuman actants, where the event is not just attended by humans but 4G signals. He then says that “the relationships between all of these things, the actor-network, is what’s under investigation”. I feel that this explains ANT very well.


According to Latour, there are both human and non-human “actants” as part of the network, all the elements are brought into relations and all have somewhat equal agency. Therefore we can use this theory to think about publishing, and its relation to broader society, as a series of interwoven “assemblages” – an assembling of elements or relations. I’m looking forward seeing the difference in assemblages from different moments in history, and seeing how the elements or actants change, and how the relations involved change in the upcoming tutorial…