Actor–network theory  

From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 13:13, 27 July 2019
Jahsonic (Talk | contribs)

← Previous diff
Current revision
Jahsonic (Talk | contribs)

Line 1: Line 1:
{{Template}} {{Template}}
 +'''Actor–network theory''' ('''ANT''') is a theoretical and methodological approach to [[social theory]] where everything in the social and natural worlds exists in constantly shifting networks of relationships. It posits that nothing exists outside those relationships. All the factors involved in a social situation are on the same level, and thus there are no external social forces beyond what and how the network participants interact at present. Thus, objects, ideas, processes, and any other relevant factors are seen as just as important in creating social situations as humans. ANT holds that social forces do not exist in themselves, and therefore cannot be used to explain social phenomena. Instead, strictly empirical analysis should be undertaken to "describe" rather than "explain" social activity. Only after this can one introduce the concept of social forces, and only as an abstract theoretical concept, not something which genuinely exists in the world.<ref name=RtS /> Although it is best known for its controversial insistence on the capacity of [[non human|nonhumans]] to act or participate in systems or [[Social network|networks]] or both, ANT is also associated with forceful critiques of conventional and critical sociology. Developed by [[science and technology studies]] (STS) scholars [[Michel Callon]] and [[Bruno Latour]], the sociologist [[John Law (sociologist)|John Law]], and others, it can more technically be described as a "material-semiotic" method. This means that it maps relations that are simultaneously material (between things) and [[semiotic]] (between concepts). It assumes that many relations are both material and semiotic.
-'''Problematization''' of a [[terminology|term]], [[writing]], [[opinion]], [[ideology]], [[identity (social science)|identity]], or [[person]] is to consider the concrete or [[Existentialism|existential]] elements of those involved as challenges ([[problem]]s) that invite the people involved to transform those situations. It is a method of [[defamiliarization]] of [[common sense]].+==See also==
- +* [[Annemarie Mol]]
-Problematization is a [[critical thinking]] and [[pedagogical]] [[dialogue]] or process and may be considered ''demythicisation''. Rather than taking the [[common knowledge]] ([[mythology|myth]]) of a situation for granted, problematization poses that knowledge as a problem, allowing new viewpoints, [[consciousness]], reflection, hope, and [[Action (philosophy)|action]] to emerge.+* [[Helen Verran]]
- +* [[Mapping controversies]]
-What may make problematization different from other forms of [[criticism]] is its target, the context and details, rather than the pro or con of an argument. More importantly, this criticism does not take place within the original context or argument, but draws back from it, re-evaluates it, leading to action which changes the situation. Rather than accepting the situation, one emerges from it, abandoning a focalised viewpoint.+* [[Science and technology studies]] (STS)
- +* [[Social construction of technology]] (SCOT)
-To problematize a statement, for example, one asks simple questions:+* [[Technology dynamics]]
- +
-* Who is making this statement?+
-* For whom is he or she making it?+
-* Why is this statement being made here, now?+
-* Whom does this statement benefit?+
-* Whom does it harm?+
- +
-The term is also used in association with [[actor–network theory]] (ANT), and especially the "[[Translation (sociology)|sociology of translation]]" to describe the initial phase of a translation process and the creation of a network. According to [[Michel Callon]], problematization involves two elements:+
- +
-# Interdefinition of actors in the network+
-# Definition of the problem/topic/action program, referred to as an [[obligatory passage point]] (OPP)+
- +
- +
{{GFDL}} {{GFDL}}

Current revision

Related e

Wikipedia
Wiktionary
Shop


Featured:

Actor–network theory (ANT) is a theoretical and methodological approach to social theory where everything in the social and natural worlds exists in constantly shifting networks of relationships. It posits that nothing exists outside those relationships. All the factors involved in a social situation are on the same level, and thus there are no external social forces beyond what and how the network participants interact at present. Thus, objects, ideas, processes, and any other relevant factors are seen as just as important in creating social situations as humans. ANT holds that social forces do not exist in themselves, and therefore cannot be used to explain social phenomena. Instead, strictly empirical analysis should be undertaken to "describe" rather than "explain" social activity. Only after this can one introduce the concept of social forces, and only as an abstract theoretical concept, not something which genuinely exists in the world.<ref name=RtS /> Although it is best known for its controversial insistence on the capacity of nonhumans to act or participate in systems or networks or both, ANT is also associated with forceful critiques of conventional and critical sociology. Developed by science and technology studies (STS) scholars Michel Callon and Bruno Latour, the sociologist John Law, and others, it can more technically be described as a "material-semiotic" method. This means that it maps relations that are simultaneously material (between things) and semiotic (between concepts). It assumes that many relations are both material and semiotic.

See also




Unless indicated otherwise, the text in this article is either based on Wikipedia article "Actor–network theory" or another language Wikipedia page thereof used under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License; or on research by Jahsonic and friends. See Art and Popular Culture's copyright notice.

Personal tools