View source for Actor–network theory

{{Short description|Theory within social science}}
{{Anthropology}}
'''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">{{Cite book |last=Latour |first=B. |title=Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory |title-link=Bruno Latour#Reassembling the Social |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2005 |isbn=9780199256044 |location=Oxford |pages=238}}</ref>

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 theory|critical sociology]]. Developed by [[science and technology studies]] (STS) scholars [[Michel Callon]], [[Madeleine Akrich]] and [[Bruno Latour]], the sociologist [[John Law (sociologist)|John Law]], and others, it can more technically be described as a "material-[[Semiotics|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. The term actor-network theory was coined by John Law in 1992 to describe the work being done across case studies in different areas at the [[Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation]] at the time.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Akrich |first=Madeleine |date=2023 |title=Actor Network Theory, Bruno Latour, and the CSI |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/03063127231158102 |journal=Social Studies of Science |language=en |volume=53 |issue=2 |pages=169–173 |doi=10.1177/03063127231158102 |pmid=36840444 |s2cid=257183188 |issn=0306-3127 |quote="It was John Law who, from an inside-outside position, did an important job of synthesizing all the work developed at the CSI at the time taking up the term ANT (Law, 1992), a term whose origin is difficult to trace but which stems from the 'actor-network' used by Michel Callon in his analysis of the electric vehicle."}}</ref>

The theory demonstrates that everything in the social and natural worlds, human and nonhuman, interacts in shifting networks of relationships without any other elements out of the networks. ANT challenges many traditional approaches by defining nonhumans as actors equal to humans. This claim provides a new perspective when applying the theory in practice.

Broadly speaking, ANT is a [[social constructivism|constructivist]] approach in that it avoids [[essentialist]] explanations of events or innovations (i.e. ANT explains a successful theory by understanding the combinations and interactions of elements that make it successful, rather than saying it is true and the others are false).<ref name=EncycANT>Muniesa, F., 2015. "[https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.85001-1 Actor-Network Theory]", in James D. Wright (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Edition, Oxford, Elsevier: vol. 1, 80-84.</ref> Likewise, it is not a cohesive theory in itself. Rather, ANT functions as a strategy that assists people in being sensitive to terms and the often unexplored assumptions underlying them.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Mol|first=A.|date=2010|title=Actor-Network Theory: sensitive terms and enduring tensions|url=http://dare.uva.nl/search?identifier=75bbc661-0a89-475a-9eef-8c8c5a2e9904|journal=Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. Sonderheft|volume=50}}</ref> It is distinguished from many other [[science and technology studies|STS]] and sociological [[Social network|network theories]] for its distinct material-semiotic approach.

==Background and context==
ANT was first developed at the [[Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation]] (CSI) of the [[École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris]] in the early 1980s by staff ([[Michel Callon]], [[Madeleine Akrich]], [[Bruno Latour]]) and visitors (including [[John Law (sociologist)|John Law]]).<ref name=EncycANT /> The 1984 book co-authored by [[John Law (sociologist)|John Law]] and fellow-sociologist [[Peter Lodge (sociologist)|Peter Lodge]] (''Science for Social Scientists''; London: Macmillan Press Ltd.) is a good example of early explorations of how the growth and structure of knowledge could be analyzed and interpreted through the interactions of actors and networks.  Initially created in an attempt to understand processes of innovation and knowledge-creation in science and technology, the approach drew on existing work in [[Science and technology studies|STS]], on studies of [[large technical system|large technological systems]], and on a range of French intellectual resources including the semiotics of [[Algirdas Julien Greimas]], the writing of philosopher [[Michel Serres]], and the [[Annales School]] of history.

ANT appears to reflect many of the preoccupations of French [[post-structuralism]], and in particular a concern with non-foundational and multiple material-semiotic relations.<ref name=EncycANT /> At the same time, it was much more firmly embedded in English-language academic traditions than most post-structuralist-influenced approaches. Its grounding in (predominantly English) [[science and technology studies]] was reflected in an intense commitment to the development of theory through qualitative empirical case-studies. Its links with largely US-originated work on large technical systems were reflected in its willingness to analyse large scale technological developments in an even-handed manner to include political, organizational, legal, technical and scientific factors.

Many of the characteristic ANT tools (including the notions of translation, generalized symmetry and the "heterogeneous network"), together with a [[scientometric]] tool for mapping innovations in science and technology ("co-word analysis") were initially developed during the 1980s, predominantly in and around the CSI. The "state of the art" of ANT in the late 1980s is well-described in Latour's 1987 text, ''[[Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society|Science in Action]]''.<ref name=science>Latour, B. (1987). ''[[Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society]].'' Milton Keynes: Open University Press.</ref>

From about 1990 onwards, ANT started to become popular as a tool for analysis in a range of fields beyond STS. It was picked up and developed by authors in parts of [[organizational analysis]], [[informatics]], health studies, [[geography]], [[sociology]], [[anthropology]], [[archaeology]], [[Women's studies|feminist studies]], [[technical communication]], and [[economics]].

{{as of|2008}}, ANT is a widespread, if controversial, range of material-semiotic approaches for the analysis of heterogeneous relations. In part because of its popularity, it is interpreted and used in a wide range of alternative and sometimes incompatible ways. There is no orthodoxy in current ANT, and different authors use the approach in substantially different ways. Some authors talk of "after-ANT" to refer to "successor projects" blending together different problem-focuses with those of ANT.<ref>John Law and John Hassard (eds) (1999). ''Actor Network Theory and After'' (Oxford and Keele: Blackwell and the Sociological Review).</ref>

==Key concepts ==

=== Actor/Actant ===
An actor (actant) is something that acts or to which activity is granted by others. It implies no motivation of human individual actors nor of humans in general. An actant can literally be anything provided it is granted to be the source of action.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Jackson|first=Sharon|date=2015|title=Toward an analytical and methodological understanding of actor-network|url=https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/293865084.pdf|journal=Journal of Arts and Humanities|volume=4|issue=2|pages=29–44}}</ref> In another word, an actor, in this circumstance, is considered as any entity that does things. For example, in the "Pasteur Network", [[microorganism]]s are not inert, they cause unsterilized materials to ferment while leaving behind sterilized materials not affected. If they took other actions, that is, if they did not cooperate with [[Louis Pasteur|Pasteur]] – if they did not take action (at least according to Pasteur's intentions) – then Pasteur's story may be a bit different. It is in this sense that Latour can refer to microorganisms as actors.<ref name=":1" />

Under the framework of ANT, the [[principle of generalized symmetry]]<ref name="Scallops">{{Cite journal |last=Callon |first=Michel |date=May 1984 |title=Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1984.tb00113.x |journal=The Sociological Review |language=en |volume=32 |issue=1_suppl |pages=196–233 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-954X.1984.tb00113.x |s2cid=15055718 |issn=0038-0261|url-access=subscription }}</ref> requires all entities must be described in the same terms before a network is considered. Any differences between entities are generated in the network of relations, and do not exist before any network is applied.

==== Human actors ====
Human normally refers to human beings and their [[human behavior]]s.

==== Nonhuman actors ====
Traditionally, [[Non-human|nonhuman]] entities are creatures including plants, animals, geology, and natural forces, as well as a collective human making of arts, languages.<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/B/bo9826233.html |title=Beyond Nature and Culture |publisher=University of Chicago Press |language=en}}</ref> In ANT, nonhuman covers multiple entities including things, objects, animals, natural phenomena, material structures, transportation devices, texts, and economic goods. But [[nonhuman actors]] do not cover entities such as humans, supernatural beings, and other symbolic objects in nature.<ref name="Sayes" />

=== Actor-Network ===
As the term implies, the actor-network is the central concept in ANT. The term "network" is somewhat problematic in that it, as Latour<ref name="RtS" /><ref name="technology">Latour, B. (1999). [http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/46-TECHNOLOGY-DURABLE-GBpdf.pdf "Technology Is Society Made Durable"]. In Law, J., ed., ''Sociology of Monsters''.</ref><ref name="on">{{Cite journal|last=Latour|first=Bruno|date=1996|title=On actor-network theory: A few clarifications|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40878163.pdf|journal=Soziale Welt|volume=47|issue=4|pages=369–381|jstor=40878163}}</ref> notes, has a number of unwanted connotations. Firstly, it implies that what is described takes the shape of a network, which is not necessarily the case. Secondly, it implies "transportation without deformation," which, in ANT, is not possible since any actor-network involves a vast number of [[#Translation|translations]]. Latour,<ref name="on" /> however, still contends that network is a fitting term to use, because "it has no a priori order relation; it is not tied to the axiological myth of a top and of a bottom of society; it makes absolutely no assumption whether a specific locus is macro- or micro- and does not modify the tools to study the element 'a' or the element 'b'." This use of the term "network" is very similar to Deleuze and Guattari's [[Rhizome (philosophy)|rhizomes]]; Latour<ref name="technology" /> even remarks tongue-in-cheek that he would have no objection to renaming ANT "actant-rhizome ontology" if it only had sounded better, which hints at Latour's uneasiness with the word "theory".

Actor–network theory tries to explain how material–semiotic networks come together to act as a whole; the clusters of actors involved in creating meaning are both material and semiotic. As a part of this it may look at explicit strategies for relating different elements together into a network so that they form an apparently coherent whole. These networks are potentially transient, existing in a constant making and re-making.<ref name="RtS" /> This means that relations need to be repeatedly "performed" or the network will dissolve. They also assume that networks of relations are not intrinsically coherent, and may indeed contain conflicts. Social relations, in other words, are only ever in process, and must be [[Performativity|performed]] continuously.

The Pasteur story that was mentioned above introduced the patterned network of diverse materials, which is called the idea of '[[Heterogeneous network|heterogenous networks]]'.<ref name=":1" /> The basic idea of patterned network is that human is not the only factor or contributor in the society, or in any social activities and networks. Thus, the network composes machines, animals, things, and any other objects.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last=Law|first=John|date=1992|title=Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity|url=http://m.heterogeneities.net/publications/Law1992NotesOnTheTheoryOfTheActorNetwork.pdf|journal=Systems Practice|volume=5|issue=4|pages=379–393|doi=10.1007/BF01059830|s2cid=38931862}}</ref> For those [[Non-human|nonhuman]] actors, it might be hard for people to imagine their roles in the network. For example, say two people, Jacob and Mike, are speaking through texts. Within the current technology, they are able to communicate with each other without seeing each other in person. Therefore, when typing or writing, the communication is basically not mediated by either of them, but instead by a network of objects, like their computers or cell phones.<ref name=":2" />

If taken to its logical conclusion, then, nearly any actor can be considered merely a sum of other, smaller actors. A car is an example of a complicated system. It contains many electronic and [[machine|mechanical]] components, all of which are essentially hidden from view to the driver, who simply deals with the car as a single object. This effect is known as ''punctualisation'',<ref name=":2"/> and is similar to the idea of [[Encapsulation (object-oriented programming)|encapsulation]] in [[object-oriented programming]].

When an actor network breaks down, the punctualisation effect tends to cease as well.<ref name=":2"/> In the automobile example above, a non-working engine would cause the driver to become aware of the car as a collection of parts rather than just a vehicle capable of transporting him or her from place to place. This can also occur when elements of a network act contrarily to the network as a whole. In his book ''[[Bruno Latour#Pandora's Hope|Pandora's Hope]]'',<ref name=":4" /> Latour likens depunctualization to the opening of a black box. When closed, the box is perceived simply as a box, although when it is opened all elements inside it become visible.

=== Translation ===
{{main|Translation (sociology)}}Central to ANT is the concept of translation which is sometimes referred to as '''sociology of translation''', in which innovators attempt to create a ''forum'', a central network in which all the actors agree that the network is worth building and defending. In his widely debated 1986 study of how marine biologists tried to restock the [[Saint-Brieuc|St Brieuc]] Bay in order to produce more scallops, [[Michel Callon]] defined 4 moments of translation:<ref name="Scallops"/>

# '''Problematisation''': The researchers attempted to make themselves important to the other players in the drama by identifying their nature and issues, then claiming that they could be remedied if the actors negotiated the '[[obligatory passage point]]' of the researchers' study program.
# '''Interessement''': A series of procedures used by the researchers to bind the other actors to the parts that had been assigned to them in that program.
# '''Enrollment''': A collection of tactics used by the researchers to define and connect the numerous roles they had assigned to others.
# '''Mobilisation''': The researchers utilized a series of approaches to ensure that ostensible spokespeople for various key collectivities were appropriately able to represent those collectivities and were not deceived by the latter.

Also important to the notion is the role of network objects in helping to smooth out the translation process by creating equivalencies between what would otherwise be very challenging people, organizations or conditions to mesh together.  Bruno Latour spoke about this particular task of objects in his work ''[[Bruno Latour#Reassembling the Social|Reassembling the Social]]''.<ref name="RtS"/>

=== Quasi-object ===
For the rethinking of social relations as networks, Latour mobilizes a concept from Michel Serres<ref>{{Cite book |last=Serres |first=Michel |title=The parasite |last2=Schehr |first2=Lawrence R. |date=1982 |publisher=Johns Hopkins University Press |isbn=978-0-8018-2456-2 |location=Baltimore |pages=224–234 |language=en, fr}}</ref> and expands on it in order “to locate the position of these strange new hybrids”.<ref name=":0" /> Quasi-objects are simultaneously quasi-subjects – the prefix ''quasi ''denotes that neither ontological status as subject or object is pure or permanent, but that these are dynamic entities whose status shifts, depending on their respective momentous activity and their according position in a collective or network.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Vries |first=Gerard de |title=Bruno Latour |date=2016 |publisher=Polity Press |isbn=978-0-7456-5062-3 |location=Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA |pages=134}}</ref> What is decisive is circulation and participation, from which networks emerge, examples for quasi-objects are language, money, bread, love, or the ball in a soccer game: all of these human or non-human, material or immaterial actants have no agency (and thus, subject-status) in themselves, however, they can be seen as the connective tissue underlying – or even acticating – the interactions in which they are enmeshed.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Sonnenberg-Schrank |first=Björn |title=Actor-Network Theory at the Movies: Reassembling the Contemporary American Teen Film With Latour |date=2020 |publisher=Springer International Publishing |isbn=978-3-030-31286-2 |series=Springer eBook Collection |location=Cham |pages=141}}</ref> In ''Reassembling the Social'', Latour refers to these in-between actants as “the mediators whose proliferation generates, among many other entities, what could be called quasi-objects and quasi-subjects.”<ref name="RtS" />

Actor–network theory refers to these creations as ''tokens'' or ''quasi-objects'' which are passed between actors within the network. As the token is increasingly transmitted or passed through the network, it becomes increasingly punctualized and also increasingly [[Reification (Marxism)|reified]]. When the token is decreasingly transmitted, or when an actor fails to transmit the token (e.g., the oil pump breaks), punctualization and reification are decreased as well.

==Other central concepts==

=== A material semiotic method ===
Although it is called a "[[Philosophical theory|theory]]", ANT does not usually explain "why" a network takes the form that it does.<ref name="RtS" /> Rather, ANT is a way of thoroughly exploring the relational ties within a network (which can be a multitude of different things). As Latour notes,<ref name="technology" /> "explanation does not follow from description; it is description taken that much further." It is not, in other words, a theory "of" anything, but rather a method, or a "how-to book" as Latour<ref name="RtS" /> puts it.

The approach is related to other versions of material-semiotics (notably the work of philosophers [[Gilles Deleuze]], [[Michel Foucault]], and feminist scholar [[Donna Haraway]]). It can also be seen as a way of being faithful to the insights of [[ethnomethodology]] and its detailed descriptions of how common activities, habits and procedures sustain themselves.  Similarities between ANT and [[symbolic interactionist]] approaches such as the newer forms of [[grounded theory]] like situational analysis, exist,<ref>Fernback, J., 2007. "Beyond the Diluted Community Concept: A Symbolic Interactionist Perspective on Online Social Relations." ''New Media & Society'', 9(1), pp.49-69. [[doi:10.1177/1461444807072417]]</ref> although Latour<ref>Blok, A, & Elgaard Jensen, T. (2011). ''[http://www.excursions-journal.org.uk/index.php/excursions/article/download/100/134 Bruno Latour: Hybrid thoughts in a hybrid world] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150524023006/http://www.excursions-journal.org.uk/index.php/excursions/article/download/100/134|date=May 24, 2015}}''. Suffolk: Routledge.</ref> objects to such a comparison.

Although ANT is mostly associated with studies of science and technology and with the sociology of science, it has been making steady progress in other fields of sociology as well.  ANT is adamantly empirical, and as such yields useful insights and tools for sociological inquiry in general. ANT has been deployed in studies of identity and subjectivity, urban transportation systems, and passion and addiction.<ref>See e.g. Gomart, Emilie, and Hennion, Antoin (1999) "[https://www.academia.edu/866668/A_Sociology_of_Attachment_Music_Amateurs_Drug_Addicts A Sociology of Attachment: Music Amateurs, Drug Users]". In: J. Law and J. Hassard (eds.) Actor Network Theory and After.
Oxford: Blackwell, 220–247; Valderrama Pineda, Andres, and Jorgensen, Ulrik (2008) "Urban Transport Systems in Bogota and Copenhagen: An Approach from STS." Built Environment 34(2),200–217.</ref> It also makes steady progress in political and historical sociology.<ref>See e.g. Carroll, Patrick (2012) "Water and Technoscientific State Formation in California."
Social Studies of Science 42(2), 313–321; Shamir, Ronen (2013) Current Flow: The Electrification of Palestine. Stanford: Stanford University Press</ref>

=== Intermediaries and mediators ===
The distinction between intermediaries and mediators is key to ANT sociology. Intermediaries are entities which make no difference (to some interesting state of affairs which we are studying) and so can be ignored. They transport the force of some other entity more or less without transformation and so are fairly uninteresting. Mediators are entities which multiply difference and so should be the object of study. Their outputs cannot be predicted by their inputs. From an ANT point of view sociology has tended to treat too much of the world as intermediaries.

For instance, a sociologist might take silk and nylon as intermediaries, holding that the former "means", "reflects", or "symbolises" the upper classes and the latter the lower classes. In such a view the real world silk–nylon difference is irrelevant– presumably many other material differences could also, and do also, transport this class distinction. But taken as mediators these fabrics would have to be engaged with by the analyst in their specificity: the internal real-world complexities of silk and nylon suddenly appear relevant, and are seen as actively constructing the ideological class distinction which they once merely reflected.

For the committed ANT analyst, social things—like class distinctions in taste in the silk and nylon example, but also groups and power—must constantly be constructed or performed anew through complex engagements with complex mediators. There is no stand-alone social repertoire lying in the background to be reflected off, expressed through, or substantiated in, interactions (as in an intermediary conception).<ref name="RtS" />

=== Reflexivity ===
Bruno Latour's articulation of reflexivity in Actor-Network Theory (ANT) reframes it as an opportunity rather than a problem.<ref name="on"/> His argument addresses the limitations of reflexivity as traditionally conceived in relativist epistemologies and replaces it with a pragmatic, relational approach tied to ANT's broader principles. Latour argues that the observer is merely one actor among many within the network, eliminating the problem of reflexivity as a paradox of status. Reflexivity instead emerges through the tangible work of navigating and translating between networks, requiring the observer to engage actively, like any other actor, in the labour of connection and translation. This grounded form of reflexivity enhances the observer's role as a "world builder" and reinforces ANT's emphasis on the relational and dynamic nature of knowledge creation.

=== Hybridity ===
The belief that neither a human nor a nonhuman is pure, in the sense that neither is human or nonhuman in an absolute sense, but rather beings created via interactions between the two. Humans are thus regarded as quasi-subjects, while nonhumans are regarded as quasi-objects.<ref name=":1" />

== Actor–network theory and specific disciplines ==
Recently, there has been a movement to introduce actor network theory as an analytical tool to a range of applied disciplines outside of sociology, including nursing, public health, urban studies (Farias and Bender, 2010), and community, urban, and regional planning (Beauregard, 2012;<ref>{{Cite journal|title = Planning with Things|last = Beauregard|first = Robert|date = 2012|journal = Journal of Planning Education and Research |volume=32 |issue = 2|pages=182–190|doi = 10.1177/0739456X11435415|s2cid = 145378820}}</ref> Beauregard and Lieto, 2015; Rydin, 2012;<ref>{{Cite journal|url = http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1356405/|title = Using Actor-Network Theory to understand planning practice: Exploring relationships between actants in regulating low-carbon commercial development|last = Rydin|first = Yvonne|date = 2012|journal = Planning Theory |volume=12 |issue=1 |pages=23–45|doi = 10.1177/1473095212455494|s2cid = 145707008|doi-access = free}}</ref> Rydin and Tate, 2016, Tate, 2013).<ref>{{Cite journal|title = Growth management implementation in Metro Vancouver: Lessons from actor network theory.|last = Tate|first = Laura|date = 2013|journal = Environment and Planning B |volume=40 |issue= 5|pages=783–800|doi = 10.1068/b37170|s2cid = 145701530}}</ref>

=== International relations ===
Actor–network theory has become increasingly prominent within the discipline of [[international relations]] and [[political science]].

Theoretically, scholars within IR have employed ANT in order to disrupt traditional world political binaries (civilised/barbarian, democratic/autocratic, etc.),<ref name="ejt.sagepub.com">Austin, Jonathan Luke., 2015. [http://ejt.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/11/26/1354066115616466.abstract "We have never been civilized: Torture and the Materiality of World Political Binaries."] ''European Journal of International Relations'', [[doi:10.1177/1354066115616466]]</ref> consider the implications of a posthuman understanding of IR,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cudworth |first1=Erika |last2=Hobden |first2=Stephen |title=Of Parts and Wholes: International Relations beyond the Human |journal=Millennium: Journal of International Studies |date=2013 |volume=41 |issue=3 |pages=430–450 |doi=10.1177/0305829813485875|s2cid=52209290 |url=http://roar.uel.ac.uk/2577/1/2013_Cudworth_Hobden_parts-and-wholes.pdf }}</ref> explore the infrastructures of world politics,<ref>Barry, A., 2013. "Material Politics."</ref> and consider the effects of technological agency.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Leander |first1=Anna |title=Technological Agency in the Co-Constitution of Legal Expertise and the US Drone Program |journal=Leiden Journal of International Law |date=2013 |volume=26 |issue=4 |pages=811–831 |doi=10.1017/S0922156513000423|s2cid=32051642 }}</ref>

Empirically, IR scholars have drawn on insights from ANT in order to study phenomena including political violences like the use of torture and drones,<ref name="ejt.sagepub.com"/> piracy and maritime governance,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bueger |first1=Christian |title=Practice, Pirates and Coast Guards: the grand narrative of Somali piracy |journal=Third World Quarterly |date=2013 |volume=34 |issue=10 |pages=1811–1827 |doi=10.1080/01436597.2013.851896|doi-access=free }}</ref> and garbage.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Acuto |first1=Michele |title=Everyday International Relations: Garbage, Grand Designs, and Mundane Matters |journal=International Political Sociology |date=2014 |volume=8 |issue=4 |pages=345–362 |doi=10.1111/ips.12067}}</ref>

=== Design ===
The actor–network theory can also be applied to design, using a perspective that is not simply limited to an analysis of an object's structure. From the ANT viewpoint, design is seen as a series of features that account for a social, psychological, and economical world. ANT argues that objects are designed to shape human action and mold or influence decisions. In this way, the objects' design serves to mediate human relationships and can even impact our morality, ethics, and politics.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Yaneva|first=Albena|title=Making the Social Hold: Towards an Actor-Network Theory of Design|journal=Design and Culture|date=2009|volume=1|issue=3|pages=273–288|url=https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:1b6452&datastreamId=POST-PEER-REVIEW-NON-PUBLISHERS.PDF|doi=10.1080/17547075.2009.11643291|s2cid=143849758}}</ref>

=== Literary criticism ===
The literary critic [[Rita Felski]] has argued that ANT offers the fields of [[literary criticism]] and [[cultural studies]] vital new modes of interpreting and engaging with literary texts. She claims that Latour's model has the capacity to allow "us to wiggle out of the straitjacket of suspicion," and to offer meaningful solutions to the problems associated with [[critique]].<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Limits of Critique|last=Felski|first=Rita|publisher=University of Chicago Press|year=2015|isbn=9780226294032|location=Chicago|pages=175}}</ref> The theory has been crucial to her formulation of [[postcritique]]. Felski suggests that the purpose of applying ANT to literary studies "is no longer to diminish or subtract from the reality of the texts we study but to amplify their reality, as energetic coactors and vital partners."<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Limits of Critique|last=Felski|pages=185}}</ref>

=== {{anchor|Anthropology of Christianity}}Anthropology of religion===
In the study of Christianity by anthropologists, the ANT has been employed in a variety of ways of understanding how humans interact with nonhuman actors. Some have been critical of the field of [[Anthropology of religion|Anthropology of Religion]] in its tendency to presume that God is not a social actor. The ANT is used to problematize the role of God, as a nonhuman actor, and speak of how They affect religious practice.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Bialecki|first=Jon|date=March 2014|title=Does God Exist in Methodological Atheism? On Tanya Lurhmann's When God Talks Back and Bruno Latour|journal=Anthropology of Consciousness|language=en|volume=25|issue=1|pages=32–52|doi=10.1111/anoc.12017|url=https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/files/18504835/Bialecki_Does_God_Exist_in_Methodological_Athiesm_postreview_1.pdf|hdl=20.500.11820/97e26446-0176-4a22-9348-e15014ed325a|s2cid=145771771 |hdl-access=free
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220329003220/https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/files/18504835/Bialecki_Does_God_Exist_in_Methodological_Athiesm_postreview_1.pdf
|archive-date=29 March 2022}}</ref> Others have used the ANT to speak of the structures and placements of religious buildings, especially in cross-cultural contexts, which can see architecture as agents making God's presence tangible.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Chambon|first=Michel|date=August 2017|title=The Action of Christian Buildings on their Chinese Environment|journal=Studies in World Christianity|language=en|volume=23|issue=2|pages=100–121|doi=10.3366/swc.2017.0179|issn=1354-9901}}</ref>

== ANT in practice ==
ANT has been considered more than just a theory, but also a [[methodology]]. In fact, ANT is a useful method that can be applied in different studies. Moreover, with the development of the digital communication, ANT now is popular in being applied in science field like [[Information system|IS]] research. In addition, it widen the horizon of researchers from arts field as well.

=== ANT in arts ===
ANT is a big influencer in the development of [[design]]. In the past, researchers or scholars from design field mainly view the world as a human interactive situation. No matter what design we [<nowiki/>[[wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Unsupported attributions|who?]]] applied, it is for human's action. However, the idea of ANT now applies into design principle, where design starts to be viewed as a connector. As the view of design itself has changed, the design starts to be considered more important in daily lives. Scholars [<nowiki/>[[wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Unsupported attributions|who?]]] analyze how design shapes, connects, reflects, interacts our daily activities.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Yaneva|first=Albena|date=2015|title=Making the social hold: Towards an actor-network theory of design|url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17547075.2009.11643291|journal=Design and Culture|volume=1|issue=3|pages=273–288|doi=10.1080/17547075.2009.11643291|s2cid=143849758|url-access=subscription}}</ref>

ANT has also been widely applied in museums. ANT proposes that it is difficult to discern the 'hard' from the 'soft' components of the apparatus in curatorial practice; that the object 'in progress' of being curated is slick and difficult to separate from the setting of the experiment or the experimenter's identity.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Waller|first=Laurie|date=2016|title=Curating actor-network theory: testing object-oriented sociology in the Science Museum|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331366426|journal=Museum and Society|volume=14|issue=1|pages=193–206|doi=10.29311/mas.v14i1.634|doi-access=free}}</ref>

=== ANT in science ===
In recent years, actor-network theory has gained a lot of traction, and a growing number of [[Information system|IS]] academics are using it explicitly in their research. Despite the fact that these applications vary greatly, all of the scholars cited below agree that the theory provides new notions and ideas for understanding the socio-technical character of information systems.<ref name=":3">{{Cite book|last=Walsham|first=Geoff|date=1997|title=Walsham, G. (1997). Actor-network theory and IS research: current status and future prospects|chapter=Actor-Network Theory and IS Research: Current Status and Future Prospects |chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-0-387-35309-8_23.pdf|journal=Information Systems and Qualitative Research|pages=466–480 |doi=10.1007/978-0-387-35309-8_23|isbn=978-0-387-35309-8 }}</ref> Bloomfield present an intriguing case study of the development of a specific set of resource management information systems in the UK National Health Service, and they evaluate their findings using concepts from actor-network theory. The actor-network approach does not prioritize social or technological aspects, which mirrors the situation in the case study, where arguments about social structures and technology are intertwined within actors' discourse as they try to persuade others to align with their own goals. The research emphasizes the interpretative flexibility of information technology and systems, in the sense that seemingly similar systems produce drastically different outcomes in different locales as a result of the specific translation and network-building processes that occurred. They show how the boundary between the technological and the social, as well as the link between them, is the topic of constant battles and trials of strength in the creation of facts, rather than taking technology for granted.<ref name=":3" />

==Impact of ANT==

=== Contributions of nonhuman actors ===
There are at least four contributions of nonhumans as actors in their ANT positions.<ref name="Sayes">{{Cite journal |last=Sayes |first=Edwin |date=30 December 2013 |title=Actor–Network Theory and methodology: Just what does it mean to say that nonhumans have agency? |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0306312713511867 |journal=Social Studies of Science |language=en |volume=44 |issue=1 |pages=134–149 |doi=10.1177/0306312713511867 |pmid=28078973 |s2cid=21514975 |issn=0306-3127|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

# Nonhuman actors can be considered as a condition in human social activities. Through the human's formation of nonhuman actors such as durable materials, they provide a stable foundation for interactions in society.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Littlejohn |first1=Stephen W. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=aRMoEAAAQBAJ |title=Theories of Human Communication: Twelfth Edition |last2=Foss |first2=Karen A. |last3=Oetzel |first3=John G. |date=2021-05-07 |publisher=Waveland Press |isbn=978-1-4786-4710-2 |language=en}}</ref> Reciprocally, nonhumans' actions and capacities serve as a condition for the possibility of the formation of society.<ref name="Latour1996">{{Cite journal |last=Latour |first=Bruno |date=1996-10-01 |title=On Interobjectivity |url=https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca0304_2 |journal=Mind, Culture, and Activity |volume=3 |issue=4 |pages=228–245 |doi=10.1207/s15327884mca0304_2 |issn=1074-9039|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref name="Sayes" /><ref name=":5">{{Cite book |last=Latour |first=Bruno |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1260345015 |title=Nous N'Avons Jamais Ete Modernes |date=1993 |publisher=Harvard University Press |isbn=978-0-674-07675-4 |location=Cambridge |oclc=1260345015}}</ref>
#* In Latour's ''[[We Have Never Been Modern]]''<ref name=":5" />'','' his conceptual "parliament of things" consists of social, natural, and [[discourse]] together as hybrids. Although the interlocks between human actors and nonhumans effects the modernized society, this parliamentary setting based on nonhuman actors would eliminate such fake modernization, and changes the [[dichotomy]] between modern society and premodern society.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last=Pickering |first=Andrew |date=1994 |title=We Have Never Been Modern (review) |url=https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/article/22993 |journal=Modernism/Modernity |volume=1 |issue=3 |pages=51 |doi=10.1353/mod.1994.0044 |issn=1080-6601 |s2cid=142859856|url-access=subscription }}</ref>
# Nonhuman actors can be considered as mediators. On the one hand, nonhumans could constantly modify relations between actors.<ref name=":4">{{Cite book |last1=Latour |first1=Bruno |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RMu6wbzVrVkC |title=Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies |last2=Latour |first2=Centre de Sociologie de L'Innovation Bruno |date=1999-06-30 |publisher=Harvard University Press |isbn=978-0-674-65335-1 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Latour |first1=Bruno |last2=Venn |first2=Couze |date=December 2002 |title=Morality and Technology |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/026327602761899246 |journal=Theory, Culture & Society |language=en |volume=19 |issue=5–6 |pages=247–260 |doi=10.1177/026327602761899246 |s2cid=144144309 |issn=0263-2764|url-access=subscription }}</ref> On the other hand, nonhumans share the same features with other actors not solely as means for human actors.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Latour |first=Bruno |date=1996-10-01 |title=Pursuing the Discussion of Interobjectivity With a Few Friends |url=https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca0304_6 |journal=Mind, Culture, and Activity |volume=3 |issue=4 |pages=266–269 |doi=10.1207/s15327884mca0304_6 |issn=1074-9039|url-access=subscription }}</ref> In this circumstance, nonhuman actors impact human interactions. It either creates an atmosphere for humans to agree with each other, or lead to conflict as the mediators.
#* It is noticeable that the status of mediation is more affiliated with [[#Intermediaries and mediators|intermediaries]] or means as a stable presence in the corpus of ANT,<ref name=":6" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Kochan |first=Jeff |date=14 April 2010 |title=Latour's Heidegger |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0306312709360263 |journal=Social Studies of Science |language=en |volume=40 |issue=4 |pages=579–598 |doi=10.1177/0306312709360263 |s2cid=145685585 |issn=0306-3127|url-access=subscription }}</ref> while mediators function more powers to influence actors and networks.<ref name="Sayes" /> Technical mediation exerts itself on four dimensions: interference, composition, the folding of time and space, and crossing the boundary between signs and things.<ref name=":4" />
# Nonhuman actors can be considered as members of moral and political associations. For example, noise is a nonhuman actor if the topic is applied to actor-network theory.<ref name="Sayes" /> Noise is the criteria for humans to regulate themselves to morality, and subject to the limitations inherent in some legal rules for its political effects. After nonhumans are visible actors through their associations with morality and politics, these collectives become inherently regulative principles in social networks.<ref>Latour, B. (1992) 'Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts', in Bijker, W. E. and Law, J. (eds) Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, pp. 225-58.</ref>
# Nonhuman actors can be considered as gatherings. Alike nonhumans' impacts on morality and politics, they could gather actors from other times and spaces.<ref name=":6">{{Cite journal |last=Callon |first=Michel |date=May 1990 |title=Techno-economic Networks and Irreversibility |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1990.tb03351.x |journal=The Sociological Review |language=en |volume=38 |issue=1_suppl |pages=132–161 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-954X.1990.tb03351.x |s2cid=109998444 |issn=0038-0261|url-access=subscription }}</ref> Interacted with variable ontologies, times, spaces, and durability, nonhumans exert subtle influences within a network.<ref name="Latour1996" />

== Criticism ==

Some critics<ref>Amsterdamska, O. (1990). 'Surely You're Joking, Mr Latour!'. Science, Technology, Human Values. Vol.15(4) pp.495-504.</ref> have argued that research based on ANT perspectives remains entirely descriptive and fails to provide explanations for social processes. ANT—like comparable social scientific methods—requires judgement calls from the researcher as to which actors are important within a network and which are not. Critics{{Who|date=July 2013}} argue that the importance of particular actors cannot be determined in the absence of "out-of-network" criteria, such as is a logically proven fact about deceptively coherent systems given [[Gödel's incompleteness theorems]]. Similarly, others{{Who|date=October 2014}} argue that actor-networks risk degenerating into endless chains of association ([[six degrees of separation]]—we are all networked to one another). Other research perspectives such as [[social constructionism]], [[social shaping of technology]], [[social network theory]], [[normalization process theory]], and [[diffusion of innovations]] theory are held to be important alternatives to ANT approaches.

===From STS itself and organizational studies===
Key early criticism came from other members of the STS community, in particular the "Epistemological Chicken" debate between Collins and Yearley with responses from Latour and Callon as well as Woolgar. In an article in ''Science as Practice and Culture'', sociologist [[Harry Collins]] and his co-writer [[Steven Yearley]] argue that the ANT approach is a step backwards towards the [[positivist]] and [[Scientific realism|realist]] positions held by early theory of science.<ref>{{citation | last1 = Collins | first1 = Harry M. | last2 = Yearley | first2 = Steven | author-link2 = Steven Yearley | contribution = Epistemological chicken | editor-last = Pickering | editor-first = Andrew | editor-link = Andrew Pickering | title = Science as practice and culture | pages = 301–327 | publisher = University of Chicago Press | location = Chicago | year = 1992 | isbn = 9780226668017 | postscript = .}}</ref> Collins and Yearley accused ANTs approach of collapsing into an endless relativist regress.<ref>Collins, H. M., & Yearley, S. (1992). Epistemological Chicken. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as Practice and Culture (pp. 301–326). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.</ref>

Whittle and [[organization studies]] professor [[André Spicer]] note that "ANT has also sought to move beyond deterministic models that trace organizational phenomena back to powerful individuals, social structures, hegemonic discourses or technological effects. Rather, ANT prefers to seek out complex patterns of causality rooted in connections between actors." They argue that ANT's ontological realism makes it "less well equipped for pursuing a critical account of organizations—that is, one which recognises the unfolding nature of reality, considers the limits of knowledge and seeks to challenge structures of domination."<ref>Andrea Whittle and André Spicer, 2008. Is actor network theory critique? ''Organization Studies'' 2008 29: 611</ref> This implies that ANT does not account for pre-existing structures, such as power, but rather sees these structures as emerging from the actions of actors within the network and their ability to align in pursuit of their interests. Accordingly, ANT can be seen as an attempt to re-introduce [[Whig history]] into [[science and technology studies]]; like the myth of the [[Heroic theory of invention and scientific development|heroic inventor]], ANT can be seen as an attempt to explain successful innovators by saying only that they were successful. Likewise, for organization studies, Whittle and Spicer assert that ANT is, "ill-suited to the task of developing political alternatives to the imaginaries of market managerialism."

===Human agency===

Actor–network theory insists on the capacity of [[Non human|nonhumans]] to be actors or participants in networks and systems. Critics including figures such as [[Langdon Winner]] maintain that such properties as [[intentionality]] fundamentally distinguish humans from animals or from "things" (see [[Activity Theory]]). ANT scholars  [<nowiki/>[[wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Unsupported attributions|who?]]] respond with the following arguments:

* They do not attribute intentionality and similar properties to [[Non human|nonhumans]].
* Their conception of [[Human agency|agency]] does not presuppose intentionality.
* They locate agency neither in human "subjects" nor in nonhuman "objects", but in [[heterogeneous]] associations of humans and nonhumans.

ANT has been criticized as amoral. [[Wiebe Bijker]] has responded to this criticism by stating that the amorality of ANT is not a necessity. Moral and political positions are possible, but one must first describe the network before taking up such positions. This position has been further explored by Stuart Shapiro who contrasts ANT with the history of ecology, and argues that research decisions are moral rather than methodological, but this moral dimension has been sidelined.<ref>Shapiro, S. (1997). Caught in a web: The implications of ecology for radical symmetry in STS. Social Epistemology, 11(1), 97-110. [[doi:10.1080/02691729708578832]]</ref>

===Misnaming===
In a workshop called "On Recalling ANT", Latour ''himself'' stated that there are four things wrong with actor-network theory: "actor", "network", "theory" and the hyphen.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/resources/sociology-online-papers/papers/latour-recalling-ant.pdf |title=Keynote Speech: On Recalling ANT |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714210351/http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/sociology/research/publications/papers/latour-recalling-ant.pdf |archive-date=July 14, 2014 |url-status=live |website=Lancaster University |publisher=Department of Sociology}}</ref> In a later book, however, Latour reversed himself, accepting the wide use of the term, "''including'' the hyphen."<ref name="RtS"/>{{Rp|9}} He further remarked how he had been helpfully reminded that the ANT acronym "was perfectly fit for a blind, myopic, workaholic, trail-sniffing, and collective traveler"—qualitative hallmarks of actor-network [[epistemology]].<ref name="RtS" />

==See also==
* [[Annemarie Mol]]
* [[Helen Verran]]
* [[Mapping controversies]]
* [[Science and technology studies]] (STS)
* [[Obligatory passage point]] (OPP)
* [[Social construction of technology]] (SCOT)
* [[Technology dynamics]]
* [[Theory of structuration]] (according to which neither [[Agency (sociology)|agents]] nor social structure have primacy)
*[[Thing theory]]
* [[Outline of organizational theory]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==Further reading==
* Carroll, N., Whelan, E., and Richardson, I. (2012). [https://ulir.ul.ie/bitstream/handle/10344/2579/Carroll%2c%20N.pdf?sequence=2 Service Science – an Actor Network Theory Approach]. International Journal of Actor-Network Theory and Technological Innovation (IJANTTI), Volume 4, Number 3, pp.&nbsp;52–70.
* Carroll, N. (2014). [https://books.google.com/books?id=rpx_BAAAQBAJ&dq=carroll+A+Bureaucratic+View+of+Public+Service+Innovation&pg=PA115 Actor-Network Theory: A Bureaucratic View of Public Service Innovation]. Chapter 7, p.&nbsp;115-144. In Ed Tatnall (ed). Technological Advancements and the Impact of Actor-Network Theory, IGI Global. 
*Online version of the article [http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9801/msg00019.html  "On Actor Network Theory: A Few Clarifications"], in which Latour responds to criticisms. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210426060052/https://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9801/msg00019.html |date=2021-04-26 }}
*Introductory article [https://web.archive.org/web/20160103124250/http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/cas_sites/sociology/pdf/2010S/SC572Gareau.pdf "Dolwick, JS. 2009. The 'Social' and Beyond: Introducing Actor–Network Theory"], which includes an analysis of other social theories
*ANThology. Ein einführendes Handbuch zur Akteur–Netzwerk-Theorie, von Andréa Belliger und David Krieger, transcript Verlag (German)
*Transhumanism as Actor-Network Theory [http://www.hplusmagazine.com/editors-blog/n00bz-actor-network-transhumanist-traductions "N00bz & the Actor-Network: Transhumanist Traductions"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101008231654/http://www.hplusmagazine.com/editors-blog/n00bz-actor-network-transhumanist-traductions |date=2010-10-08 }} ([[Humanity+]] Magazine) by [[Woody Evans]].
*John Law (1992). "[http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/sociology/papers/law-notes-on-ant.pdf Notes on the Theory of the Actor Network: Ordering, Strategy, and Heterogeneity]."
*John Law (1987). "Technology and Heterogeneous Engineering: The Case of Portuguese Expansion." In W.E. Bijker, T.P. Hughes, and T.J. Pinch (eds.), ''The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology'' (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
* Gianpaolo Baiocchi, Diana Graizbord, and Michael Rodríguez-Muñiz. 2013. "[https://www.academia.edu/5801413/Actor-Network_Theory_and_the_Ethnographic_Imagination_An_Exercise_in_Translation Actor-Network Theory and the ethnographic imagination: An exercise in translation]". ''Qualitative Sociology'' Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 323–341.
* Seio Nakajima. 2013. "Re-imagining Civil Society in Contemporary Urban China: Actor-Network-Theory and Chinese Independent Film Consumption." ''Qualitative Sociology'' Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 383–402. [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11133-013-9255-7]
* Isaac Marrero-Guillamón. 2013. "Actor-Network Theory, Gabriel Tarde and the Study of an Urban Social Movement: The Case of Can Ricart, Barcelona." ''Qualitative Sociology'' Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 403–421. [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11133-013-9259-3]
* John Law and Vicky Singleton. 2013. "[http://www.sv.uio.no/sai/english/research/projects/newcomers/publications/working-papers-web/ant-and-politics.pdf ANT and Politics: Working in and on the World]". ''Qualitative Sociology'' Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 485–502.

==External links==
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20060204114838/http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/centres/css/ant/antres.htm John Law's actor-network theory resource]
* [http://www.bruno-latour.fr/ Bruno Latour's Page]
* [http://www.normalizationprocess.org Normalization Process Theory toolkit] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210426031340/http://www.normalizationprocess.org/ |date=2021-04-26 }}
* [http://link.springer.com/journal/11133/36/4/page/1 Reassembling Ethnography: Actor-Network Theory and Sociology]

{{Science and technology studies}}
{{Bruno Latour}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Actor-Network Theory}}
[[Category:Anthropology]]
[[Category:Innovation]]
[[Category:Philosophy of science]]
[[Category:Philosophy of technology]]
[[Category:Science studies]]
[[Category:Sociological theories]]
[[Category:Actor-network theory| ]]
[[Category:Semiotics]]
[[Category:Technological change]]
[[Category:Sociology of knowledge]]
[[Category:Bruno Latour]]
[[Category:Anthropology of religion]]