Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenor:
-
Andrzej Wojciech Nowak
(Adam Mickiewicz University)
Send message to Convenor
- Location:
- C. Humanisticum AB 2.10
- Sessions:
- Thursday 18 September, -
Time zone: Europe/Warsaw
Long Abstract:
Actor-Network Theory (ANT) has been attracting attention in academia long enough to stimulate a significant number of works outside its "core", which aim at various forms of its critical analysis. Two forms seem dominant: the first critically analyzes its problematic points, the second attempts to transform it as to use it in a new way or in a new area. Also the "Actor networks" session consists of different approaches to ANT. First, a possibility of integration of ANT and social network analysis (SNA) will be thoroughly investigated. Second, ANT will be treated as a conceptual and theoretical toolbox full of tools that could be withdrawn and used in another context. Here, one paper will use circulatory model of science (science blood flow) from Bruno Latour's "Pandora's Hope" to study a socio-scientific controversy, while another one will focus on (in)visibility and trust to study institutions and Occupy Movement. Finally, ANT will be subjected to political critical analysis.
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Thursday 18 September, 2014, -Samuel Tettner (University of Manchester)
Paper long abstract:
This is a proposed discussion on the ways Actor-Network Theory (ANT) can be politicized. ANT has developed an apolitical reputation:As early as 1991 Susan Leigh Star criticised ANT for adhering to a narrative of network-making as managerial, militant and "masculinist"(Star, 1991). The processes of assembly-making through alignment or enrolment have been seem as perhaps "overly overly triumphalist and voluntaristic" (Oppenheim, 2007). Within STS, groups like postcolonial STS or feminist STS have expressed a lack of confidence in ANT: David Bloor (1999) maintains that because of its vocabulary, ANT can merely describe power structures, but never truly challenge them.
These criticisms have been partially responded. Latour's article (2004) can be seen as a direct response to the "critical theory" attacks on ANT. Reassembling the social (Latour, 2005) can also be seen as an attempt to bring politics and ANT together. For me, the clearest example what a political understanding of ANT can look like is the body of work of John Law and Annemarie Mol, what can be considered "post-ANT."
Direct theoretical and empirical evidence of how ANT can be a politically engaged and active tool are not very common. This discussion aims to understand why, historically and theoretically speaking, this has been the case, and what we can do about it. This discussion is vital to the theme of understanding collective political action with a material-semiotic sensibility. Perhaps it can help answer the question of why "ANT perspectives that contribute to the general study of social movements" are still pending.
Krzysztof Abriszewski (Nicolaus Copernicus University)
Paper long abstract:
The aim of my paper is to overview recent Polish "gender" controversy with slightly transformed Bruno Latour's circulatory model of science (from his "Pandora's Hope"). I view the scientific text here as a ontological generator nested within other circles and nods of the model. The stronger it is connected to them, the bigger the chance for the innovation to be successful and socialized within collective.
The socio-scientific controversy is a clash of different ontological generators, and consequently different possible worlds. The controversy is not just a conflict of different lines of theoretical argumentation, instead the conflict is located within each of the circle of Latour's model.
Such a theoretical approach would be applied to recent Polish gender controversy. I claim that two disparate ontological innovations - gender as part of theoretical sex/gender opposition in gender studies and gender ideology in "anti-gender" approach - require different furniture of collective world (the inhabit disparate possible worlds). The conflict between them locates within different: theoretical connections, mobilizations of the world, autonomisations, friends and allies, and public representations (Latour's model). Yet both innovations require some stabilizing mechanisms (as "facts need rails") in order to circulate within the collective world.
The issue of situated solidarity seems particularly interesting: what kind of solidarities are designed by the innovations? (Are they symmetrical? What actors are included and excluded? How do they distribute agency?), what kind of solidarities are inner features of two conflicting possible worlds?, is there any way to compare them as a sort of profit/loss estimation?
Simone Belli (Yachay Tech)
Paper long abstract:
Bruno Latour (2013) claims that if no institution were visible, trust would not be necessary. When we appeal to trust in an institution, we share the concern for a fragile and complex institution. We will show the relationship between subjects and objects in micro-institutions, where trust represents emotional ties between subjects and objects. Objects are not "things", but situations; and emotions are perceptual construction of complex situations. We will present a model where trust is accessible through the testimony's figure to offer knowledge and information at the basis of institutions. We define how trust works in our narratives and how is an internalized and dialogical process. We present trust in an open, social and micro institution. Data comes from in-depth interviews, ethnographic observations in camps and assemblies during 2011, and tweets associated to the Occupy Movement. In OM, the institution of democracy has adjusted to the modes designed by the citizens; a new space has opened up by a series of negotiations and interactions between subjects and objects. Horizontal democracy is a traditional institution adjusted to the modes can be designed. Trust is managed in these processes to occupy a first level position in the institution. Subjects design their narratives a new form of sharing knowledge and authority through an internalized and dialogical process.
Keita Sugihara (Nanzan University)
Paper long abstract:
Science is a form of collective action engaged in by scientists. The purpose of this paper is to show how the integration of actor-network theory (ANT) and social network analysis (SNA) can facilitate a fruitful understanding of science as collective action. First, I review ANT and SNA. According to Freeman, research that examines links among objects of study is called structural. In social science, the structural approach that is based on the study of interaction among social actors is called SNA. SNA is defined by the following features: (1) SNA is motivated by a structural institution based on ties linking social actors, (2) it is grounded in systematic empirical data, (3) it draws heavily on graphic imagery, and (4) it relies on the use of mathematical and/or computational models. Beyond the commitment to these four features, modern social network analysts recognize that a wide range of empirical phenomena can be explored in terms of their structural patterning. Second, I survey preceding studies that have tried to integrate ANT and SNA. Third, I introduce a method used in SNA known as centrality analysis. Fourth, I focus on Callon, Law, and Rip's use of ANT in their study on qualitative scientometrics. Fifth, I show how applying the method of centrality analysis from SNA to Callon, Law, and Rip's ANT-based qualitative scientometrics can yield a fruitful quantification of their analysis. Finally, I suggest that integrating ANT and SNA can facilitate a useful understanding of social movements other than science.