- Let me be clear. Actor-network theory is analytically radical in part
because it treads on a set of ethical, epistemological and ontological toes.
In particular, it does not celebrate the idea that there is a difference in
kind between people on the one hand, and objects on the other. It denies
that people are necessarily special. Indeed it raises a basic question about
what we mean when we talk of people.
Actor-network theory always struck me as slight of hand. Latour was studying scientists, who rightly objected to the science-is-just-a-story-like-any-other sort of theory of science that was fashionable in the tradition he came from, which was inconvenient for him because it's hard to gain the trust of people who think you're a crazed solipsist. He still thought science was a tool of The Man that needed to be deflated. His solution is to make a theory that grants the existence of atoms and gravity and such... in the same sense as it grants the existence of god, the devil, the flying spaghetti monster, good and bad vibrations, and anything else anyone claims to believe in. So his is exactly the same sort of theory, just framed so that it does not sound so ridiculous when he interacts with scientists, as long as he doesn't elaborate too much.
So I was reading this without any foreknowledge of the broader span of actor-network theory. Only interaction with it was via this article- as such, I viewed it only within the sociological rubric. Interesting to get a take on it from a scientific standpoint. Should mention that the only direct reference to science w/in the article was a paragraph or two about knowledge, and how it's really just the locus point of several environmental, social and technological interactions. Which seemed to me less denigrating and more kind of respectful of the scientific method. But again, didn't have the back story, so maybe it was a back-handed jab. I'm not even sure that I agree with it from a sociological/psychological perspective- the idea that "personhood" exists only as an effect of broader systems rankles a little bit. What about personality? Isn't that supposed to be immutable? Even if you strip a person of context, even if you subtract the meaning from their profession, social standing, etc., aren't there aspects of that person that persist in vacuum? In other words, this theory seems to do away entirely with the "nature" side of the nature vs. nurture debate. At a time when it's broadly accepted that nature and nurture work in conjunction with one another, seems like a hell of a thing to argue that identity and meaning are nothing more than functions of broader governing environmental systems. Nevertheless. It DOES scratch some sort of political itch for me- I've never been a firm believer that success solely from individual agency is a thing, and that unfortunately comprises the backbone (or at least a few integral vertebrae) of the American sociopolitical position. Actor-network by design totally denies that idea. No, more than that. Not only ignores the notion of individual agency but obliterates it so completely that the individual is sapped of meaning entirely. Not particularly useful from a practical standpoint, but as social propaganda, I find it very powerful, and a pleasing counterpoint to the old trope of rugged individualism. Also, on a level I can't entirely explain, I really love the idea of dismissing any sort of real difference between human and machine, and either from concept. It's a great way to chip away at one's ego.
Pandora's Hope is well worth reading. I was more in agreement with the strawman he made of Socrates in the last essay than with him, but it was one of the most enjoyable philosophy books I've ever read.
I don't think it's a jab, I don't think he's hostile in the way Foucault was hostile. He does explicitly want to make knowledge subordinate to society, seeing the alternative as authoritarian because The Man funds research so any epistemic privilege granted to science is being granted to The Man. I do not think giving equal weight to astrology as nuclear physics because lots of people believe in astrology is the kind of egalitarianism I want. Many things could stand to be democratized, but epistemology is not one of them. Society is full of shit.
Assuming there is no nature to be opposed to nurture has been a fashionable thing for theorists to do since the mid-20th century, since "nature" justified scientific racism, institutional sexism, eugenics programs and all sorts of things no one wanted to justify anymore. "Reactionary" is used as a synonym for "right-wing", but the right really doesn't have a monopoly on reactionaries.Should mention that the only direct reference to science w/in the article was a paragraph or two about knowledge, and how it's really just the locus point of several environmental, social and technological interactions. Which seemed to me less denigrating and more kind of respectful of the scientific method. But again, didn't have the back story, so maybe it was a back-handed jab.
I'm not even sure that I agree with it from a sociological/psychological perspective- the idea that "personhood" exists only as an effect of broader systems rankles a little bit. What about personality? Isn't that supposed to be immutable? Even if you strip a person of context, even if you subtract the meaning from their profession, social standing, etc., aren't there aspects of that person that persist in vacuum? In other words, this theory seems to do away entirely with the "nature" side of the nature vs. nurture debate. At a time when it's broadly accepted that nature and nurture work in conjunction with one another, seems like a hell of a thing to argue that identity and meaning are nothing more than functions of broader governing environmental systems.
Will pick up a copy of Pandora's Hope. Reminds me to re-read some Plato, too- have a soft spot for Socrates, who doesn't. Latour, I guess, from what you've said.
Response forthcoming when I have time to write one worth writing