[Air-L] Using ANT as ethos and method

Stefano De Paoli Stefano.DePaoli at nuim.ie
Tue Feb 10 09:35:51 PST 2009


2009/2/10 jeremy hunsinger <jhuns at vt.edu>:
>>
>> True.
>> Reflexivity in ANT is not about power.
>> Thought, I think that with reflexivity they mean that
>> you should be able to apply your explanation to sociology itself.
>>
>> This is in David Bloor Knowledge and Social Imagery - "strong programme"
>
> That is the strong programme, i agree, which influences the symmetry
> principle of ANT, but ANT expands symmetry, well Callon's version does
> according to the book i mentioned.  The Strong Programme's symmetry is less
> 'apply sociology to oneself' then 'all descriptions must be treated equally
> including the many possible stories of how the research was done'  The
> latter implies the apply to sociology itself, i think.

There is actually difference between "symmetry principle" and
"reflexivity" principle.
The first as you said is partly different between "Strong Programme" &
ANT..although the latter draws on the former.

Reflexivity, is another story: you should be able to apply your
explanation to sociology itself.
e.g. you should be able to use ANT to study ANT scholars as well in
their actor-networking


>>
>>
>> Power is not a concept for
>>>
>>> actor-network, it doesn't talk about power, it talks about who acts,
>>> where
>>> acting is something that objects can do as much as subjects.    If you
>>> are
>>> interested in framing and power, you are doing something other than ANT.
>>
>> False.
>> Latour says somewhere that power is not the "cause" of
>> actor-netwroking, but the "result" of actor-networking
>
> but it is not in the analysis, it is after the analysis, it is conclusions.
>  Power is, as such, just a description and can be described after one does
> the analysis symmetrically.  It is something the researcher may concern
> oneself with, but only afterwards.  One does not look for power 'in' the
> network or describe it 'in' the network, but 'from' the networks.

yes, but each node of the actor-network is an actor-network as well.
So each node has power as consequence and each node can either:

- succed in imposing a translation - i.e. impose its power
- fail in imposing a translation - i.e. fail in imposing its power

so I do not see where the problem is.
You can use power in the analysis if you wish so.

S.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>
> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
> http://www.aoir.org/
>



-- 
Stop the numbers game
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1297797.1297815
http://portal.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=1297815&type=pdf&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=18972113&CFTOKEN=24829054



More information about the Air-L mailing list