Institute of Media and Communication Science

Department: Political Science/Media

Course: Organisational Communication

Summer Term 2007

ACTOR-NETWORK THEORY

submitted by:
Mario Ziemkendorf

Directory

1. I ntroduction 01
2. ANT in context 02
3. Specifics about ANT 02
a. Combined socio-technical system 02
b. Actors 03
c. Vocabulary 03
d. Open-ended Character 03
4. Main ideas of ANT 03
a. Actor Network 04
b. Several Models of ANT 04
c. Complexity of ANT 04
d. Background/Foreground 05
e. Flexibility 05
f. Information infrastructure 05
g. Bottom-up concept 06
5. Key concept of ANT 06
a. Inscription 07
b. Translation 07
c. Irreversibility 08
d. Black Boxing 10
5. Criticism and Conclusion of ANT 11

1. Introduction

In these days nearly everybody knows different kinds of networks. There are networks all around us. They accompany us at home, at work, on travelling or in our free time. Almost none network is separted and stands for it´s own, even insulated monks are influenced by the outside world.

The whole world is subdivided in networks which are more or less complex. They are all connected in different ways so that every network overlaps another network. Bruno Latour hits the bull´s eye with the following statement: "With the new popularization of the word network, it now means transport without deformation and an instantaneous, unaffected access to every piece of information." (Latour 1999, p.15).

This term paper concerns with the Actor-Network Theory, shortly called ANT. ANT sometimes specified as sociology of translation is primarily connected with the work of representatives like Bruno Latour, Michael Callon and John Law. The essential characteristic of ANT is the equitable analysis of human and nonhuman actors. They will be esteemed as equal actors in networks which want to achieve a common purpose. The opening chapter of this term paper will give you a rough historical overlook of ANT. Before the main ideas of ANT will disclose, the relevant specifics about ANT will be presented which are also the premises of ANT. Then detailed information about several key concepts of ANT will be added. In the end the critical points and a short conclusion of ANT will conclude this work.

2. ANT in Context

ANT was born out of the field of science and technology studies in the 1970s. At this time the intermediate understanding between technology and society did not fit together as you can see in the following statement: "Technology does not appear to

1

be productively integrated into large parts of the sociological imagination." (Monteiro 1998, p.75). Later on the intermediate understanding between technology and society became more specific. They suppose that there exists an interplay between technology and society which means that technology effects society and vice versa. This point of view can be illustrated by two extreme end points (cp. Monteiro 1998, p.73): The so called technology determinism and the social constructivism.

Technology determinism says "that the development of technology follows its own logic and that the technology determines its use". (Winner 1977 quoting from Monteiro 1998, p. 73).

The Social constructivism says "that society and its actors develop the technology they "want" and use it as they want, implying that technology in itself plays no role." (Winner 1977, Pfaffenberg 1988 quoting from Monteiro 1998, p.73). With ANT the approach of seeing technology and society separated becomes invalid, because ANT regards both parts as a combined socio-technical system.

3. Specifics about ANT:

There are several specifics to mention in relation with ANT. All of them confirm the peculiarity of ANT.

a. Combined socio-technical system

One characteristic of ANT is the imagination from a combined socio-technical system. Technology and society have to regard as a combined system. Both aspects influences each other in a complex way so that it is not possible anymore to separate them from each other (cp. Monteiro 1998, p.75).

2