***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org *****

Dear Loet and colleagues,

I agree entirely with the distinction between human and non-human
actors, and the extension to it that non-human actors (trees...) engage
human subjectivity / intersubjectivity. I am even prepared to accept
that living things (trees ... dogs) interact with human actors with
energy waves, patterns and links - so what we 'see' and interpret in a
tree is beyond the physical presence of this tree.

I believe, only a distinction between different categories of actors can
enable us to explain (theoretically) the process of interaction of the
Dutch Princess with the trees, the meaning and impact of this
interaction to her, and to the rest of the society. More distinctions
and more precise categories we use in our analysis and interpretation
will enable us even to disentangle the Latourean concept of
actor-networks - which puts huge emphasis on the context and the 'stage'
where the interaction takes place. In this sense - all non-human actors
are 'brought' by the analyst to the stage - which is a purely social
construction.

I am really interested to see efforts for formalisation of this
context, in which networks emerge and in which we analyse networks. I
think we can assume that this context is entirely 'social' - as it is
our context.


Emanuela Todeva


-----Original Message-----
From: Social Networks Discussion Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff
Sent: 18 April 2008 09:45
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: German shepherd and social networks

***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org *****

> I have tried to make a contribution to this line of argumentation in
> my book on 'business networks: strategy and structure', but Loet's
> suggestion to look at actor-network theory as a starting point (and
> perhaps to embrace some of their conceptual apparatus) is very
> relevant.

Dear Emanuela and colleagues,

In the Netherlands, we have a princess of the royal family who claims to
talk to the trees. The trees seem to tell her and each other interesting
stories. :-)

Let us distinguish various options:

1. As an analyst, one can make a clear distinction between human and
non-human communication in terms of intentionality and
meaning-processing following the sociological tradition (Mead, Husserl,
Schutz, Berger & Luckman, Luhmann).

2. From this perspective, the non-human elements can impact on the
inter-human communication (e.g., object (libidonous) relations; symbolic
value of objects).

3. One can follow Latour and deny a difference between human and
non-human actants. The specifically human condition of communication
(intentionality) is then not considered relevant and the social network
analysis would not be different from other (e.g., biological) network
analysis.

In my opinion, the latter approach confuses the formal approach (which
abstracts from substance in the relations) with an encompassing approach
which claims heterogenous substance without specifying this
heterogeneity.
The more formalized approach enables us to use concepts at one level
heuristically at another. For example, one can raise the question of
what could one win theoretically by assuming that the trees would tell
each other stories?

With best wishes,


Loet

_____________________________________________________________________
SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send an
email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line UNSUBSCRIBE
SOCNET in the body of the message.

_____________________________________________________________________
SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send
an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.