Print

Print


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

Hello, list,

Yves' paper is an interesting, meaningful and convincing (for me)
reaction to Latour's schemas. A similar work (in fact a sort of a
review article) of a somehow counter-Latourian flavor is David
Bloor's, "Anti-Latour," Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci., Vol. 30, No. 1, pp.
81–112, 1999. Bruno Latour has replied to Bloor at Stud. Hist. Phil.
Sci., Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 113–129, 1999 and David Bloor has come back
at Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci., Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 131–136, 1999. I'm not
aware of any sequel to this interesting exchange. If anybody knows
(Yves?), I would appreciate to find out what happened subsequently.

Regards,

--Moses


On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Yves Gingras <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> *****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****
>
>  Hello all,
>
>  For those who discover lately so-called "actor-network theory (ANT)" (which
>  is not a theory but a language, so I call it ANL and not ANT...), may I
>  suggest that after reading the excellent and generous paper of Michel you
>  could look at an older one and more critical I did in 1995 on actor-network:
>
>  http://www.chss.uqam.ca/Portals/0/docs/articles/Following.PDF
>
>
>  Yves Gingras
>
>
>
>  Le 18/04/08 08:33, « Michel Grossetti » <[log in to unmask]> a écrit :
>
>
>
>  > *****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****
>  >
>  > Dear humans,
>  >
>  > For those who can read french texts, I wrote a short article on the limits
>  > of the generalized symetry of B. Latour :
>  > http://sociologies.revues.org/document712.html
>  >
>  > Michel Grossetti
>  >
>  >
>  > A 12:24 18/04/2008 +0100, [log in to unmask] a écrit :
>  >> *****  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.
>  >
>  > Michel Grossetti
>  > LISST(UMR CNRS 5193)
>  > Université de Toulouse le Mirail
>  > 5, allées Antonio Machado
>  > 31058 Toulouse Cedex 9
>  > tel : 33 (0)5 61 50 36 69
>  > fax : 33 (0)5 61 50 38 70
>  > Email : [log in to unmask]
>  > web :
>  > http://www.univ-tlse2.fr/cers/annuaires/fiches_indivi/permanents/Michel_Grosse
>  > tti.htm
>  >
>  >
>  > _____________________________________________________________________
>  > 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.
>

_____________________________________________________________________
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.