NQ Books and Journals Pvt Ltd, [tis not allowed to publish this proof online or in print. This proof copy is the copyright property of the publisher and is confidential until formal publicatio sbepars010 ooo 0010 Culture and Actor-Network Theory ISB2 10448 Ignacio Farias and Sophie Miitzel, W28 Bertin Social Research Center, Berlin, Germany (© 2018 Elaver Li, Al rights reserved Abstract ‘This cle examines actor-network theory's (ANT) complex relationships with notions of culture, We: swith a discussion (of ANTS fundamental works and show how these question common notions of culture. Inthe second part, we show how current developments in ANT, which empirically focus on ans, markets, care, and democracy, approach to practices. The third part outlines ANT's methodological and theoretical contusions fr cultural a sum, asa perspective ANT suggests a reformatting of what cultural analysis might entail Actor network theory (ANT) a “theory that maps the socal Felations between people, objects, and ideas eating all as agentcentiies that form abroad network” (CEulo, 2009: 533) has not only contbuted to science and technology studies. Over the last 30 years, ANT has aso become an innovative analytical framework forthe study of culture. Yet we are om fronted with an apparent paradox: while profoundly impacting the study of culture, ANT retains fom refering to the notion of culture, be it as explanan, as explanandum, oF a phenomenon This ail examines ANTs complex and paradoxical rela tionships with notions of culture and highlights ANT'simpli- cations for cultural sociology This isa challenging ask, néa jus because culture has been the subject of hundreds of diferent definitions inthe sca sciences, but also becatise ANT refs “an open building site, nota finished and closed constuction (Fhtlon, 2001; 65). We stan with a digaision of ANT's fundamental works and conceptual repertoires, We show how these works question common nots oFeature, including culture asa human realm (as oppofedto'a natural realm), as 2 historically consicied mind-set as semiotic ‘webs of tmeanings. and as a shared formaiveygfientation to socal action, Inthe second par, we show how cument developments in ANT, which empirically foais on ars, markets, cae, and democracy strongly fey ona pragmatist approach to practices. The thd part outlines Methodological and theoretical cont butions for cltufal analysis. In sum, as a perspective ANT suggests a reformatting of what cultural analysis might ental Networks) Not Culture: A Sociotechnical Approach to Science and Technology One Of the seminal works in the development of ANT is no Latour and Steve, Woolgars Laloratory Life. The socal construction of scientific fac, cignaly published in 1979. Based on ethnographic research Latour conducted between 1975 and 1977, Labnsory Life is an attempt to degebe ‘the esoteric culture of the scenic Laboratory” (Flour and Woolgar 1986: 275). It was inspired. by 2 long anthropological tradition that dealt with the Cultural underpinnings of cognition and thereby unveiled the aitariness of the Great Divide between the West and the rest. Acontingly, is aim is 19 apply the same field methods and analytical strategies used to study, for example, Ivory Coast farmer? ¥0-study first-rate scientists The book begins to formulate at leat three key analytical and methodological principles of what later on would be Called ‘actor-senwork theory First, Laborato Life involves elaborating an_ agnostic description of routine work in the laboratory, without Sssuming any a prod relationship between the social and the scientigc: On the contrary, the intention isto demon frate"How in the actual process of producing scientific knowledge, the very boundary between contest and content ‘scence is coproduced. Thus, it problematizes at leas wo extended types of sodcultural approaches to the study of Science. On the one hand, it departs from contextual approaches, which asume thatthe content of science cannot be the subject of sociological analysis. Such contextual approaches focus instead on instutional frameworks of scientific activity, careers, and status confts among scien fists of, a8 Non (1979) proposes, on the scientific ethos and normative system that would guarantee the strict application of the scientific method. On the other hand Laboratory Life also depars from overscialized approaches that explain the content of scence, is discoveries, facts, and paradigms, by reference to broader societal structures, One txample of this is Bloor’s ‘strong program’ (7976) for the study of science, which points out socially and historically produced categories and beliefs that underlie the scientific interpretaion of empirical experience. Similarly, Laboratory Life presents an alerative to Poucaul’ (1969) archeology of episimes, understood as the fundamental modes of reasoning that rule the formation and transformation of Inowledge for a whole epoch, and the resulting equation of knowledge and power. This distancing ftom both ypes of sciocultural approaches to science eventually led tothe erasure ofthe adjective soca” in Laboratory Life's subtitle in subsequent editions (1986). In dling so, the authors also repudiate social consinictionism. In the mid-1980s socal constctonism was fundamental forthe rejuvenation ofcltural sociology. Suggesting an alterative 10 traditional sociological conceptions of understanding culture 2 values, it undersiands cule to consist of “symbolic vehi dles of meaning, including belies, tual practices, art forms nd ceremonies” (Sle, 1986: 273), Culture thus serves as 2 tool Ki people use to solve problems. From a Labnatory Life Traratiral Engelpeda of be Socal & Behavioral Scenes, 2rd etn pie arg0 O16 BO78-0.06 007086810848. 7 ousNQ Books and Journals Pvt Ltd, [tis not allowed to publish this proof online or in print. This proof copy is the copyright property of the publisher and is confidential until formal publicatio poss ooo pos 0050 2 Culture and Actor-Network Theory ISB2 10448 perpective, this new sociology of culture overestimates the Sombie and animes contest and snicture whereas in fact such divisions do not exis Second, Labor Life reveals the constttve, agentic role nontnuman ents play in the prodiction of scientific Inowiedge. Ths becomes evident in the study of insrip- tions (e4, maps, graphs illustrations) of ‘natural’ objects (ea, hormone, sol ype, a distant galaxy) prodiced by technical instruments. Trour and Woolgar (1986) descibe Inboratory work as the systematic production of experiments and ather technical procedures to inscribe or write down the bchavior or reactions of natural’ objects into material and visual media. Furthermore, it alo involves translation of visual inscriptions into scent propositions. Inscriptions ths help to establish comparability, make interpretation possible, and sllow for making scenic statements about ‘he natural world. In thei ethnographic acount, they shove that nonhuman entities enable and transform chains of reference that constitute scenic facts, and thus argue that distinctions between facts and vanifads need to be che! Callon (1986) condenses these insights into the analytical principle of generalized spmmetry, according to which the same conceptual repertoies should be used to describe the action ofhuman and nonfiuman entities. This radical position, later refered to as ‘matetial semiotic’ (Pw, 2009), aims to understand. phenomena that are completely overlooked by imerpretave approaches in sociology and anthrap6logy Whereas the late focus om deconsracting cultural Aes afd webs of meaning (eg, Cera, 1985), generalized gyanfetry describes relationships between heterogeneous, mate, and fonsymbolic entiies ANT thus fs also. inompatble with femiotic readings, for example of xtemof objects (hadi, 1996) or fashion (ia, 1996) Third, Laboratory Life begins 46 develop’ ‘Gat’ under standing of the circulation of ecentige fats and, generally, the socal, A key finding was that the robustness of scientific facts depends on the creulation oftheir inscriptions, Sden- tie facts move from one lboratory to the next, from there toa journal, then/to a policy document, 10 4 ministy offce, to an industial Noor, from there to a market, 10 consumers, «concerned Groups, and so on. In their crc. lation through-sich heterogeneous local points, sclentie facts ae constantly tested and contested by other actor Proyidedhat they endue afer different actors have probed ino them, hey become indisputable scientific facts o, in ANI teams, ‘immutable mobile’ (THiour, 1987), be, network of relationships among heterogeneous elements that remain stable despite their circulation through such divere local points. The finding tha scent facts exist within such translocal_sociotechnical networks led ANT Scholars to a radial conclusion: the lager the network, the ‘more objective the scent fac. According to this perspective then there is only 2a’ single level realty consisting of larger or aaller networks of always local points There are no hidden strctres, no global evel, ot timate realities. Ths leads to a further rejection of common anthropological and sociological understandings of cature(s) 2s locally bounded entities, knowledge forms, or socal real tis, ForANT, there is neither the global nor the lca, ot even 4 ‘gloal society’ understood a8 simultaneously shaped by flobal and local process. Instead ofa separation of levels, the ley question for ANT involves the extension of the socio- material and sociotechnical networks within which social phenomena ae consisted During the 1980s, ino Latour Michel Calon, and John Law further developed these and other principles collabora sively in what began to be called ‘actor-nctwork theory. This composite notion aims to describe the hybrid and translocal relations that constitute every technological atic, scientific fact, and social actor. Accordingly, every phenomenon oF action is created by a whole network of heteragencous enti ties, These entities ae called actans since they participate in fan actornetwork and thus inva’ collective and distsbuted action. The notion of actor network was coined to make the tracing of an analytical-distintion between an actor and 4 network impossible: To be suite, a network in ANT’ temi- nology docs not define the context in which an actor acts and intorats, a in lssiesocial network analysis and its notion of ‘embeddedness: Rather, any actor is an actor network since no analytical separation between actor and network exists Any ‘apacigyto act stems from the heterogencous assemblage of hhuman and nonhuman entities, constituting the actor. network (ne of the key processes ANT describes involves the formation of such acor-networks. In the sociology of trans lation, Tallon (1986) describes the sequential processes through which entities and networks cocreate each other enabling nev forms of action. it begins with the problem atsation of a situation, ie, transforming a complex and ambiguous situation in which many entities are involved into 4 welldefined problem. The second step in the translation proces i nteresement, ie, generating interest among other ‘entities inthe problem defined in the frst step, so that other ‘entities recognize this to be their problem as well. Third, Callon speaks of enrolment to denote hove other human and nonhuman entities are transformed into allies, when theie interests and identities are stated in term of the common problem. Finally, mobilization describes the collective action that the translation of these diferent entities enables. A related concept to describe sucessfl translation is that of blackboxing. When a whole network is mobilized in the name ‘of one problem defined by one actor, its heterogeneity and distributed characteris blackboxed, so that it seems that one bounded actor caries out the action. Indeed, ANT ander: stands itself asa research program oriented towards opening ‘up blackboxes that hide the hybrid constitution of the social world Bruno Latou’s We have never been modern (93) most clearly highlights ANT's position towards and its analytical consequences fr the stay of culture. Drawing upon contem- porary anthropological theory, Latour sts out to open the wo separate blackboxes of nature and culture, which underlie the constitution of modernity: “the very notion of culture is an anifact created by bracketing Nature off Cultures ~ diffrent or ‘universal ~ do not exist any more than Nature does. There are ‘only naturecultares (104). In sum, ANT's negative argument charac neither contextual nor symbolic, nether explanatory nor ies culture as oo vas 0070NQ Books and Journals Pvt Ltd, [tis not allowed to publish this proof online or in print. This proof copy is the copyright property of the publisher and is confidential until formal publicatio 001s os ISB2 10448 Culture and Actor-Network Theory 3 ‘After ANT: A Pragmatist Turn in the Study of Practice With the exception ofthe explicit rejection of culture in We awe newer been maders, ANT mostly argued implicitly against notions of culture that exclusively refer to the human weal or to a symbolic system providing normative orientation for action. At the same time, ANTs early focus on ethnographic description of sociotechnical practices, highlighting the prac tical assemblage not just of scence and technology, but also of the empirical and the eal, postions it within a pragmatist research tradition. While the focus on practices was not central at the time of theory development around the notion of actor network in the 1980s, it moved center stage in dhe 1990s. In par this was response tothe severe criticisms ofthe notion of Aciornetwork, inching that it denies power issues, exhibits tmale Eurocentricism, and sustains 2 manageril-finctonalist understanding of socal phenomena (eg. Sti 1991). In order to emphasize a new phase of theoretical development that addresses such issues, while leaving behind the concspal repertoires surrounding the notion of actor-network, Tw and Fassand (1999) have even suggested speaking of an ‘afer ANT’ phase Since the mid-and late-1990s, there have been varios developments using ethnographic and pragmatist approaches to study the assemblage of objects spaces, and gues in elds beyond science and technology, while sticking to ANTS analytical principles explained in Soction Networks, Not Cult: Sociotechnical Approach to Science and Techno ‘As in pragmatism (Btwey, 2004[1916)), these works approach practical activity and experience nots resul of human will or Social structute, but rather in terms ofits consequences forthe constitution of reality. As evident in Reasemblng the soil (Pos 20052), ANT staunchly rejects Pere» Touro (1990) practice theory. The general cites of Hourdiew hinges upon his idea that ‘hidden social structures’ predetce. rine acon’ positions in the social world and endow them ‘with a practical sense, Rather than understanding social prac tices at expressions of intemalized social structres, ANTs Pragmatist approach studies actual practices in concrete sites fnd situations, so, that the entanglements of human and onbuman entities enabling certain forms of action can be cxamined. Fotir ley contibutions testify to this intezest in practices beyond practice theory They relate tothe notions of bitachment, performativty, enactment, and engagement lushisrork on music, Mioine Hension (1995) studies the prictices of the production of aesthetic value and thus the results of artistic production along the entanglements of human actors and material objects. Hennion poins out that traditional sociology has assigned a peculiar role to objects ia the stdy of cultural products: while technosclentific objects are oft reduced to a technical dimension, cultural objets are conceived of as socal intermediaries, i, symbols, meanings, or valieladen signs. Thus, traditional sociology views art ‘works a8 the material production of ourselves at collective entity. The transformations resistances, and mediations arising from the material or technical exitence ofa works are ently absent. Hennion’s work, in contrast, shows that material objects, eg, instruments, notation systems, recording tech- nologies, reproduction devices, and music halls, are ‘media- tos Such mediators are “nether mere arrers ofthe work, nor subsites which dissolve is reali they ate the art itell™ (03:84). Thus, this approach emphasizes the coproduction ofcultural products, producers and audiences, Furthermore, in ‘ejecing Bourdieu's notions of habitus and taste formation, Hennion shows how taste develops as a reflexive practice in situations in which actors attach themselves to objects and develop abilities to perceive and experience them. Taste, tunderstood from an. ANT perspective, is thus a. stuated Performance rather than the result of socially tctured pref erences (Ffennion, 2007). ‘ANT scrtcism of culture as contest and Tipragmatist tum «an alo be found in Calon’ researc program Fr the sudy of markets, Arguing aginst the primary focus onthe sococultiral embeddedness of economic acfon, lion (19986) seminal Contribution expands econofic sociology 10 now include the ‘notion that “economics maketh economy" He thus coins the idea of the ‘perfafiaty. OF economics. Accordingly, economics should _nét, Be s88n as providing true or false dlesciptions of efor processes, Rather, economics should be understood i es of consiuting economic worlds within which economic model, formulas, and even figures such as Iona oonomicis, cin be sid to exist: no economy without econfmicsillon (2007) shows thatthe performative force of tforiomics des nt stem from a purely linguistic or symbolic {tice but rather fom the constitution and mobilization of socotechnical networks or agencement. Similar to pragmatist tions Pilon (1998) paints to dynamics of framing over flowing in order to understand economic goods and agents, prices and transactions as relational and situational achieve ments, Expanding Coffman's (1974) frame analysis, Callon emphasizes that matket frames depend on the sociomaterial arangements of abjeas, devices, formulas, and technologies father than on shared taken for ganted assumptions and formative orientations. Such frames then enable economic Calculations. However, since overflowing instead of framing is the rule in market dynamics, studying economization practices and processes requires being “actly attentive tothe palsy fand openendedness of ‘the economic’ as it i brought into being” Catskan and Callon, 2010: 2). “Another study of practices in concrete sites is Nhnemarie Mol’ (2002) ‘The body muldpe. In her empirical study on medical practices, she fds that the body, going through differen nits ina hospital, isa multiple objec. ts multiplicity is ontological and involves different practices of bringing bodies into being: this mulipliciy does not result from dlfferent perspectives, ways of observing, and knowing single body. Mol proposes the notion of enactment as a means of understanding how objects exist Uhough multiple situated practices. Thus, she aso distances herself fom the clasic ANT pproach to immutable mobiles, in which a stabilized result stems from a process of consiuction. Enactment instead is situational andi reveals the coexistence of multiple stabiliza tions. Thus, the practical challenge that Mol describes with regards to bodies in hospitals is not one of translation, but rather one of coordination, i, how multiple enactments are brought together or kept apart, in onder to arive at a diagnosis "Afurter connection to a pragmatist tation canbe seen in works using Pin Dewey's (1927) ideas on democratic public. As Dewey points out, the main problem Westem democracies confront is that they take the existence ofa public for granted. 0% ous ounNQ Books and Journals Pvt Ltd. It is not allowed to publish this proof online or in print. This proof copy is the copyright property of the publisher and is confidential until formal publicatio poids ozo 4 Gulture and Actor-Network Theory ISB2 10448 Instead, publics are formed around complex issues involving tinintended consequences, which escape institutions and cannot be managed. Acording to TStour (2005), this prag ‘matist understanding of democratic public reveals that polities Cannot be considered as a purely human matter involving Conficing ideals, norms, vales, or interests. Rather, these Publics indicate thatthe hybrid object of science, technology, ‘medicine, or urban development play a generative role in the Constitution of public and in enabling political activi. Thus, Latour speaks of an objet ariented plc. in addition, Mrces (2009) explores the role played by practices and devices of Public engagement Her work demonsrates that this involves Sudying a broad range of pracices of isue formation beyond formal paniipatory events and procedural stings, which are constrained by set issue defnkions. Understanding public engagement requires more than just studying discusvely Consiucied frames, Rather, public involvement needs to be studied and explained in terms of the actal attachments between publics and objets that define such publicists. Tks important to note that none of these ew lines of ANT research explicily use the notion of culture. However, a8 we have shown, they propose pragmatist readings of practices of assembling, enacting publicizing, attaching, mediating, and Performing realities, Nonhumans, Description, and Ontology: Cultural Analysis after ANT 1m conclusion, three general observations regarding ANTS methodological and theoretical contributions for cultural analysis oll: In general terms, ANT has arguably heightened awareness and sensitivity towards the active role nonhumans including animals, technologies, objects oF materials: play in the Phenomena and dynamics studied by socal sciences. ANT approaches are thus not just increasingly mobilized for the study of overly hybrid phenomena, such as carbon transitions, nuclear crises, or the quest forsustainable development, but are lho translated asa more general methodological and analytical Strategy. One translation cas be found in the works of Pic Holts and/Taurent thé enot (2006), two pragmatic soc logis. Studying the justications actors use in disputes and disagreements, they show that the involved actors do- not merely rely on words. Rather, in evaluating situation, actors bring togetherWords, as well as human and nonhuman actors, ‘ntestsandthus shape diferent orders of worth Economic and cult sociology have paniculaly picked pom thes insights and are curently analyzing processes of valuation and the constiution of different orders of womb, including nonhuman actors in their analyses (TGuscade, 2011; Shtk, 2009). tn the field of urban studies, ANT perspectives are particularly hel to grasp the sociomateral assemblages of cites and are atthe center of current debates (Trias and Bender, 2009; Benner etal, 2011), ‘second important aspect slates tothe roe of description in ANT accounts. The sensitivity to nonhumans isa result of ANI's methodological commitment to produce detailed descriptions of actual activity, as delineated in the case ofthe laboratory ethnographies. But descriptions can also be an analytical strategy allowing social scientist to question tradi- tional accounts based on contexts or casal explanation, Accordingly, the challenge is to describe how actor create contexts for their own action and how some events lead 0 ther events. Thus, contexts and causes become empitial ‘objects tobe described, In tm, description becomes a meth- fodological and theoretical device, as opposed to positivist visions of desciptions as simplistic accounts and ust s0- Soriey, Therefore, ANT contributes to lager sociological movement of descriptive sociology’ (Sage 2909), which is alto prominent in pattem analyses overtime ain relational tmethods that make use of vsualizaons (Ml, 2009). This tage of description as an analytical tool| means that, for ‘example, cultural product, sucV arto fashion, should not be explained asa result ofthe culture pf a cena class, cy, oF nation. Rather, scial scents need to describe and analyze how cultures ate bei praciclly assembled through sich products (Poise ane tater 2013). Yet another oniabutfon of such a commitment to metic- ‘lous descriptions of whole worlds i tum towards ontolog- ical questions. The irc separation of culture from nature and the social from the material, so strongly underlying social sciences, Hag confined thee questions tothe realm of epst- tology. While focusing on human beliefs, attudes, images, find epiesenations of the world, questions about ontology have_generally been negleced. by both positivist and onstucivs social sciences ANTs conbution is to direct attention towards the study of how realty comes into being See also: 10443; 10447; 10442; 03192; 03064; 85001; 61148; 63110. Bibliography ares, Ron, 100. The Fin Sao. Unt of Cala es, Say tis As, ahr, 506. Te Sst f Oj Vi, ao. Ne Ya ln, Oi 176. Kegs and Sas gay. Unerty Cage Pres ‘cane fatro Li, Tver Laret, 2006. On “Astfcation. Economies of Werth. ines nil es rc, Of eur, Pore 00, Tha Lge el Pc, Sart rey rs Sto Stee Mase Da cra av 201 Aerts rn ad the hrs of teal wan ty. TY 15h, 225240 Calan, Mee 200. Carron 2: ee ogra fst of rst ony snd Sri 3), 22 Cala, et 198 Same cnet sng of in: destin hss men x Bay La, ow, en a1 Bi a acy frei? Pate nd apn Pa, ano, po. 06-20, Calin, Me, 1086. A yon fang nd veto saa rats rei by soko, al, Met) Te Lan fe Marit to Pobre Oe, 244-28. Calo Hef, 0 The arbres of ecronic mats eorerc ete. Cl, Mich), ne Laval sat lca bos Oi, 1-57 Caton, ich, 00, Arata tay hs Salo, Eat, Pa) Inshorl ceopd of te S008 ar Seti Soe, ft fern, Op 62-6 Cato, Mee 2007 to ean sy sms spt? texan, ord Mea, aan, ace Ed), Oo fares te Naat? On te Foray of Eom Przn Unies res Penetn, pp 311-357ISB2 10448 Culture and Actor-Network Theory 5 ca, Kre, 2000. onhanan sci inact Ar Rew Sco 25, ‘31-562 Dang, Jan, 2081916). pragmaton meas by paca re Dewey, sen (El), Ess in Eerie Lage. Dover babs, Mrena Nu Yo 192-208, Dano, Jt, 1927. The Plea ts Pols. Hat, Now Yok. vise, Jomo, St, Don, 2013. Rasarbing te cou aston muds, Toucan th mating cu’ afr ANT. Jounal of Ctrl mony. ed r/0- 108077590380 201378501 Fara, rato, rd, Taras 2s), 200, ibn Assblaps How Actor ret Thay Charges Utan Ss. ute, Loe, Naw Yon. Fovcauh Meh, 1969 Archany ofKoalge. Rte, Loc, Foado, Maren, 2011. Cas an sanity. annie luton a te rato ot aus. Anetean ural of Soc 116 6), 1721-177 Gory, Cite, 1085. Th Msprettn af Cuts. Base Bos, New Yer. Gata, Eng, 1978 Fane Aaya. An Ey onthe Onan of Expereo Pungun fi, Harrods Henin, Aare, #908 La Pasen Musicale. Meal, Pa, Hem, tine 2003 Me anf mean: tovard a re ecclagy of musk. ‘ayn, ar, Herter Tov, Mite, Rar (i), Tho Ctrl Soyo Ms: A itl retten. outed, an. gp. 80-31 Hom, Armano, 2007. Tose ngs tal ol sega: tle and scl (ia Sco 1), 97-114 Laur, Brine, OE? Sconce Aen. Moo Kens. Open Unive Pr Lamu, Bring, 1902, We Hive Neer Beon Motor, Fane Ue Pas, a Lar, Gio, 20052. Rasurbing te Sc: An aac to Actor nett “oy, Cnet Urey Pes, Cn, Mew Yak Lats, Bre, 2005, rent ogi or to ek tgs pb. Laas, re, Wate, Peer Gs), ang Thgs Pb. Amospores Daerah MM Pree, Kao, Cantos. op. 4-13, Laas Ba, la, Sot, 1986. Lara a The Costucon of Sere Fas, Prcste Unery Ps, Pca. La, cf, 2008 Aten ory an ata eros, Tuner, Ban 8. (Ed), The Naw Stchoal Corpanen to Socis Tieay, lackel, Od, iat La, so, Has, Jot Es), 109, Al Netwr Thy and ater. Bach, ‘nr Man 1B. ars, oar, 200. Tsira pase engapenet. Gasping epsinerts, he toga tum and te neatly fen a of Soc Tony 12 (117-133, etn, bt, 1979 he Sach of Sehnoe Epica! Ines: ats, Utes of Chia Press, Chi Wa karan, 2002. The Sy Mute Unersy Pes, Ota, NC ut, Spi, 200, Natwas tea sil ard act Snag, ke, 2008. Or eal Pata, Oe ed process: a compan of rt Sey 5 6, 7-387 1nd th phenanenoy of san: hi) A Sosy of erste ES on Fre, ann, Ne Yr, 2-57 Cf Osos faba War in Eran Li ‘Pree,