Kjetil et al,
I didn't mean to suggest that I don't believe in non-human agents. I
just meant to say that I prefer to think of a 'context' or 'situation'
as a passive but dynamic environment in which active entities (what I
call agents) interact with each other and with other passive entities.
I don't like models that allow a thing to participate in itself directly
because it leads to logical paradoxes, which I prefer to avoid.
Your mileage may vary.
Cheers.
Fil
Kjetil Fallan wrote:
>> Carl wrote:
>
> "Of course, we could also (productively) entertain the notion that
> nonhuman elements of a given context also either possess or exhibit
> agency thus, should be considered as active."
>
> Fil wrote:
> "I cannot think of a "real-life situation" that I would think of as a
> participant in the situation itself. "
>
> Please excuse me if this should be old news to the list, but since
> no-one else has made mention of it hitherto in this thread, I thought
> I'd offer a non-designer point of view:
> Nonhuman agency has been discussed in the field of Science, Technology
> and Society studies (STS) since the late 1980s. The seminal text in this
> respect is
> Bruno Latour (under the pseudonym Jim Johnson), Mixing Humans and
> Nonhumans Together: The Sociology of a Door-Closerin /Social Problems/
> Vol. 35, No. 3, June 1988, p 298-310
>
> Latour here demonstrates how nonhuman entities become actants through
> their design: certain tasks have been delegated to them, and performing
> these tasks (or not performing them, or performing them badly) make the
> nonhumans actants inhabit the given actor network on a par with human
> actants. To stick with Latour's case: this line of thought is what makes
> the sign put up on a door, informing about a dysfunctional door-closer,
> far more appropriate than the author (of the sign, not the article)
> might have intended:
> "THE GROOM IS ON STRIKE!"
>
> Thinking of nonhumans as actants on a par with human actants poses
> challenges to many forms of design studies, but I find it a fresh and
> rewarding perspective to keep in mind when analyzing design processes,
> products and their meanings in the writing of a cultural history of
> design. Historians tend to get seduced by the agency of ("great") human
> actors, loosing sight of the other inhabitants of the actor network.
> This is where Latour's insistence on the agency of nonhumans can
> function as a corrective.
>
> Regards
>
> *Kjetil Fallan
> *Research Fellow & Doctoral Candidate
>
> Dept. of Architectural Design, Form and Colour Studies
> Faculty of Architecture and Fine Art
> Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)
>
> N-7491 Trondheim, Norway
>
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> +47 73595023 (office)
> +47 90937874 (mobile)
>
--
Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University Tel: 416/979-5000 x7749
350 Victoria St. Fax: 416/979-5265
Toronto, ON email: [log in to unmask]
M5B 2K3 Canada http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|