To all

Actor-Network Theory, said Bruno Latour, has four things wrong with it: the words "actor" / "network" / "theory" AND the hyphen.
Latour also confuses his PhD students by stating categorically that ANT cannot be made apllicable to anything, but that does not make it useless, and neither does it invalidate regarding objects as actors that "design us" as much as we design them.
ANT emphasises objects as "non-human" actors who are as-if actors = they seem to act, simply because WE allow them this facility, we endow objects with powers they do not have in 'fact' (I hesitate to use the term 'reality' here).
ANT is a (another) way of looking at the world to make sense of its complexity.

But all this does not matter to 'normal' people, who treat their objects AS IF ... which is why Latour, Callon and Law came up with a theory to explain the weird things people get up to when designed objects (including whole systems, and events) are part of their relationship(s) with the world 'out there' (a socially constructed one!).

Scientific logic has nothing to do with design nor the way people think - in that sense a computer can "act" just like a person, because in the absence of a real person (like the ***** who thought Windows Vista into existence) we need to interact with objects AS IF ... this does not make us schizo, but can be interpreted by another person in the spirit with which we are communicating XYZ, in my case utter frustration when this Vista actor gets in my way, yet again. Just this morning it threw my printer driver away, again. Consistently it tries to close down my internet connection, and I yell at this intrusive presence ... something interaction designers need to keep in mind, because the users will react this way, and not objectively say to themselves, oh, its just a piece of hardware/software that's wonky this morning. Instead they will blame this non-human actor, as a representative of the real humans / company who designed it, and brand loyalty will be lost.

This is not practicing animism, on the contrary, it is and has always been how we humans deal with all other-self organisms, and this extends to objects we cherish and look after. In this newly acknowledged networked society with ubiquitous computing it becomes really important to 'place' human actors correctly, with relation to their complex interactions with all forms of technology.

Jurgen, you may like to read Heidegger on this issue.

Ken, Gadamer had one very useful insight that can make a difference here: he said "education uses us" - as if it could be regarded as a non-human actor. Technology "uses us" in this same spirit, keeping in mind that we can 'see' the individuals behind the designs, and provided that co-design by users is allowed and made provision for from the beginning.

Regards
Johann


Johann van der Merwe
HOD: Research, History & Theory of Design
Faculty of Informatics and Design
Cape Peninsula University of Technology
South Africa
>>> Klaus Krippendorff <[log in to unmask]> 04/22/09 6:16 AM >>>
jeremy,

your computer doesn't act.  someone programmed it and you initiated its
computing something.  computers run their programmed cause, nothing else.

a gun doesn't kill, but a human actor can use a gun for that purpose.  this
is why courts do not prosecute guns but criminals.

we hold actors accountable for what they do by asking them, not their
technological means, to justify their actions. the artifacts we design may
enable or constrain (afford or fail to afford) the actions by actors.

followers of ANT fail to distinguish the actions by responsible human actors
or agents and where physical causality leads to.

i invite you not to practice animism (attributing agency to physical objects
or describing them as actors).  this practice was common millennia ago.  we
have advanced our conceptions of human actors or agents and technology
since.

klaus



-----Original Message-----
From: jeremy hunsinger [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 7:16 PM
To: Klaus Krippendorff
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: actor-networks Re: Discourse on object level

yep that is why we don't talk about agents, just actors, lots of things act.
my computer is acting right now.... not this email, but  
about 20000 other things.  things do act...   you can think about  
agency all you want, actor network only needs action.
On Apr 21, 2009, at 6:18 PM, Klaus Krippendorff wrote:

> Jeremy,
>
> ascribing agency to objects is called animism. For example, your 
> saying that actor-network-theory "doesn't get rid of ...".  it is 
> theorists who try to do things with the help of ant.  You can talk to 
> people but talking to ant does not produce an answer precisely because 
> it isn't an actor.
>
> Stakeholder networks share with ant the network conception and  
> latour's idea of flat formations but that is about all.   
> Stakeholders live from possibilities, not constraints
>
> klaus
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jeremy hunsinger [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 4:33 PM
> To: Klaus Krippendorff
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: actor-networks Re: Discourse on object level
>
> I think Projecting isn't the word one would use except to be slightly
> perjorative.   We all know that various people view actor network
> theory in all kinds of ways, if it isn't an epistemological problem, 
> it is an ontological problem.  In the end, neither really matters 
> because unless you really screw up and don't represent actor-network 
> theory or misrepresent your data in some way... your description using 
> actor network theory, if you use it, is just as publishable and thus 
> valid as anyone else's.  Granted some feel very strongly against 
> agency in objects, others feel very strongly against the way agency is 
> ascribed to objects... That's all fine and good, but it still within 
> its own framework describes reality.  Is it a good way, are there 
> better ways, that is a question of debate and the debate is based on 
> opinions and standpoints, which is really great if you are an actor-
> network type of person.   From my perspective actor-network theory
> doesn't get rid of any knowledge-able, intelligent, and interested 
> people, all it does is say that they are one form of actor... in a 
> network that has many forms of actors, now you can deny that 
> constraining someone is not an action if you want, but it certain 
> seems like an action.  I think the 'agency' issue is quite a different 
> matter in the end, it's a 2500 year old problem that plato came up 
> with and no one has resolved.  All actor network wants to talk about 
> is 'what acts'  and how that action is connected to others.  the 
> agency problem isn't present because it isn't there, it is a phantom 
> issue that has been turned into an actor and seeks to constrain 
> people.
>
> my short opinion is... use what you like and fine useful and let the 
> reviewing committee worry about the philosophy of social science if 
> they want to.
>
> On Apr 21, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
>
>> Dear jurgen and others,
>>
>> I too was uncertain about what you meant by discourse on the object 
>> level.  Design discourse, to my way of thinking is fundamentally 
>> concerned with, let me not say objects but artifacts.  For example 
>> the whole domain of an ecology of artifacts explains how humans 
>> install, replace, bring in contact and interact with artifacts, 
>> creating a huge technological system, held together by the human use 
>> of language. Well you read the semantic turn and I thank you for the 
>> review of the book.
>>
>> I would like to add a word in favor of stakeholder networks and 
>> against actor network theory. In my opinion, the latter makes the 
>> epistemological mistake of projecting agency to objects, as if in 
>> Bruno latour's example a speed bump would be like a policeman waving 
>> down the speed of the traffic.  The speed bump amounts to a 
>> constraint, designed of course to save a policeman standing on the 
>> side of the road.  Knowing what it could do to your car is 
>> fundamentally different from knowing that a policeman could give you 
>> a ticket for speeding and the legal implications of that ticket.
>> Latour wants to assign agency to objects.  But you can't argue with 
>> objects and equating the constraints that are built into objects with 
>> the behavior of people -- policeman, users, producers -- gets rid of 
>> knowledgeable, intelligent, and interested people.  This is why I 
>> talk about stakeholder networks within which artifacts come to 
>> fruition -- not by force, but by participation.  Stakeholders have a 
>> stake in the realization or completion of a design --  ultimately 
>> being discursively engaged with (objects) artifacts.
>>
>> klaus
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and 
>> related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On 
>> Behalf Of Jurgen Faust
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 1:22 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Discourse on object level
>>
>> Hi Jeremy,
>>
>> interesting position and thanks for the hint regarding actor network 
>> theory.
>> I also agree with you that designers don't do anything different then 
>> others, but many are involved in designing, therefore they don't do 
>> anything different to objects. But your thoughts are very helpful 
>> within my research!
>>
>> Thanks,...
>>
>> Jurgen
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:15:16 -0400, jeremy hunsinger <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'd probably frame it slightly differently but yes.  I'd frame it 
>>> that objects participate in discourse, which I hold, which is also a
>>> fundamental assumption of actor-network theory.   As such everyone,
>>> and all objects within a culture, participate in various discourses.
>>> As to the objectified level, that would depend on the culture, but 
>>> it seems pretty true in capitalist cultures, which reify all 
>>> processes into objects in some way or another.  So the idea from my 
>>> position is less that designers do anything necessarily different to 
>>> objects in terms of discourse, engineers, artists, social 
>>> scientists, indeed i'd say all modern persons use 'objects' to 
>>> 'verify, change, or transform existing solutions into better ones', 
>>> indeed many animals other than humans do the same sort of thing.
>>> On Apr 21, 2009, at 1:17 AM, Jurgen Faust wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> I would like to know whether there is anybody who would support a 
>>>> statement that designers also maintain discourses on an object 
>>>> level? That means that designers generate objects; solutions to 
>>>> verify, change or transform existing solutions in better once?
>>>> I am currently exploring the idea that textual matters in design 
>>>> comprehend also design solutions as objects. I am using the current 
>>>> transformation of the existing i-phone we see, when we look at all 
>>>> the proposed changes in competitive products.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jurgen Faust
>>>>
>>>> Prof. DIGITAL MEDIA
>>>> MHMK MUENCHEN
>