Dear Klaus and Jeremy,
In general, I have been sceptical toward ANT for the reasons that bother Klaus -- the apparent attribution of agency to objects and artifacts. There are other theoretical issues that have bothered me about it as well. I recall reading Latour's description of a kitchen tool in which he seemed to describe the tool not merely as an "actor" but rather using verbs that implied that the "actor" was an "agent."
If this is the case, it raises problems for design process, design thinking, and design theory -- I know that Klaus finds the term "theory" troublesome.
The problem is the problem of responsibility. If designers are responsible for the artifacts we design, who is accountable in ANT for artifacts that take on agency?
If, however, as Jeremy points out, one can use ANT as an agency-free description of relations in a network, perhaps we can use it in some way. I'm not sure, but I like Jeremy's descriptions.
I am sure about one thing. I've known Jeremy's work for a long time -- he is a serious, responsible human being, and I'd find it hard to say that he is hiding behind his viewpoint. Despite the fact that I tend to agree with Klaus ion these issues, I am always ready to list and learn something from a colleague like Jeremy.
That said, I remain sceptical toward Latour, and yet fascinated. Sometimes, it's worth thinking around corners. I am willing to stretch my mind for any responsibly argued position. Jeremy provides a valuable argument that I do not think Latour has offered -- though it may be I have not read Latour closely enough.
My two cents.
Ken
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS
Professor
Dean
Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia
Telephone +61 3 9214 6755
www.swinburne.edu.au/design
|