Dear Francesco,
Thanks for a truly illuminating post. By and large, I agree with these lucid distinctions.
Allow me to make one note: not all Americans treat this material as part of post-modern literary theory. It depends on whose work you are discussing, and it depends on the uses to which it is put.
Don’s comment was not that this is a postmodern literary theorist, but rather than he finds much of the work “written in such a post-post modernistic language , that I not only cannot grasp it, I have trouble finishing the paragraph. Any paragraph.”
Algirdas Greimas was a semiotician. Some of his work does have impact in literary theory as well as other fields in which semiotics can be useful.
In explaining why I do not use the word “actant,” I used a definition of the term actant from the OED. It is based in part on the usage in Greimas’s work, and the first usage examplar comes from a 1968 article in the journal Yale French Studies.
These are minor points. I offer them to say that I agree with you while making clear that many of us are aware that the term actant is used in several fields. The first definition in the OED is based on the grammatical issues you describe. I’ll add that Don wasn’t confusing the ANT literature with post-modern literary theory. He was critiquing the post-postmodern way in which much of it is written.
Yours,
Ken
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Elsevier in Cooperation with Tongji University Press | Launching in 2015
Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne University of Technology
—
Reference
Greimas, A. J., and François Rastier. 1968. “The Interaction of Semiotic Constraints.” Yale French Studies, No. 41, Game, Play, Literature (1968), pp. 86-105
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2929667
Accessed: 2014 October 2
--
Francesco Galofaro wrote:
—snip--
It is really an interesting discussion. Don wrote that the term "actant" is different from the term "agent", but Latour is confused on the subject due to his post-modernistic language. Nevertheless, I'd like to explain why the concept of agent can't be confused with the one of actant.
The concept of actant is related to syntax. Lucien Tesnière developed it in the '30. Unfortunately, his seminal book Éléments de syntaxe structurale, has been published only after his death, two years after Chomsky's Syntactic Structures. Basically, Tesnière discovered that every verb is distinguished by a valency: a number, which range is 0-3, which connotes its actants. In every language, the involved actants are always the same:
0 - impersonal verbs (it rains)
1 - subject (I walk).
2 - object (She hits me)
3 - indirect object (Adam gave me a pen).
As you can see, only the first actant can be considered an "agent" - not to speak of the passive diathesis.
Now, a verb denotes an action (doing) or a state (being). This way, working on actantial syntax means to work on a theory of the action. This is how Greimas developed Tesnière's actantial syntax, in the opinion of Umberto Eco.
According to Greimas and Courtès (Semiotics and Language: An Analytical Dictionary: a really useful book) there are basically six different actants involved in an action:
sender/receiver;
object/subject;
helper/opponent;
The object carries one or more semantic values, and actantial syntax describes how this valuable object circulates, becoming conjoint to/disjoint from the involved subjects. Again, it is difficult to identify the "agent" with a precise actant; one should always specify if the considered "agent" is the sender, who transfers the object to the receiver; is the subject, which become conjoint to the value carried by the object; is the helper, which incarnates the ability of the subject to perform an action … Actantial syntax is this: a net of relationships and function, far different from the net of real people involved in the process: one can use the first to describe the second, explaining the function that the different individual or collective actors play in the action. In the light of Semiotic theory, the concept of "agent" is vague and confused and can be analyzed with precision, in each different context.
It is a good question whether these categories are just relevant to describe literature or not. It is funny how you Americans consider this theory as part of post-modernist literary criticism. Here, in Europe, it is just Semiotics. It is a theory of meaning, and there's nothing strange to use it to analyze the interaction between real people and between people and technical artifacts or other "things", if we find that this relation is meaningful. Let's see an example of how all this can be interesting in relation to Design.
I use the world "thing" and "technical artifact" because I want to avoid confusions with the Actant - Object, which is, as I said, a syntactic function. From the point of view of the theory, the Actant - Object can be a "person" (Adam, Sarah). The same way, a "technical artifact" can be the Actant - helper (Let's think to a tool), or the Actant - Sender. How technical artifact play the role of the actant-sender is Michela Deni's research theme ("Oggetti in azione", Franco Angeli, Milano, 2003): she uses semiotics to analyze and describe the way in which each technical artifact transfers us some values in terms of abilities or knowledge; or, it forbids us some possibilities; or, it sanction the result of our work with a feedback. This way it is possible to analyze and describe precisely the unique "factitiveness" of each artifact, how it determines our subjectivity as it is realized in our actions (to do) and states (to be), how it programs our actions, our spaces, our time. The richness of semiotic categories allow to write analyses in a shared technical language, to avoid vagueness and let the researcher work without having to trust only her/his fertile intuitions.
Obviously, there are many philosophical implications as it concerns our relationship with "things", which I'm not supposed to develop here; nevertheless, in my opinion, all this is not just a futile complication, and my students in Design & Engineering at the Politecnico of Milano usually find useful to think their work in these terms.
—snip—
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|