Dear Colleagues,
In the realm of metaphoric approaches to social reality, a precise definition is not possible. Further more, it might be misleading and counter productive.
Metaphors helps us understand something in a easier way. The metaphor has its limits of representation and guidance. Beyond these limits, it is misleading and wrong. If we take a concept from a metaphoric intellectual structure and try to pinpoint it, we might destroy it. And we might mislead people.
Metaphoric approaches are used most often in the soft disciplines, in the humanities. There, by tradition, things are fluid, nebulous, and fluctuating. The moment we try to define them "accurately," we get in a number of conundrums. The reason is that the metaphor works regarding only one aspect of the phenomenon we study. What about the other aspects? The metaphor most probably would not work there, even will be misleading, and will be easily discreditable. Yes, the opponents can easily discredit.
The current discussion is a good example. The idea to treat artifacts as actants works well in particular discourses, for particular purposes. This idea emphasizes very strongly the effects of the artifacts on the larger whole/network/system, etc. Instead of the concept of actant we can use a different intellectual systems that work with causes, effects, side effects, influences, or whatever. At the one extreme, when we talk about causes, we are definitely in the realm of positivist thinking. The more we move towards the soft end and talk about influences and less engaging outcome concepts, the more we move towards the soft paradigms. We might even enter the realm of presumably post-modernist thinking, if we know how to think that way.
Some problems with terms and concepts emerge because people take these concepts and terms from one intellectual environment/paradigm and then they want to appropriate them and use them in a very different intellectual environment. There is no way to do that. People who translate and operate in several different languages, might have noticed that. And in particular, when people translate not only from different language, but also from different paradigms. Try to translate the historical materialist concept of Consciousness (soznanie) in English. The closest equivalent is Mind. Yes, but... they only partially overlap. If we translate that way, we will get in a number of conundrums. We will be criticized by both sides for inaccuracies. Further more, if we try to develop these ideas or use them in particular settings, we will get into a lot of controversies, inaccuracies, and simply stated, meaningless ideas. This is one of the reasons that different paradigms do not communicate with each other.
I believe that it is good to understand the concept of actant. However, methodologically speaking, we need a different approach to understanding it, explaining it, and defining its boundaries of applicability. By discussing if a cell phone has agency, we are simply going in the wrong direction. If you wish to ascribe agency to the cell phone, you need to leave your way of thinking, get into ANT thinking, and continue reasoning that way. This is the way. Anything else is an artificial and misleading exercise.
Best wishes to you all,
Lubomir
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|