it does act actually, so do bacteria, so do buildings.  for purposes
of analysis that's what actor network needs, you can posit whatever
else you need to make you feel happy about the world.  However, all we
need for analysis is action in relation to other things in the actor-
network model.   we don't need agency, we don't talk about agency, we
don't worry about agency.   other social theories can do that... they
can flail about with agency, but that is just their theory of the
world, it is a fine theory, but it isn't one we need for analytical
purposes.  we only need action, and if we stick to action, we have to
label actions in relation to other actors.  similarly 'responsible
human actors'  actor network wants to talk not about who is
responsible, but what did what.  assigning responsibility is perfectly
acceptable action and actor-network can analyze who is responsible by
seeing who assigns it to whom.  it does not though ever say that x is
responsible because it does assign qualities beyond action and
relation (and action is a relation).   actor-network  theory isn't
about holding people accountable, that may be your goal in life, but
the theory is precisely organized to not do that.  it is structured to
describe the situation as richly as one can without privileging any
particular actor.

i'd invite you to give up worrying about the concept of agency.  it is
moot and not necessarily part of the world.   it is part of one set of
social theory, but not necessary for social analysis as there are
other epistemologies and ontologies that can be used.


On Apr 22, 2009, at 12:16 AM, Klaus Krippendorff wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>