Dear Klaus,
Thanks for this elegant account of a serious problem with actor-
network theory.
As a metaphor, I enjoy ANT because it can open up and reveal some
of the dimensions of a network. ANT becomes a problem when people
attribute agency to artifacts. On a metaphoric level, treating artifacts
as actors in a network allows us to conceptualize systems in an
imaginative and sometimes useful way. Problems arise when people
are so carried away by the poetic drama of the metaphor that they
begin to treat all Latourian actors as equal in an ethical sense.
To engage in an appropriately rich account of the world in which
designers work, stakeholder network offer a better model.
Warm wishes,
Ken
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
--snip--
this is also why i am now opposing the actor network theory of
bruno latour, who forces humans and machines alike into cause
and effect mechanisms, discounting human emotions, language,
and accountability for their actions.
well before "ANT", we generalized THE user to stakeholder
networks, allowing different kinds of interest, resources, and
communicative abilities, and particularly supporting as well as
opposing a design. it makes for a richer account of the world in
which designers operate.
the chessman with feelings, ability to cooperate or not minus the
player who moves them is a good analogy of that.
--snip--
|