Talk:Actor-network theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Comment 1: agency is not well defined either in this article or the separate article.
Comment 2: regarding the following sentence at the end of the intro: "Broadly speaking, it is a constructivist approach in that it avoids essentialist explanations of events or innovations (for example, explaining a successful theory by saying it is 'true' and the others are 'false')."
Does that mean ANT does not think that theories that are true are more more likely to be successful?
[user:RedHouse18]
The following sentence should be struck: "A successful actor network is achieved when innovators succeed in building a network that is capable of resisting external attack from human as well as non-human actors."
The above statement is erroneous. There is NO EXTERNALITY!! Rather, an actor network is always contested by other actants. An actor-network only transforms and mutates from within. As soon as an 'externality' engages with the network, it becomes part of it, an ally (alliances are formed in very complexly nuanced ways, even when actants don't appear to be cooperative). The struggle is over the appearance of turning the 'in potentia' power of the network towards an individual actor's stated goals. This is done through translation, which is the root of ANT's historical development.
[edit] To do
- Add references to text Bryan 12:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The following sentence (and not only that) should be deleted: "Like other perspectives in social science, ANT draws on a range of different philosophical resources, some of which are relatively esoteric." It reveals a tendency which is leaving scientifical ground and documentation.
Is this characterization accurate? - Jmchen 00:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
