nodes, or actors, or networks
This is a response to jeremy's comments on actor construction? and a response entry (June 30, 2003) in his blog regarding the relationship of actors and networks as used/presented by the actor-network theory and methodology.
Jeremy: "i replied to this on his blog too, but ultimately my position is to rid oneself of the heirarchy of ontology involved in differentiating actors, and just look at the networks. there really are no actors, because then there is no differences amongst actors, only nodes where networks conjoin.
keeping in mind though that this is just my interpretation of several texts, mainly latour, law, then adding some norbert wiener. most people really want to differentiate between actors, I'm unconvinced that it is as important as kant tells us."
If the nodes are where the networks conjoin, than it might be this that many term an actor. Anyways, what is a network then? The following definition is one of many provided by the American Heritage Dictionary about a network: “An extended group of people with similar interests or concerns who interact and remain in informal contact for mutual assistance or support”. In this definition (and other definitions related to computer systems/networks) two distinct entities are identifiable around the concept of interaction: the channel of communication and the elements that enact these channels.
So, a network by itself is a complex element (or entity) composed of links and the elements that enact these links. Some may call these elements actors, others may call them nodes.
As far as semantics is concerns, we could be talking only of networks (at different levels due to their complexity and their relation to their surroundings) or only of actors (and we will have to differentiate between different actors and their levels). Included in here will be the channels of interactions (or the links) as complex actors or as complex networks.
Nevertheless, it appears that for such mode of explanation a distinction needs to be made between the entities and the process of communication that links those entities.
If nodes are to be taken only as passive entities where the links (or networks) conjoin, without the potentiality to act, it would seems that the nodes are only constructs with acquired properties and attributes resulting from their relative position in the network or networks. This perhaps is so for non-human entities. However, it is more then evident that humans as nodes in a network or networks are not passive even though some of the properties and/or attributes of the human node might be acquired as a result of the position in the relevant network(s). In addition, non-human nodes also contain intrinsic (relatively speaking) properties and attributes that are beyond the constructability of the relative network(s). Through these relative intrinsic properties (acquired from other outside networks) non-human actors (or nodes) are able to affect the ‘constructions’ of network(s).
Related:
defining the ingredients of actor-network and open-content open-communication
- mind-mapping tool ... use of ANT apparent - Aug 17, 2004
- actor-network theory or ANT ? - Apr 25, 2004
- Theories informing my research - Mar 11, 2004
- Tenets of Actor Network Theory - Feb 03, 2004
- Does PowerPoint make us stupid? -- using actor-network theory - Jan 07, 2004
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: nodes, or actors, or networks.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.kmentor.com/mtcgi/mt-tb.cgi/65
why not? why can't non-human and human be considered the same? why do you think that non-human actants, nodes, etc. do not have the same affect within a network as humans? and if you were to ignore that there were humans in the network, could you then differentiate them from the nonhumans? how? why?
I think that theoretically, what you find will be what you put in. if you demand the power of humanity from the network, it will require that difference, else, it won't. there are unlimited ecological systems and complex systems that can be described as networks where considering some part human may not make any difference at all, now, if that is the case, and you may dispute it, then it seems to me that we have to reconsider this special case of actors, nodes, actants, called humans.
in short, if you want humans, you'll find them, but if you stop looking for them, you need not, you can abstract to the network and find other just as insteresting possibilities for analysis. but hey, that's just me:)
and you might want to check the www.m-w.com defintion. i'm not fond of essentialism, so resist definitions in many arenas, but i find the one above to be somewhat idiosyncratic in use.
aqnyway, i'll rejoin on my blog tomorrow:) its a good convo.
Jeremy, I do agree that humans and non-humans can be treated alike and this is one of the points presented by the actor-network theory. The differentiation I was trying to make above was to note that even though the human and non-human actors can be treated alike, there is a bit difference in their intrinsic and acquired properties and attributes.
no, there is not any necessary difference unless you construct it as such. that is my point. you are coming at it from an essentialist position, if you eschew that position and rid yourself of the necessity of identification of properties and attributes and look for flux and change, which is evident in the networks, you will find something else.
I guess in the end what I am saying here is that there are several strains of actor-network. the one that i think is most interesting, is the one that follows from the continental school of thought, instead of the one that is read through the anglo american empiricism. because of that i am not looking for the qualities of the nodes, just really the networks, and what flows along them. the two books that i use to ground this is the new delanda book, intensive science, and virtual philosophy, and the last few chaptes of the new Genosko book, Felix Guattari: an abberant introduction. one other author that i think is important here, especially for this latourian position is Isabelle Stengers. Those give a slightly different appreciation perhaps of what we can look for and how we go about it.
In terms of identification of properties and attributes (for the actors, the links, and the network) it would be very irrational to claim that they are static. Indeed, all the elements of the network(s) are constantly in flux and inform and instigate changes into each other.
In terms of methodology and explanatory language, if we consider that the actors do not posses any intrinsic properties and/or attributes, then we can indeed get rid of the actors, because as such, the nodes(or actors) would be determinable via the properties and attributes of the relevant links(or networks) at their colliding points (temporal and spatial).
Anyhow, it appears that the actors (human and non-human) do posses intrinsic properties and attributes and would be disadvantageous to avoid them. Needless to say, what could be considered an intrinsic attribute or a property in one network topology might not pass as such in another for the same actor. Attributes and properties should be described and analyzed relative to their context.
Anyhow, it appears that the actors (human and non-human) do posses intrinsic properties and attributes and would be disadvantageous to avoid them.
not necessarilly, the assumptions about those properties and attributes can easily disguise the way the network operates. it depends on what you are looking for, if you are looking for humans attributes, fine. if you are looking for the way the network operates, you may find that making assumptions about the nodes, or constructing the nodes as having human or non-human attributes limits the possibilities of analysis. In short, you end up building into the theory, precisely what the theory is meant to allow you to move away from. Is that a good thing? it depends on what you are trying to do, but the stronger emphasis you put on the humanity of the actor, the closer you are getting to social network analysis, and you are dealing less with actor-network theory.
The references I've made about the attributes and the properties regarding the actors are NOT in reference to whether the actor is humane or non-humane (i.e. not in reference to actor's humanity). I was simply trying to explain that the actors (who can be human and non-human) can be analyzed together by their attributes and properties (which are always in flux, some more than others).
What I mean by non-human actors is: structures (social or otherwise), organizations, teams, policies, policy makers, information technology artifacts, knowledge artifacts, reports, governments, states, etc.
My opinion is that human actors (employees, team members, politicians, friends, postman, etc.) posses intrinsic and also acquired properties relative to the network of analysis. For examples, when computer software (a specific application package) is appropriated by an organization for a certain task, it probably is appropriated because it provides functionality and a feature set needed to help in the task in question. Thus, it comes with some predefined functionality. Then, the team will probably make changes and additions to it to make it better fit for the environment in use. So, unless the software is totally modified (whatever it might mean), after the changes and modifications it is a combination of the original functionality and the added/interjected one through the changes/modification. Yet, relatively speaking, some of the original functionality might not be modifiable.