Actor-network theory: innovative aspects of sociological methodology

In recent years, a discussion about the dissatisfaction of scientists with the current state of sociology has intensified in the world sociological community. In this situation, various ways of raising the scientific level of sociology as a whole are proposed. One of them was proposed by B. Latour in the framework of the actor-network theory (ANT), the theoretical concepts of which were further developed in the works of his like-minded colleages. Representatives of the Russian sociology are actively involved in a versatile study of the contribution made by the ANT to the development of sociology. The article studies the basic provisions of the actor-network theory concerning the subject specifics of sociological knowledge, the fundamental difference between the definition of understanding the subject of ANT sociology and the definitions given by traditional sociological trends and paradigms, as well as the consequences of this innovative understanding for the formation of methodological principles for studying social reality. The authors also dwell on the consideration of the most fundamental and controversial methodological innovation of ANT - the “turn to things” and the introduction of the concept of heterogeneity of agents into the understanding of social processes.

Particular attention in the article is paid to the analysis of the meaning of the term “actant”, innovative for sociology, borrowed by the ANT from the semiotic theory of narrative and incorporated into sociology and ontology of the network of associations of heterogeneous actants. Concerning the disagreements between the actor-network theory and the sociological mainstream of our time, the authors dwell on the criticism by ANT theorists of the sociological "metaphysics of social forces", understood as a way of theoretical legitimation of social inequality. The purpose of the article is to clarify the unity and interconnection of the key innovative positions of ANT in sociological methodology, and through this, to substantiate the significance and heuristic potential of the innovations proposed by the actor-network theory for raising the scientific level of sociology in the study of social reality. As a result, the authors demonstrate the methodological turn of ANT, that makes possible overcoming the gap between sociological theory and social and political practice, thus opening the way for building a new attitude of sociology to reality, returning it to solving not only scientific, but also social and practical problems.

actor-network theory (ANT), social, sociology of associations, network interactions, actor, actant, heterogeneity, non-human actors, figuration

1. Bronzino L. Yu. Yeshcho raz ob aktorno-setevoy teorii ili trudnosti perevoda [Once again about the actor-network theory, or Lost in Translation]. Ed. by S. Gavrilenko. A review on the book: Latour B. Reassembling the Social – An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Transl. from Eng. by I. Polonskaya. Moscow, ID NIU VSHE, 2014. 382 p. Sotsiologicheskii zhurnal, 2014: 4: 170–175 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.19181/socjour.2014.20.4.246
2. Vakhstein V. S. Vozvrashchenie material'nogo. "Prostranstva", "seti", "potoki" v aktorno-setevoy teorii [The return of the material. "Spaces", "networks", "streams" in the actor-network theory]. Sotsiologicheskoye obozrenie, 2005: 4: 1: 94–115 (in Russ.).
3. Latour B. Nadezhdy konstruktivizma [Promises of Constructivism]. Transl. from Eng. by O. Stolyarova. Sotsiologiya veshchei. Ed. by V. S. Vakhstein. Moscow, Territoriya budushchego, 2006: 365–389 (in Russ.).
4. Latour B. Novogo vremeni ne bylo. Esse po simmetrichnoy antropologii [We Have Never Been Modern. Essays in Symmetrical Anthropology]. Transl. from French by D. Ya. Kalugin. Ed. by O. V. Kharkhordin. St. Petersburg, EU v SPb., 2006 (in Russ.).
5. Latour B. Peresborka sotsial'nogo: vvedenie v aktorno-setevuyu teoriyu [Reassembling the Social – An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory]. Transl. from Eng. by I. Polonskaya. Ed. by S. Gavrilenko. Moscow, ID NIU VSHE, 2014 (in Russ.).
6. Law J. Ob''ekty i prostranstva [Objects and Spaces]. Sotsiologicheskoye obozrenie, 2006: 5: 1: 30–43 (in Russ.).
7. Law J. Posle metoda: besporyadok i sotsial'naya nauka [After Method: Mess in Social Science Research]. Transl. from Eng. by S. Gavrilenko, A. Pisarev, and P. Khanova. Ed. by S. Gavrilenko. Moscow, Institut Gaidara, 2015 (in Russ.).
8. Logos. Filosofsko-literaturniy zhurnal, 2017: 1. Accessed 19.12.2021. URL: https://logosjournal.ru/archive/2017/386973/ (in Russ.).
9. Nikiforov Y. A. Crisis of Sociological Theory: Is There a Way out? Izvestiya Saratovskogo universiteta. Novaya seriya. Seriya: Sotsiologiya. Politologiya, 2016: 16: 4: 406–408 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.18500/1818-9601-2016-16-4-406-408
10. Pisarev A., Astakhov S., Gavrilenko S. Actor-network theory: unfinished assembly. Filosofsko-literaturniy zhurnal "Logos", 2017: 27: 1: 116: 1–40 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.22394/0869-5377-2017-1-1-34
11. Polonskaya I. N. Al'ternativnaya sotsiologiya B. Latour(a): k kharakteristike metodologii [Alternative sociology of B. Latour: to the characteristics of the methodology]. Teoriya i praktika obshchestvennogo razvitiya, 2012: 6: 72–75 (in Russ.).
12. Rozin V. M. Methodological Conditions of Human Ontology. Filosofskie nauki, 2015: 3: 130–133 (in Russ.).
13. Rozin V. M. Social action and knowledge in conditions of complexity and partial uncertainty. Voprosy filosofii, 2019: 10: 46–54 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.31857/S004287440007161-2
14. Rozin V. M. The main ideas for constructing a methodological concept of sociality. Epistemologiya and filosofiya nauki, 2020: 57: 1: 96–109 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.5840/eps20205719
15. Romanovsky N. V. Crisis discourse (in) modern sociology. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, 2016: 4: 3–12 (in Russ.).
16. Smirnov P. I. Is the Revival and Renewal of Positivism Possible in Theoretical Sociology? Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, 2017: 3: 14–23 (in Russ.).
17. Baiocchi G., Graizbord D. and Rodríguez-Muñiz M. Actor-Network Theory and the ethnographic imagination: An exercise in translation. Qualitative Sociology, 2013: 36: 4: 323–341. DOI: 10.1007/s11133-013-9261-9
18. Blake T. On the existence of Bruno Latour's modes: from pluralist ontology to ontological pluralism. 2014. Accessed 19.12.2021. URL: https://www.academia.edu/7453695/0N
19. Bueger Ch. and Stockbruegger J. Actor-Network Theory: Objects and Actants, Networks and Narratives. In McCarthy, D. R. (ed.) Technology and World Politics: An Introduction. Abingdon, Routledge, 2016: 42–59.
20. Callon M. The Sociology of an Actor-Network: The Case of the Electric Vehicle. In Callon M., Law J., Rip A. (ed.) Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology. London, Palgrave Macmillan, 1986. DOI: h10.1007/978-1-349-07408-2_2
21. Callon M. Actor Network Theory. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier Science Ltd., 2001: 62–66.
22. Collins H. and Yearley S. Epistemological Chicken. In Pickering A. (ed.) Science as Practice and Culture. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1992: 301–326.
23. Dwiartama А. and Rosin C. Exploring agency beyond humans: the compatibility of Actor-Network Theory (ANT) and resilience thinking. Ecology and Society, 2014: 19: 3: 28. Accessed 23.12.2021. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272158075_Exploring_agency_beyond_humans_The_compatibility_of_Actor-Network_Theory_ANT_and_resilience_thinking
24. Jensen C. B. Is actant-rhizome ontology a more appropriate term for ANT? The Routledge Companion to Actor-Network Theory, Routledge, 2019: 14.
25. Krarup T. and Blok A. Unfolding the Social: Quasi-Actants, Virtual Theory, and the New Empiricism of Bruno Latour. The Sociological Review, 2011: 59: 1: 42–63. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.2010.01991.x
26. Kwa C. Romantic and baroque conceptions of complex wholes in the sciences. In Law J., Mol A., Smith B. and Weintraub E. (ed.) Complexities: Social Studies of Knowledge Practices. New York, Duke University Press, 2002: 23–53. DOI: 10.1515/9780822383550-002
27. Law J. Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, Strategy, and Heterogeneity. Systems. Practice, 1992: 5: 4: 379–393. DOI: 10.1007/BF01059830
28. Lezaun J. Actor-Network Theory. In Benzecry C., Krause M., Reed I. (ed.) Social Theory Now. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2017: 305–337.
29. Mifsud D. Actor-Network Theory (ANT): An Assemblage of Perceptions, Understandings, and Critiques of this 'Sensibility' and how its Relatively Under-Utilized Conceptual Framework in Education Studies can aid Researchers in the Exploration of Networks and Power Relations. International Journal of Actor-Network Theory and Technological Innovation, 2014: 6: 1: 1–16. DOI: 10.4018/ijantti.2014010101
30. Murdoch J. The spaces of actor-network theory. Geoforum, 1998: 29: 4: 357–374.
31. Nimmo R. Actor-network theory and methodology: Social research in a more-than-human world. Methodological Innovations Online, 2011: 6: 3: 108–119. DOI: 10.4256/MIO.2011.010
32. Toledo R. D. Latour as Philosopher: On the Advantages and Disadvantages of Critique for Innovative Science and Sociology. PhD dissertation. Stony Brook University, 2013.