DOCSLIB.ORG

We Have Never Been Modern Pdf Free Download

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
We Have Never Been Modern Pdf Free Download WE HAVE NEVER BEEN MODERN PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Bruno Latour | 168 pages | 04 May 2011 | HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS | 9780674948396 | English | Cambridge, Mass, United States We Have Never Been Modern PDF Book What difference does the scientific method make? Home About Publications Archive Index. We often encounter attempts to gauge the strength of faiths and denominations Act the Man and Build. The domains interact with one another, but they cannot, ought not, be confused. Skip to search form Skip to main content You are currently offline. View 4 excerpts, cites background. We have to keep up appearances, because being modern simply is the pretense that We are not Them. This forms the basis for Harman's Object Oriented Ontology. Church and ministry leadership resources to better equip, train and provide ideas for today's church and ministry leaders, like you. On March 24, I submitted the final copyedits for my new book …. Childish primitives that they were and are , pre-moderns muck everything up. With the rise of science, we moderns believe, the world changed irrevocably, separating us forever from our primitive, premodern ancestors. For moderns, the purification process is overt, while hybrids are denied even though modernity proliferates them. The imbroglios and networks that had no place now have the whole place to themselves. Inauguration and Vocation. Paradox 2: Nature is immanent, we construct it in a lab; society is not out construction, it is bio-fact that transcends us. Latour's book is largely a rumination on the phenomenon of modernity and how to create for ourselves a nonmodern world by ending the divide between social life and natural life. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be merged , redirected , or deleted. M odernity both purifies and hybridizes. Latour, Musil, and the Discourse of Nonmodernity. The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for books. Black lives matter. While his early work such as Laboratory Life has been associated with social constructionist stances, his later diverge to a more symbiotic understanding between science and the social. Save to Library. Nor is Latour anti-modern, a stance he sees as a variation within the modern Constitution accepting, as it does, modern chronopolitical assumptions, wishing only to reverse the process. Next Article. The road that we are traveling is a one way road that is forever leading us forward and forever separating us from our so- called primitive ancestors. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. One, Two, or Three Cultures? View our privacy policy here. African Traditional Thought and Western Science. Bruno Latour. Transactional Politics. It is the sorting that makes the times, not the times that make the sorting [intensely Foucaltian]. Comments are visible to subscribers only. There has never been such a tide. Nothing short of a reworking of our mental landscape. We have never been modern. What does it mean to be modern? More on: Modernity , Secularism , Public Life. Once they are distilled into pure forms, and separated from each other, society and nature can be identified as causal factors, the one of the other. We Have Never Been Modern Writer The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. Latour suggests that we imagine the things of our contemporary period as a arranged around a spiral, rather than a line, in which future and past form cocentric rings and spokes can move us laterally through this temporal image. What does it mean to be modern? His book offers a new explanation of science that finally recognizes the connections between nature and culture—and so, between our culture and others, past and present. View 3 excerpts, references background. With bookstore tours and readings out of the question, Reich came up with an idea to get the word out about his book. Each of the actants possesses a unique signature in the space deployed in this way. Because the proliferation of hybrids saturates the Constitutional framework of the moderns, moderns become victim of their own success and Latour sees the possibility for dropping the idea of the Constitution. What does it mean to be modern? Sign In Don't have an account? Remember me. Without the myth of the Great Divide, modernity would have no foundation. Related posts from Leithart. Hidden categories: Articles with topics of unclear notability from November All articles with topics of unclear notability Book articles with topics of unclear notability Articles containing French-language text All stub articles. With the rise of science, we moderns believe, the world changed irrevocably, separating us forever from our primitive, premodern ancestors. Modern both purifies and hybridizes, but never brings the two together, never admits to doing both, never allows that there is anything going on between the interstices of Nature and Society, which are supposed to encompass all reality. More Filters. Citation Type. Latour wants to insist shades of Milbank here that Nature and Society are not explanations; they are what needs to be explained. In other words it would be more useful to consider ourselves "amodern" or "nonmodern". This wiki All wikis. In other words, the air's spring has a history. View 4 excerpts, cites background. Actor—network theory Blackboxing Graphism thesis Mapping controversies Oligopticon Translation sociology. Get newsletters and updates Close. Leithart PLeithart. Pastors and Church Leaders Resource Center Church and ministry leadership resources to better equip, train and provide ideas for today's church and ministry leaders, like you. Harman cites We Have Never Been Modern as crucial to understanding Latour's conceptualisation of the "postmoderns as moderns a minus sign added" and therefore dismisses accusations of Latour as a postmodernist. There has never been such a tide. We have never been modern. Highly Influenced. Church and ministry leadership resources to better equip, train and provide ideas for today's church and ministry leaders, like you. Cancel Save. Why the pretense? Adrian Warnock. The difference, Latour explains, is in our careful distinctions between nature and society, between human and thing, distinctions that our benighted ancestors, in their world of alchemy, astrology, and phrenology, never made. We Have Never Been Modern study guide contains a biography of Bruno Latour, literature essays, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full summary and analysis. Subscribe to E- News. But alongside this purifying practice that defines modernity, there exists another seemingly contrary one: the construction of systems that mix politics, science, technology, and nature. Once they are distilled into pure forms, and separated from each other, society and nature can be identified as causal factors, the one of the other. Results Citations. Basically, Latour uses Plato's arguments around perception to disprove the cultural assumptions that the enlightened, scientific cultures of the west tend to make. Science in Action. This article about an anthropology -related book is a stub. We Have Never Been Modern Reviews Latour suggests that we imagine the things of our contemporary period as a arranged around a spiral, rather than a line, in which future and past form cocentric rings and spokes can move us laterally through this temporal image. Modernities, Sciences, and Democracy. Also, send me special offers. This division allows the formidable expansion of the Western empires. The constitution, he says, makes moderns invincible. Modern both purifies and hybridizes, but never brings the two together, never admits to doing both, never allows that there is anything going on between the interstices of Nature and Society, which are supposed to encompass all reality. Bruno LaTour was born in the French province of Burgundy, where his family has been making wine for many generations. Research Feed. Thus, "Everything happens in the middle, everything passes between the two, everything happens by way of mediation, translation and networks, but this space does not exist, it has no place. Figures from this paper. However it is often raised without including science and technology in its definition. Latour wants to insist shades of Milbank here that Nature and Society are not explanations; they are what needs to be explained. We have never been modern. Latour wants to insist shades of Milbank here that Nature and Society are not explanations; they are what needs to be explained. The former is thirty-five years old, the latter hundreds of thousands. Latour's We Have Never Been Modern kind of spoils the plot in the title, but basically, the thrust of the work is exactly that: that we never really have been modern. Nor is Latour anti-modern, a stance he sees as a variation within the modern Constitution accepting, as it does, modern chronopolitical assumptions, wishing only to reverse the process. More on: Modernity , Secularism , Public Life. The Law of Date Night. Also, send me the Evangelical Newsletter and special offers. Universal Conquest Wiki. These notes were contributed by members of the GradeSaver community. Latour's text explores the idea that the rise of science has changed our modern world forever, never able to turn back. Latour's book is largely a rumination on the phenomenon of modernity and how to create for ourselves a nonmodern world by ending the divide between social life and natural life. Categories : Sociology of scientific knowledge Actor-network theory Science and technology studies works Anthropology books Modernism Harvard University Press books Works by Bruno Latour non-fiction books Anthropology book stubs. Latour's new conditions for a "Parliament of Things" involve restoring the mediating role "to all agents, exactly the same world composed of exactly the same entities cease being modern and becomes what it has never ceased to be--that is, nonmodern" We have always actively sorted out elements belonging to different times. Some features of the site may not work correctly.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Forty Years After Laboratory Life*
    Philos Theor Pract Biol (2020) 12:3 RESEARCH ARTICLE Forty Years after Laboratory Life* Joyce C. Havstady There is an ongoing and robust tradition of science and technology studies (STS) scholars conducting ethnographic laboratory studies. These laboratory studies—like all ethnogra- phies—are each conducted at a particular time, are situated in a particular place, and are about a particular (scientific) culture. Presumably, this contextual specificity means that such ethnographies have limited applicability beyond the narrow slice of time, place, and culture that they each subject to examination. But we (STS scholars) do not always or even often treat them that way. It is beyond common for us to speak about what one or another laboratory study reveals about the laboratory, or “science” much more broadly. Given the contextual specificity of our ethnographic laboratory studies, what justifies this presumed generalizability? Initially, this manuscript surveys typical responses to this question, but then it pursues an unusual one: the potential replicability of ethnographic results. This potential is hereby explored, via an ethnographic replication attempt—one designed and conducted in order to test the generalizability of a particular laboratory study, that of Latour and Woolgar’s classic Laboratory Life (1979). The results of the ethnographic replication attempt are reported, and a remarkable degree of replicability is established. Keywords ethnography • generalizability • Laboratory Life • laboratory studies • replicability • science and technology studies 1 The Motivating Question Ethnographic laboratory studies are an important part of the ongoing science and technology studies (STS) tradition. But to what extent can the results of a particular laboratory study be generalized to other contexts? In other words, do STS ethnographies have any so-called “external validity” (Campbell and Stanley 1966; Calder, Phillips, and Tybout 1982), or perhaps *In 1988, Ian Hacking wrote: “Soon it will be time to write ‘Ten Years after Laboratory Life’ ” (Hacking 1988, 277).
    [Show full text]
  • Doing Actor-Network Theory: Integrating Network Analysis with Empirical Philosophy in the Study of Research Into Genetically Modified Organisms in New Zealand
    Lincoln University Digital Thesis Copyright Statement The digital copy of this thesis is protected by the Copyright Act 1994 (New Zealand). This thesis may be consulted by you, provided you comply with the provisions of the Act and the following conditions of use: you will use the copy only for the purposes of research or private study you will recognise the author's right to be identified as the author of the thesis and due acknowledgement will be made to the author where appropriate you will obtain the author's permission before publishing any material from the thesis. Doing Actor-Network Theory: Integrating network analysis with empirical philosophy in the study of research into Genetically Modified Organisms in New Zealand __________________________________ A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Lincoln University by Sarah Edwards _______________________________ Lincoln University 2014 Abstract Abstract of a thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Doing Actor-Network Theory: Integrating network analysis with empirical philosophy in the study of research into Genetically Modified Organisms in New Zealand by Sarah Edwards This thesis provides a critical examination of the theoretical and methodological tools provided by Actor-Network Theory (ANT). It does so by applying ANT to the analysis of research into Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in New Zealand: first, in the case of a particular programme of GMO research; second, by considering the organisation and control of GMO research in more general terms. While ANT as a field of scholarship has grown substantially since its development in the 1980s, the early network analyses upon which it was originally founded still offer the most substantial methodological guidelines for researchers.
    [Show full text]
  • Actor Network Theory and Media: Do They Connect and on What Terms?
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by LSE Research Online Nick Couldry Actor network theory and media: do they connect and on what terms? Book section Original citation: Originally published in Hepp, A., Krotz, F., Moores, S. and Winter, C. (eds.), Connectivity, networks and flows: conceptualizing contemporary communications. Cresskill, NJ, USA: Hampton Press, Inc., 2008, pp. 93-110. ISBN 9781572738577 © 2008 Hampton Press, Inc. This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/52481/ Available in LSE Research Online: Sept 2013 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s submitted version of the book section. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. Six ACTOR NETWORK THEORY AND MEDIA Do They Connect and on What Terms? Nick Couldry Actor Network Theory (ANT) is a highly influential account within the sociology of science that seeks to explain social order not through an essentialized notion of “the social” but through the networks of connec- tions among human agents, technologies, and objects.
    [Show full text]
  • REVIEW: Bruno Latour. Reassembling the Social: an Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory
    REVIEW: Bruno Latour. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Author(s): Nicholas J. Rowland, Jan-Hendrik Passoth, and Alexander B. Kinney Source: Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science, Vol. 5, No. 1 (2011) 95-99. Published by: The University of Toronto DOI: 10.4245/sponge.v5i1.14968 EDITORIALOFFICES Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology Room 316 Victoria College, 91 Charles Street West Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1K7 [email protected] Published online at jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/SpontaneousGenerations ISSN 1913 0465 Founded in 2006, Spontaneous Generations is an online academic journal published by graduate students at the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology, University of Toronto. There is no subscription or membership fee. Spontaneous Generations provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. R Latour’s Greatest Hits, Reassembled Bruno Latour. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. 328pp. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, USA, 2005.∗ Nicholas J. Rowland† Jan-Hendrik Passoth‡ Alexander B. Kinney§ It seems peculiar that a non-theory, anti-method has managed to become canonical, but that is what Bruno Latour will introduce you to in his book; the post-pluralist, post-humanist aitude called Actor-Network-Theory (ANT). Drawing together heaps of controversial research, Latour resuscitates ANT aer its 1999 death (see Law and Hassard 1999). Like Graham Harman’s book about Latour, The Prince of Networks (2009), Reassembling the Social is the outcome of various lectures and seminars, and must be read as such.
    [Show full text]
  • Material Culture, Theoretical Culture, and Delocalization
    PETER GALISON Material Culture, Theoretical Culture, and Delocalization Collection, laboratory, and theater – all face the unavoidable problem of moving the specific, tangible reality of a highly refined local circum- stance into a wider domain, if not of the universal, at least out of the here and now. In the study of science, simply recognizing the inevitably local origins of science has been an enormous accomplishment, perhaps the signal achievement of science studies over the past twenty years. But we then need to understand, again in specific terms, how this lo- cally-produced knowledge moves, how – without invoking an other- wise unexplained process of ‘generalization’ – scientific work is de- localized. My work over the last years (e.g. Image and Logic)1 has aimed at this goal, folding the local back on the local, so to speak, by asking how the local cultures of science link up through the piecewise coordination of bits of languages, objects, procedures. I have in mind much more austere and less grand ideas than the ‘translation,’ ‘trans- mission,’ or ‘diffusion’ of pre-existing meanings. Instead, my focus is on the way bare-bone trading may occur between different subcultures of science, or between subcultures of science and bits of the wider world in which they are fundamentally embedded. In this picture, nei- ther language nor the world of things changes all of a piece, and talk of world-changing Gestalt shifts give way to the particular building-up of scientific jargons, pidgins, and creoles. These trading languages be- come important as do shared bits of apparatus or fragments of theoreti- cal manipulation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Routledge Companion to Actor-Network Theory
    The Routledge Companion to Actor-Network Theory This companion explores ANT as an intellectual practice, tracking its movements and engagements with a wide range of other academic and activist projects. Showcasing the work of a diverse set of ‘second generation’ ANT scholars from around the world, it highlights the exciting depth and breadth of contemporary ANT and its future possibilities. The companion has 38 chapters, each answering a key question about ANT and its capacities. Early chapters explore ANT as an intellectual practice and highlight ANT’s dialogues with other fields and key theorists. Others open critical, provocative discussions of its limitations. Later sections explore how ANT has been developed in a range of so cial scientific fields and how it has been used to explore a wide range of scales and sites. Chapters in the final section discuss ANT’s involvement in ‘real world’ endeavours such as disability and environmental activism, and even running a Chilean hospital. Each chapter contains an overview of relevant work and introduces original examples and ideas from the authors’ recent research. The chapters orient readers in rich, complex fields and can be read in any order or combination. Throughout the volume, authors mobilise ANT to explore and account for a range of exciting case studies: from wheelchair activism to parliamentary decision-making; from racial profiling to energy consumption monitoring; from queer sex to Korean cities. A comprehensive introduction by the editors explores the significance of ANT more broadly and provides an overview of the volume. The Routledge Companion to Actor-Network Theory will be an inspiring and lively companion to aca- demics and advanced undergraduates and postgraduates from across many disciplines across the social sciences, including Sociology, Geography, Politics and Urban Studies, Environmental Studies and STS, and anyone wishing to engage with ANT, to understand what it has already been used to do and to imagine what it might do in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Assemblages and Actor-Networks: Rethinking Socio-Material Power, Politics and Space
    Geography Compass 9/1 (2015): 27–41, 10.1111/gec3.12192 Assemblages and Actor-networks: Rethinking Socio-material Power, Politics and Space Martin Müller* Universität Zürich and University of Birmingham Abstract Assemblage thinking and actor-network theory (ANT) have been at the forefront of a paradigm shift that sees space and agency as the result of associating humans and non-humans to form precarious wholes. This shift offers ways of rethinking the relations between power, politics and space from a more processual, socio-material perspective. After sketching and comparing the concepts of the assemblage and the actor-network, this paper reviews the current scholarship in human geography which clusters around the four themes of deterritorialisation/reterritorialisation; power; materials, objects and technologies; and topological space. Looking towards the future, it suggests that assemblage thinking and ANT would benefit from exploring links with other social theories, arguing for a more sustained engagement with is- sues of language and power, and affect and the body. Assemblages and Actor-networks: New Paradigms? If language, representation and discourse were the pet concepts of the 1990s, assemblage, actor- networks and materiality might well be those of the 2000s. From geography’s preoccupation with meaning in the wake of the cultural turn in the late 1980s, the pendulum has come full circle with a return to a concern for materiality – objects, bodies and matter. Calls for ‘rematerializing geography’ have sounded throughout the sub-disciplines, in political geography (Dittmer 2013a; Meehan et al. 2013; Squire 2014a), feminist geography (Colls 2012; Slocum 2008), urban geography (Lees 2002), social and cultural geography ( Jackson 2000; Whatmore 2006), resource geographies (Bakker and Bridge 2006) or GIScience (Leszczynski 2009).
    [Show full text]
  • D Moats Thesis Final 7 Jan 2016 Full
    DECENTRING DEVICES: Developing Quali-Quantitative Techniques for Studying Controversies with Online Platforms David Moats Sociology, Goldsmiths, University of London Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) 2015 1 DECLARATION I hereby declare that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Wherever contributions of others are involved, these are clearly acknowledged. David Moats 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As STS scholars are well aware, any research project is always a distributed accomplishment, but this is more obviously the case in the Wild West of digital research. Firstly, I am grateful to the ESRC for funding such an experimental project and of course to my brilliant supervisors Noortje Marres and David Oswell who set the bar very high and continued to make insightful and challenging comments throughout. I could not have asked for a better pair of voices jostling in my head. A different version of the argument in Chapter II and the tool developed in Chapter VI have appeared in the article Mapping Controversies with Social Media: The Case for Symmetry with Noortje Marres (2015). I also want to thank the entire team at the Digital Methods Initiative and the Média Lab for their support, both technical and intellectual. I have benefitted considerably from discussions with Richard Rogers, Tommaso Venturini, Bernhard Rieder, Sabine Niederer and Carolin Gerlitz. A collaboration with Erik Borra led to the creation of the URL sequencer in Chapter VI, which he was kind enough to incorporate into the DMI TCAT interface. Gabriele Colombo, Federica Bardelli, Carlo di Gaetano and Alessandro Brunetti from Density Design all made helpful suggestions on the visualisations presented.
    [Show full text]
  • Review Essays
    CAPITALISM NATURE SOCIALISM VOLUME 16 NUMBER 1(MARCH 2005) REVIEW ESSAYS Politics of Nature: A Review of Three Recent Works by Bruno Latour Bruno Latour: Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004a. Bruno Latour: “Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern,” Critical Inquiry, 30, 2, 2004b. Bruno Latour: War of the Worlds: What About Peace? Chicago: Prickly Paradigm, 2002. Bruno Latour is widely known for his contributions to science studies,1 debates about postmodernism,2 and, through the spread of his “actor-network theory,”3 methods in the social sciences. While one can draw connections between these works, it is hard to pigeonhole Latour. His originality, style of argumentation, and aversion to being defined vis-a` -vis other thinkers make Latour enigmatic. More recently, Latour has called into question elements of his earlier project, arguing in his 2002 treatise, War of the Worlds: What About Peace?, that critique has “overshot its target” 4 and asking “why has critique run out of steam?” in a 2004 essay of the same name.5 That puts Latour, who urged us to follow scientists to understand social life, under the microscope himself. Latour’s Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences Into Democracy,6 (hereafter “Politics”) comes to the English-reading audience in the midst of the debate over Latour’s doubts about critique. This coincidence is auspicious, since it allows us to 1See especially Bruno Latour and S. Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (Los Angeles: Sage, 1979); Latour, Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1987); and Latour, Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999a).
    [Show full text]
  • The Ecology of Latour: His Metaphysics, Theory of Modernity, and Environmental Thought
    THE ECOLOGY OF LATOUR: HIS METAPHYSICS, THEORY OF MODERNITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL THOUGHT [For MSCP use only. Please don’t cite or copy from without my express permission. These notes may contain typos and other errors. Caveat lector!] Lecture 1: Reading: Latour, Irreductions, Part II from Pasteurization of France, especially section 1. “Irreductions”: The Project Always summing up, reducing, limiting, appropriating, putting in hierarchies, repressing— what kind of life is that? Latour, Irreductions This week we will look at the works of Bruno Latour, who is one of the most important philosophers writing today. We aim to take a survey of the ecology of Latour’s work, a nod both to his style of writing—like any ecology, Latour’s is a hybrid entity of different fields (philosophy, sociology, and anthropology)—and his work on Gaia and nature. Latour’s work is deeply philosophical but is driven by what he self-describes as an anthropological method: to look at the West through the same gaze it uses to treat those not in the West: what are its most cherished practiced? When it calls itself modern, what does it mean? How is this different from its actual practices? How are its most cherished values linked to the ecological crises we face across the globe today? Today we begin with his Irreductions, the second part of his major book The Pasteurization of France (published in French in 1984, in English 1988), which offers in a style reminiscent of modern philosophers such as Spinoza (e.g., his Ethics) an unambiguous metaphysics of act network theory (ANT).
    [Show full text]
  • A House Divided: Land, Kinship, and Bureaucracy in Post-Earthquake Kathmandu
    A House Divided: Land, Kinship, and Bureaucracy in Post-Earthquake Kathmandu by Andrew Haxby A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Anthropology) in The University of Michigan 2019 Doctoral Committee: Professor Tom Fricke, Chair Associate Professor Lan Deng Assistant Professor Jatin Dua Associate Professor Matthew Hull Professor Stuart Kirsch Andrew Warren Haxby [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0002-5735-1173 © Andrew Warren Haxby 2019 Acknowledgements It is utterly humbling to think of all the people and institutions who have helped make this document and research project possible. This project received generous funding from multiple agencies at different stages. I want to thank the University of Michigan’s Rackham graduate school, which funded both my pre-dissertation fieldwork and a significant portion of my main fieldwork, as well as provided me with funding throughout my graduate career. I also want to thank the National Science Foundation and the Wenner Gren Foundation for their generous support of my fieldwork as well. Finally, thank you to the U.S. Department of Education’s Foreign Language and Area Studies program for their support of my language training. I also want to extend my thanks to the Nepali government for hosting me during my fieldwork, and to Tribhuvan University for sponsoring my research visa, particularly to the Economics department and Prof. Kusum Shakya. Throughout this process, both the Nepali government and Tribhuvan University have been committed in supporting my research agenda, for which I am deeply grateful. I also want to thank both the commercial bank and finance company that allowed me to observe their work.
    [Show full text]
  • Actor-Network Theory (ANT)’
    Müller, Martin. 2015. ‘Actor-Network Theory (ANT)’. Oxford Bibliographies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Doi: 10.1093/OBO/9780199874002-0118. Actor-Network Theory (ANT) Martin Müller • LAST MODIFIED: 26 OCTOBER 2015 • DOI: 10.1093/OBO/9780199874002-0118 Introduction Introduction Actor-network theory, commonly abbreviated as ANT, has become a key inspiration for geographers to incorporate materiality into geographical theorizing and practice and conceive of agency as a distributed arrangement. Its popularity in geography is a result of providing both new conceptual resources for the discipline’s preoccupation with all things material: nature, buildings, technologies, objects, and the like. It can be seen as a counterbalance to the cultural turn in the late 1980s (as described in the Oxford Bibliographies aricle, Cultural Geography by Lily Kong), which focused geographers’ attention on meaning and representation. Emerging in the early 1980s from Science and Technology Studies (STS) in Geography, it was sociologists Bruno Latour, Michel Callon, and John Law who pioneered ANT. For ANT, all entities, whether they are germs or people, stand on equal ontological footing in the beginning. With this assumption, it breaks with the established academic division of labor whereby social scientists look at people and natural scientists look at nature. In its focus on associations, ANT claims that it is the relations established between these entities that make the difference whether powerful actors emerge in particular situations. Hence, Latour (see Latour, Bruno. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.) also called ANT a “sociology of associations” (p. 9). ANT puts an emphasis on tracing these associations to understand how hybrid networks of humans and nonhumans come together to make things happen or validate particular knowledge claims.
    [Show full text]