Le Sujet De L'acteur
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
GEORGI KAPRIEV, MARTIN ROUSSEL AND IVAN TCHALAKOV (EDS.) LE SUJET DE L’ACTEUR An Anthropological Outlook on Actor-Network Theory MORPHOMATA In the past few years, the Actor-Network Theory of French philosopher and sociologist Bruno Latour has become a hotly debated topic in the humanities. From a philosophical perspective, his theory of things keeps being reevaluated: is it possible for ‘Human and Non- Human Actors’ (Latour) to be analyzed as equally im- portant actors? Does Latour’s theory of a simultaneous ‘agency’ of things and concepts indeed move beyond a subject-object relation? If it does, how far does it in fact go? Is it possible to develop a common new ontology by moving away from the notion of substance, and instead reducing any kind of entities to what they reveal in the course of their (inter)action? The contributions to Le Sujet de l’Acteur are looking for interferences between the idea of ‘agency’ and cultural dynamics. How can we relate questions of (social) action with those of cultural manifestations? Focusing on ques- tions of symmetry or dissymmetry between the world of ‘things’ and ‘human beings,’ the volume includes contributions from the fields of social studies, literary studies, and philosophy. Although the contents are cat- egorized in systematic and historical aspects, all contri- butions draw on the importance of case studies for the theoretical framework, either starting with systematic questions that are then answered exemplary, or starting from historical cases as well as theoretical options. KAPRIEV, ROUSSEL, TCHALAKOV (EDS.)— LE SUJET DE L’ACTEUR MORPHOMATA EDITED BY GÜNTER BLAMBERGER AND DIETRICH BOSCHUNG VOLUME 21 EDITED BY GEORGI KAPRIEV, MARTIN ROUSSEL AND IVAN TCHALAKOV LE SUJET DE L’ACTEUR An Anthropological Outlook on Actor-Network Theory WILHELM FINK unter dem Förderkennzeichen 01UK0905. Die Verantwortung für den Inhalt der Veröffentlichung liegt bei den Autoren. Bibliografische Informationen der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek: Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen National- biblio grafie; detaillierte Daten sind im Internet über www.dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. Alle Rechte, auch die des auszugweisen Nachdrucks, der fotomechanischen Wie- dergabe und der Übersetzung vorbehalten. Dies betrifft auch die Vervielfälti- gung und Übertragung einzelner Textabschnitte, Zeichnungen oder Bilder durch alle Verfahren wie Speicherung und Übertragung auf Papier, Transparente, Filme, Bänder, Platten und andere Medien, soweit es nicht § 53 und 54 UrhG ausdrücklich gestatten. © 2014 Wilhelm Fink, Paderborn Wilhelm Fink GmbH & Co. Verlags-KG, Jühenplatz 1, D-33098 Paderborn Internet: www.fink.de Lektorat: Martin Roussel, Björn Moll Gestaltung und Satz: Kathrin Roussel, Sichtvermerk Printed in Germany Herstellung: Ferdinand Schöningh GmbH & Co. KG, Paderborn ISBN 978-3-7705-5726-4 CONTENTS Preface 7 MARTIN ROUSSEL ‘Agency’ of Form and the Delegation of the Human. Outline and Introductory Remarks 9 SYSTEMATIC ASPECTS OF A/SYMMETRY IVAN TCHALAKOV The Amateur’s Action in Science 25 STOYAN TANEV Actor-Network vs Activity Theory. Dealing With the Changing Nature of the Asymmetry in Human-Technology Inter-Actions 65 CHARLOTTE JAEKEL Jack-out-of-the-box. Literature’s Knowledge About Malfunction, Interference, and Waste 87 MICHAEL NIEHAUS Wandering Things. Stories 109 HISTORICAL ASPECTS OF A/SYMMETRY GEORGI KAPRIEV The Byzantine Trace 133 ARTHUR TATNALL Aspects of the History of Computing. An Actor-Network Perspective 145 JONATHAN TUMMONS Curriculum as Accomplishment. Tracing Human and Non-Human Actors in the Delivery of Educational Curricula 163 MARTA DOPIERALSKI No Actor Acts Alone. Some Reflections on ANT with Reference to the Film Set 181 Contributors 200 PREFACE What contribution could Byzantine philosophy provide to current Actor- Network Theory? What would be a sociological contribution to the field of cultural studies and questions of cultural change? These two questions mark the starting point of Le Sujet de l’Acteur, and from there the next step was to draw on the relation of human and non-human actors. How do we describe the relation between ‘intentional history’ and subliminal processes of transition, deformation, or recontextualization? In the past few years, the Actor-Network Theory of French philoso- pher and sociologist Bruno Latour has become a hotly debated topic in the humanities. From a philosophical perspective, his theory of things keeps being reevaluated: is it possible for ‘Human and Non-Human Ac- tors’ (Latour) to be analyzed as equally important actors? Does Latour’s theory of a simultaneous ‘agency’ of things and concepts indeed move beyond a subject-object relation? If it does, how far does it in fact go? Is it possible to develop a common new ontology that combines things, humans, and concepts, by moving away from the notion of substance, and instead reducing the entities to what they reveal in the course of their (inter)action? Such questions, seemingly at odds with more common traditions of thought, are the centerpiece of research at the Morphomata Center for Advanced Studies. The Center is dedicated to the study of change inher- ent in, and the comparative aspects of, cultural figurations—the particular objects, things and artifacts created by and in a given culture—as well as the potency of these figurations throughout history. Questions such as how these concrete artifacts and the quotations and borrowings they engender shape social acts, and how transmitted cultural forms can be reinterpreted, are of special interest at Morphomata. Thus, the contributions to Le Sujet de l’Acteur were looking for in- terferences between the idea of ‘agency’ and Morphomata’s interest in cultural dynamics. How can we relate questions of (social) action with those of cultural manifestations? Can the questions of intention and 8 phenomenality be correlated with the resistance of things and their forms? Thus, the volume focuses on questions of symmetry or dis- symmetry between the world of ‘things’ and ‘human beings,’ including contributions from the fields of social studies, literary studies, and phi- losophy. Although the contents are categorized in systematic and histori- cal aspects, all contributions draw on the importance of case studies for the theoretical framework, either starting with systematic questions that are then answered exemplary, or starting from historical cases as well as theoretical options. In this way, our conceptual thinking on the agency of cultural forms is broadened and enhanced. The idea to draw the intention of Morphomata’s work on the his- tory and dynamics of cultural figurations towards the agency of ‘things’ in comparison to the agency of ‘humans’ came while Georgi Kapriev was fellow at the Morphomata Center. The discussions between Georgi Kapriev and Martin Roussel were followed by a workshop in June 2013, including Ivan Tchalakov as true expert in the field of ANT. We would like to thank the participants and contributors to this volume for their open-minded thinking. Furthermore, our thanks go to Günter Blamberger and Dietrich Boschung for publishing the results in their “Morphomata” book series. Many thanks for discussions to everyone at Morphomata and especially to Hanjo Berressem, Marian Feldman and Torsten Hahn. Finally, we’re thankful to Björn Moll for his corrections to the manuscript of Le Sujet de l’Acteur. Georgi Kapriev, Martin Roussel and Ivan Tchalakov MARTIN ROUSSEL ‘Agency’ OF FORM AND THE DELEGATION OF THE HUMAN Outline and Introductory Remarks Le Sujet de l’Acteur deals with issues relating to the Actor-Network Theory (ANT) brought to prominence by French sociologist Bruno Latour. What we are aiming for, however, is not a discussion of specific issues of net- work theory or of the anthropological field, but a reflection on ANT with regard to some aspects linking back to questions raised in the last 200 years, the anthropological era, and even way beyond to the Byzantine era and its interpretation of the Aristotelian hypokeímenon, which eventually became the Cartesian subject—notably despite of its literal meaning as ‘underlying thing.’ Georgi Kapriev and Ivan Tchalakov have already coined this debate with a number of articles focusing on the dichotomies of symmetry/asymmetry as well as of axiomatics/exchange.1 Likewise, in a genealogical sense, Kapriev’s article on “The Byzantine Trace” should be taken as a starting point for this volume’s juxtaposition of ANT and anthropological issues. For a more profound acquaintance with ANT, Ivan Tchalakov discusses ANT’s terminology with a focus on recent dis- cussions in sociology and the role of the amateur’s action for a ‘pragmatics of taste’ (Hennion). For my part I would like to add some philosophical remarks on the more general issue of the relatedness, if not dependency 1 Cf. Georgi Kapriev and Ivan Tchalakov, “Actor-Network Theory and Byzantine Interpretation of Aristotle’s Theory of Action: Three Points of Possible Dialogue,” Yearbook of the Institute for Advanced Studies on Sci- ence, Technology and Society 57 (2009): 207–38; Ivan Tchalakov and Georgi Kapriev, “The Limits of Causal Action: Actor-Network Theory Notion of Translation and Aristotle’s Notion of Action,” Yearbook of the Institute for Advanced Studies on Science, Technology and Society 47 (2005): 389–433. 10 of the Human and the Non-Human as it comes into view from a history of cultural figurations and, in that respect, the ‘agency’ of form.2 AGENCY AND THE QUESTION OF FORM In opposition to classical