Actor-network theory | Anthroholic

In traditional social science, objects were often relegated to the background mere tools or “props” for human action. However, Actor-Network Theory (ANT) challenged this anthropocentric bias, suggesting that the “social” is not a special domain of reality but a collection of heterogeneous associations between humans and non-humans.

In anthropology, ANT has revolutionized how we study material culture, science, and the environment. It moves away from explaining society through hidden structures (like “class” or “culture”) and instead focuses on the messy, visible connections that tie people, technologies, and organisms together.

The Genesis of Actor-Network Theory

Developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s, primarily at the Centre de Sociologie de l’Innovation (CSI) of the École des Mines de Paris, ANT emerged from the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS). The primary architects Bruno Latour, Michel Callon, and John Law sought to understand how scientific facts are constructed.

They observed that a scientific discovery isn’t just the result of a “genius” mind; it requires a network of lab equipment, funding bodies, published papers, bacterial cultures, and institutional support. If any of these pieces fail, the “fact” collapses. This led to the realization that society is a “seamless web” of human and non-human elements.

“The social is not a glue that could fix anything including what other glues cannot fix; it is what is glued together by many other things.” Bruno Latour, Reassembling the Social (2005).

The Mechanics of the Network

To understand ANT, one must grasp its unique vocabulary, which is designed to avoid the traditional dualisms of Western thought (e.g., Nature vs. Culture, Subject vs. Object).

A. Actants and Non-Human Agency

The most radical claim of ANT is the concept of the actant. In ANT, an actant is anything human or non-human that modifies a state of affairs by making a difference.

Human Actants: Scientists, politicians, farmers.
Non-Human Actants: Microbes, legal documents, climate patterns, computers, or even speed bumps.

ANT does not argue that a speed bump has “intentions” like a human, but it does argue that the speed bump has agency because it forces a driver to slow down, achieving a social goal (safety) that a sign alone might not.

B. Generalized Symmetry

This principle dictates that the same analytical vocabulary must be used for both humans and non-humans. Anthropologists using ANT do not start by assuming humans are the “masters” and objects are the “slaves.” Instead, they observe how both parties negotiate their positions within a network.

C. The Process of Translation

Translation is the core process through which a network is formed. It is how actants are recruited and persuaded to stay in the network. Michel Callon (1986) identified four moments of translation:

Problematization: A primary actor defines a problem and identifies other actants needed to solve it, making themselves an “obligatory passage point.”
Interessement: The primary actor uses “devices” (incentives, physical barriers, etc.) to lock the other actants into their assigned roles.
Enrollment: Defining and coordinating the roles of the actants so they work together.
Mobilization: Ensuring that the spokespersons for the actants truly represent their collective (e.g., a scientist speaking for millions of microbes).

Traditional Sociology vs. Actor-Network Theory

Feature	Traditional Sociology	Actor-Network Theory (ANT)
Focus	Human agency and social structures.	Heterogeneous networks of humans and non-humans.
Agency	Reserved for human beings.	Distributed among “actants” (human and non-human).
The “Social”	A distinct realm of reality.	A movement of association and assembly.
Role of Objects	Passive tools or symbols.	Active participants that shape social outcomes.
Methodology	Top-down (applying theory to data).	Bottom-up (“Follow the actors”).

Methodological Approach: “Follow the Actors”

For an anthropologist, ANT provides a specific methodological toolkit. Instead of entering the field looking for “kinship” or “capitalism,” the researcher is encouraged to “follow the actors.”

This means tracing the connections as they are made. If an anthropologist is studying a hospital, they don’t just interview doctors; they track how medical records move, how diagnostic machines dictate patient flow, and how insurance forms limit what a doctor can say.

Black-Boxing

A key term here is black-boxing. A “black box” is a complex network that has become so stable and successful that its internal components are no longer visible. For example, a smartphone is a black box. We treat it as a single object, forgetting the vast network of minerals, labor, software code, and satellite arrays that make it work. ANT aims to “open the black box” to see the labor and associations hidden inside.

The Scallops of St. Brieuc Bay

In a seminal 1986 paper, Michel Callon examined the decline of the scallop population in France’s St. Brieuc Bay. This study is the “flagship” example of ANT in action.

The Actants: Three marine biologists, the fishermen of the bay, and the Pecten maximus (the scallops).
The Goal: The biologists wanted to replenish the scallop population by using a Japanese cultivation technique.
The Translation:
- The biologists (primary actors) claimed they were the only ones who could save the industry (Problematization).
- They used “collectors” (nets) to see if the scallop larvae would attach (Interessement).
- Initially, the scallops “agreed” to attach, and the fishermen agreed to wait (Enrollment).
The Failure: Eventually, the network collapsed. The scallops stopped attaching to the nets, and the fishermen, fearing for their income, harvested the protected areas.

Conclusion of the Study: The network failed because the non-human actants (the scallops) did not behave as predicted. This proved that social outcomes are contingent on the “cooperation” of non-humans.

Significance in Modern Anthropology

ANT has become a cornerstone for several subfields within anthropology:

Multispecies Ethnography: Scholars like Anna Tsing (The Mushroom at the End of the World) use ANT-adjacent logic to study how humans, fungi, and forests co-create worlds.
Infrastructure Studies: Anthropologists like Brian Larkin study how “lifeless” things like power grids and roads produce political effects and “poetics” in urban environments.
Environmental Anthropology: By treating the environment as an actant, anthropologists can better analyze climate change as a breakdown of global networks.

“To be an actant is not to be a person, but to be a ‘source of action’ that cannot be ignored by others.” — John Law, Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Network (1992).

Critiques and Limitations

Despite its popularity, ANT is not without its detractors.

Lack of Ethics: Critics argue that by treating humans and objects equally, ANT loses the ability to make moral judgments about human suffering or intentionality.
Depoliticization: Some scholars believe that by focusing on “networks,” ANT ignores long-standing power imbalances like patriarchy or racism that aren’t always visible in a single network trace.
Complexity: Following every actant can lead to an “infinite regress,” where the researcher becomes overwhelmed by the sheer number of connections.

Conclusion

Actor-Network Theory has profoundly shifted the anthropological lens. It teaches us that we are never alone in our “social” world; we are always entangled with technologies, microbes, and materials. By breaking down the barriers between nature and culture, ANT provides a robust framework for understanding the complexities of the 21st centuryfr om global pandemics to the digital revolution. For the student of anthropology, it offers a reminder: to understand the human condition, one must also understand the non-human world that makes our humanity possible.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. Is Actor-Network Theory a “theory” or a “method”?

While called a theory, many proponents (including Latour) argue it is more of a methodology or a “way of looking.” It doesn’t predict how things will happen; it provides a way to describe how things are happening by tracing associations.

2. Does ANT deny that humans have free will?

No. ANT does not deny human intentionality. However, it argues that human will is “distributed.” A scientist’s “will” to find a cure is meaningless without the agency of the laboratory equipment and the reaction of the virus being studied.

3. How is ANT used in UPSC Anthropology?

For UPSC aspirants, ANT is highly relevant in the sections on Material Culture, Research Methods, and New Directions in Social-Cultural Anthropology. It can be used to answer questions about the relationship between technology and society or the critique of traditional structural-functionalism.

4. What is the difference between a “network” in ANT and a “social network” like Facebook?

A “social network” usually refers to connections between people. An actor-network is “heterogeneous,” meaning it insists on including non-human elements (servers, algorithms, fiber-optic cables) as equal members of the network.

References

Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. The Sociological Review, 32(1_suppl), 196–233. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1984.tb00113.x
Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Harvard University Press. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674792913
Latour, B. (2005).²⁰ Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press. Link to Source
Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5(4), 379–393. Link to Source
Sayes, E. (2014). Actor–network theory and methodology: Just what does it mean to say that non-humans have agency? Social Studies of Science, 44(1), 134–149. Link to Source