Reassembling the Social is a fundamental challenge from one of the world's leading social theorists to how we understand society and the 'social'. Bruno Latour's contention is that the word 'social' as used by Social Scientists has become laden with assumptions to the point where it has become a misnomer. When the adjective is applied to a phenomenon, it is used to indicate a s...
Reassembling the Social is a fundamental challenge from one of the world's leading social theorists to how we understand society and the 'social'. Bruno Latour's contention is that the word 'social' as used by Social Scientists has become laden with assumptions to the point where it has become a misnomer. When the adjective is applied to a phenomenon, it is used to indicate a stabilized state of affairs, a bundle of ties that in due course may be used to account for another phenomenon. Latour also finds the word used as if it described a type of material, in a comparable way to an adjective such as 'wooden' or 'steely'. Rather than simply indicating what is already assembled together, it is now used in a way that makes assumptions about the nature of what is assembled. It has become a word that designates two distinct things: a process of assembling: and a type of material, distinct from others. Latour shows why 'the social' cannot be thought of as a kind of material or domain, and disputes attempts to provide a 'social explanation' of other states of affairs. While these attempts have been productive (and probably necessary) in the past, the very success of the social sciences mean that they are largely no longer so. At the present stage it is no longer possible to inspect the precise constituents entering the social domain. Latour returns to the original meaning of 'the social' to redefine the notion and allow it to trace connections again. It will then be possible to resume the traditional goal of the social sciences, but using more refined tools. Drawing on his extensive work examining the 'assemblages' of nature, Latour finds it necessary to scrutinize thoroughly the exact content of what is assembled under the umbrella of Society. This approach, a 'sociology of associations' has become known as Actor-Network-Theory, and this book is an essential introduction both for those seeking to understand Actor-Network-Theory, or the ideas of one of its most influential proponents.
Introduction: How to Resume the Task of Tracing Associations
Part I: How to Deploy Controversies About the Social World
1:Learning to Feed from Controversies
2:First Source of Uncertainty: No Group, Only Group Formation
3:Second Source of Uncertainty: Action is Overtaken
4:Third Source of Uncertainty: Objects Too Have Agency
· · · · · ·
(更多)
Introduction: How to Resume the Task of Tracing Associations
Part I: How to Deploy Controversies About the Social World
1:Learning to Feed from Controversies
2:First Source of Uncertainty: No Group, Only Group Formation
3:Second Source of Uncertainty: Action is Overtaken
4:Third Source of Uncertainty: Objects Too Have Agency
5:Fourth Source of Uncertainty: Matters of Fact vs. Matters of Concern
6:Fifth Source of Uncertainty: Writing Down Risky Accounts
7:On the Difficulty of Being an ANT - An Interlude in Form of a Dialog
Part II: How to Render Associations Traceable Again
8:Why is it So Difficult to Trace the Social?
9:How to Keep the Social Flat
10:First Move: Localizing the Global
11:Second Move: Redistributing the Local
12:Third Move: Connecting Sites
13:Conclusion: From Society to Collective - Can the Social be Reassembled?
· · · · · · (收起)
原文摘录
· · · · · ·
Without this strong obligation to play the legislating role, sociologists would not have limited the first obvious source ofuncertainty, cutting all the links with the explicit and reflexive labor ofthe actors’ own methods. Anthropologists, who had to deal with pre-moderns and were not requested as much to imitate natural sciences, were more fortunate and allowed their actors to deploy a much richer world. In many ways, ANT is simply an attempt to allow the members of contemporary society to have as much leeway in defining themselves as that offered by ethnographers. If, as I claim, ‘we have never been modern', sociology could finally become as good as anthropology. (查看原文)
一本很系统的ANT理论介绍。看完了它以后我也终于明白了Latour理论的缘起,主要观点,和其他各种社会学理论的关系,以及理论背后的 political project。我完全不能认同他对于其他社会学理论流派肤浅的概括,并且认为他夸大了自己的理论对于社会学研究的贡献。当然,贡献可能也是有一些的,但如果他能够以更为谦虚的态度去engage当下的经验研究,并且用更为平实的语言进行写作,那将会更方便读者将...一本很系统的ANT理论介绍。看完了它以后我也终于明白了Latour理论的缘起,主要观点,和其他各种社会学理论的关系,以及理论背后的 political project。我完全不能认同他对于其他社会学理论流派肤浅的概括,并且认为他夸大了自己的理论对于社会学研究的贡献。当然,贡献可能也是有一些的,但如果他能够以更为谦虚的态度去engage当下的经验研究,并且用更为平实的语言进行写作,那将会更方便读者将他理论中的洞见挖掘出来。 (展开)
It seems more productive to point out that real weight and interest could be lent to such an explanation only through a movement from a negative and formal analysis to substantive and historically grounded claims; from an expansive tracing of a network to c...
(展开)
0 有用 GiantJoy 2010-03-21 18:48:21
'[one] should not confuse the network that is drawn by the description and the network that is used to make the description'
1 有用 周游多吃点儿 2025-03-23 23:02:25 北京
激进的本体论设想与促狭的认识论实践相冲突,导致对同代社科研究的错误评估,却又在技术物和网络科学的热潮中复活。描绘一种不可化约/绝对具体/扁平的网络图示,将之指认为社会,并匹配一种必然连结的符号学,这真的revolutionary吗?就算退回到人类学和科学史的阵营,有什么作品能超越拉图尔反对的庸俗写作吗?或者说有什么写作是剃掉ANT完成不了的吗?
0 有用 Shany 2015-10-25 09:17:36
很多点子其实很不错但也很堂吉诃德,而且作者有时候把简单的事说复杂了。
4 有用 Bricoleur 2015-01-27 19:11:43
看完了。不過越看越困惑的是,如果把ANT當做大象湯中的一勺兔子,會不會偏離了Latour的本意呢?我們還能煲湯嗎?
25 有用 周沐君 2010-12-28 05:57:59
一本很系统的ANT理论介绍。看完了它以后我也终于明白了Latour理论的缘起,主要观点,和其他各种社会学理论的关系,以及理论背后的 political project。我完全不能认同他对于其他社会学理论流派肤浅的概括,并且认为他夸大了自己的理论对于社会学研究的贡献。当然,贡献可能也是有一些的,但如果他能够以更为谦虚的态度去engage当下的经验研究,并且用更为平实的语言进行写作,那将会更方便读者将... 一本很系统的ANT理论介绍。看完了它以后我也终于明白了Latour理论的缘起,主要观点,和其他各种社会学理论的关系,以及理论背后的 political project。我完全不能认同他对于其他社会学理论流派肤浅的概括,并且认为他夸大了自己的理论对于社会学研究的贡献。当然,贡献可能也是有一些的,但如果他能够以更为谦虚的态度去engage当下的经验研究,并且用更为平实的语言进行写作,那将会更方便读者将他理论中的洞见挖掘出来。 (展开)