On recalling ANT

llix Guattari (1988). I Thousqnd Plateaus'.Capiralinn and
n: Athlone.
), A Cyborg Manifesto: Science,Technology and Socialist
T w e n t i e t hC e n t u r y ' , p a g e s1 4 9 - l 8 t i n D o n n a H a r a w a y ( e d . ) ,
nd llomen: the Reinvention of Nalure, London: Free
On recallingANT
-he
Condition of Postmodernity'. an Enquiry into the Origins of
>rd: Blackwell.
)97), 'Museum Topology and the Will to Connect', Journal of
99 218.
183), NelxorÈs of Power: Electriftation in Western Society,
:: Johns Hopkins University Press.
I\, Postmodernisnt, or, the Cultural Logit' of Late Capiralism,
Science in Action'. Hott' to Follou Scler?lis/s ttnd Engrneers
:on Keynes: Open University Press.
'he
Pasteuri:ation of France. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard.
Aramis, or the Lot'e of Technologl',Cambridge. Mass.: MIT
ù: ing Jl{odernir1,,Oxford: Blackwell.
Oslo: University of Oslo.
luctionlTrahison: Notes on lNl
I06.
letherington (1998), Allegory and Interference:Economies of
ociology', submitted.
'Otherness and the Actor Network: the
Brown (1994),
enl', American Bthavioural Scien|isl, J6'.772-790.
(1991), The Inhutnan'. Refectiuts on Time, Cambridge: Polity.
, The Body ùIultiple: Artherosclerosis in Pructice, Durham, N.
:rsity Press,forthcoming.
'Regions, Networks and Fluids: Anaemia
fohn Law (1994),
, S o c i a lS t u d i e so f S c i e n c e , 2 4 : 6 4 1 - 6 7 1 .
.) {1992), Science as Pructic'e and Culture, Chicago and
rf Chicago Press.
'Power, Technologies and the Phenomenology of
991),
ng Allergic to Onions', pages 26 56 in John Law (ed.), I
s? Essayson Pover, Technologl' and Dominution, Sociological
8, London: Routledge.
tgl), Porîiul Connections, Savage Maryland: Rowman and
'Cutting the Network', Journal o.f the Ro1'al '4nthropo96),
7-535.
'
7), "Improving Ratings": audit in the British University sys-
' r ' 5. :3 0 5 3 2 1 .
ntial Formationç. London. Thousand Oaks and New Delhi:
e The Editorial Board ofThe Sociological Review 1999
BrunoLatour
Abstract
The paper exploresone after the other the four difhcultiesof actornetworktheory,that is the words'actor','network'and 'theory'-without
forgettingthe hyphen.It triesto refocusthe originalityol what is morea
methodto deploythe actor'sown world buildingactivitiesthan an alternativesocialtheory.Finally,it sketches
someof its remainingpotential.
I will start by saying that there are four things that do not work
rvith actor-network theory; the word actor. the word network, the
word theory and the hyphen! Four nails in the coffin.
The first nail in the cofûn is I guessthe word 'network', as John
Law indicates in his paper in this volume. This is the great danger of
using a technical metaphor slightly ahead of everyone'scommon
use. Now that the World Wide Web exists, everyone believes they
understand what a network is. tffhile twenty years ago there was still
some freshness in the term as a critical tool against notions as
diverse as institution, society, nation-state and, more generally,any
flat surface,it has lost any cutting edge and is now the pet notion of
all those who want to modernizemodernization.'Down with rigid
institutions,' they all say,'long live flexible networks.'
What is the difference between the older and the new usage?At
the time, the word network, like Deleuze'sand Guattari's term rhizome, clearly meant a seriesoî transformations-ûanslations, transductions-which could not be captured by any of the traditional
terms of social theory. With the new popularization of the word netrvork, it now means transport without deformation, an instantaneous, unmediated access to every piece of information. That is
exactly the opposite of what we meant. What I would like to call
'double
click information' has killed the last brt of the crirical
j The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 1999. Published by Blackwell Publishers,
:rl8 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 lJF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. USA.
Bruno Lutour
it
cutting edgeof the notion of network. I don't think we should use
transand
uny-àr. u1l.urt not to mean the type of transformations
lations that we want now to explore.
The secondnail that I'd like to hammer into the coffin is the word
,actol.' in its hyphenatedconnection tvith the notion of 'network'.
From day one, f objected to the hyphen becauseinevitably it would
in
remind sociologists of the agency/structurecliche, or, as we say
misunthe
French, of tbe'pont aux ânes'of social theory' Most of
derstandings about ANT have come from this coupling of terms'
one that is much too similar to the traditional divides of social
theory.
The managerial, engineering,Machiavellian, demiurgic character
of ANT has been criticised many times. More exactly,critiques have
poles:
alternated, quite predictably, between the two hyphenated
turned
other
one type of èritiqûe has turned around the actot the
the
uround the network. The first line of criticism has insisted on
the
ANT;
Schumpeterian, male-like, hairy gorilla-like character of
second line of criticism has focused instead on the dissolution of
humanity proposed by ANT into a field of forces where morality'
humanity, psychology was absent.Thus, the actor-network was split
'death Man' on the other'
of
into two: demiurgy on one side;
No matter how prepared I am to criticise the theory, I still think
that these two symmetrical critiques are off target even though the
'actor-network' invites this reaction. The original
very expressionof
idea was not to occupy a position in the agency/structuredebate,
not evento overcomethis contradiction.contradictions. most of the
predicatime and especiallywhen they are related to the modernist
ment, should not be overcome' but simply ignored or bypassed'But
I agree that the hyphenated term made it impossible to see clearly
the bypassoperation that had been attempted'
Let me try to refocus the argument. Let us abandon the words
,actor' and .network' for a moment and pay some attention to lwo
operations, one of franring (seethe chapter in this volume by Michel
C a l l o n ) a n d o n e o f s u r n m i n gu P .
It is not exactly true that social scienceshave always alternated
between actor and system, or agency and structure' It might be
more productive to say that they have alternated between two types
of equally powerful dissatisfactions:when social scientistsconcentrate on what could be called the micro level. that is face to face
interactions, local sites' they quickly tealize that many of elements
necessaryto make senseof the situation are already in place or are
coming irom far away; hence, this urge to look for something else'
l6
O The Editorial Board ofThe Sociological Review 1999
some other level. and 1o concentrateon w.
in the situation but has made the situation
much work has been dedicatedto notions
values,culture,structure,social context, all
nating what gives shape to micro interact'
new level has been reached,a second type
Socialscientistsnow feel that somethingis r
tion of terms like culture and structure.n
too great, and that one needs to reconner
move. back to the flesh-and-bloodlocal sitr
had started.Once -backto the local sites.ht
nessthat pushed them in the direction of a
ture quickly sets in. Social scientistssoor
situation is exactly as abstract as the so c
which they came and they now want to leavr
the situation together.And so on acl infnitur
It seemsto me that ANT is simply a wa,
these two dissatisfactions,
not again to ove
the problem. but to follow them elsewherea
very conditions that make thesetwo opposit
sible. By topicalizing the social sciences'o
might have hit on one of the very phenomr
may be the social possesses
the bizarre prop
of agency and structure at all. but rather
entity. The double dissatisfactionthat has tr
conceptualagitation of the social sciencesin
an artefact:the result of trying to picture a I
b y u s i n g o p p o s i t i o n sb e l w e e nt w o n o t i o n s .
vidual and structure,which havenothing to c
If this bypassingstrategy is acceptedthe
a r e c l a r i f i e dA
: N T c o n c e n t r a t east t e n t i o no n
ment well demonstratedby the successive
sh
dissatisliedsocial scientist.This movement l
tures. The first one is the redescription of wh;
as having to do with the macro-social.As i
even, I think, by the harshestcritics of AN'
actor-networkdoes not aim at all at design
Animal that makessenseof local interaction
nate an anonymous field of forces. Instead
entirely different which is the summing up c
various kinds of devices,inscriptions,formr
very local, very practical, very tiny locus. T
The Editorial Board ofThe Sociological Review 1999
On recalling AltlT
otion of network. I don't think we should use it
to mean the type of transformations and transnow to explore.
at I'd like to hammer into the coffin is the word
'network'.
ated connection rvith the notion of
:cted to the hyphen becauseinevitably it would
cf the agency/structurecliché, or, as we say in
aux ânes' of social theory. Most of the misunANT have come from this coupling of terms,
ro similar to the traditional divides of social
ngineering, Machiavellian, demiurgic character
ticised many times. More exactly,critiques have
edictably, between the two hyphenated poles:
has turned around the actot the other turned
. The first line of criticism has insisted on the
e-like, hairy gorilla-like character of ANT; the
rism has focused instead on the dissolution of
by ANT into a field of forces where morality,
;y was absent.Thus, the actor-network was split
'death of Man' on the other.
rn one sidel
repared I am to criticise the theory, I still think
retrical critiques are off target even though the
"ctor-network' invites this reaction. The original
)upy a position in the agency/structuredebate,
r this contradiction.Contradictions,most of the
when they are related to the modernist predicaovercome,but simply ignored or bypassed.But
,henatedterm made it impossible to see clearly
r that had been attemPted.
ôcus the argument. Let us abandon the words
l' for a moment and pay some attention to two
'atning(seethe chapter in this volume by Michel
;wnming up.
lrue that social scienceshave always alternated
system, or agency and structure. It might be
say that they have alternated between two types
dissatisfactions:when social scientistsconcenI be called the micro level, that is face to face
ites, they quickly realize that many of elements
renseof the situation are already in place or are
a1: hence,this urge to look for something else,
C The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review I 999
some other level, and to concentrate on what is not directly visible
in the situation but has made the situation what it is. This is why so
much work has been dedicated to notions such as society, norms,
values,culture.structure,social context, all terms that aim at designating what gives shape to micro interaction. But then, once this
new level has been reached.a second type of dissatisfaction begins.
Socialscientistsnow feel that somethingis missing,that the abstraction of terms like culture and structure. norms and values. seems
too great, and that one needs to reconnect, through an opposite
move, back to the flesh-and-blood local situations from which they
had started. Once back to the local sites.however.the same uneasiness that pushed them in the direction of a search for social structure quickly sets in. Social scientists soon realize that the local
'macro'
situation is exactly as abstract as the so called
one from
which they came and they now want to leaveit again for what holds
the situation together.And so on ad infinitwn.
It seemsto me that ANT is simply a way of paying attention to
not again to overcomethem or to solve
these two dissatisfactions.
the problem, but to follow them elsewhereand to try to explore the
very conditions that make thesetwo oppositedisappointmentspossible. By topicalizing the social sciences'own controversies.ANT
might have hit on one of the very phenomena of the social order:
may be the social possessesthe bizarre property of not being made
of agency and structure at all, but rather of being a circulating
entity. The double dissatisfaction that has triggered so much of the
conceptual agitation of the social sciencesin the past would thus be
an artefact:the result of trying to picture a trajectory,a movement.
by using oppositions betweentwo notions, micro and macro, individual and structure,which havenothing to do with it.
If this bypassing strategy is accepted then perhaps a few things
are clarified: ANT concentratesattention on a movement-a movement well demonstrated by the successiveshifts of attention of the
dissatisfiedsocial scientist. This movement has many peculiar features. The first one is the redescription of what was earlier perceived
as having to do with the macro-social.As it has been understood
even, I think, by the harshest critics of ANI the network pole of
actor-network does not aim at all at designating a Society, the Big
Animal that makessenseof local interactions.Neither does it designate an anonymous field of forces. Instead it refers to something
entirely different which is the summing up of interactions through
various kinds of devices.inscriptions,forms and formulae, into a
very local, very practical, very tiny locus. This is now well known
e The Editorial Board ofThe Sociolosical Review 1999
t7
Bruno Latour
through the study of accounting, managerial practice (Power, 1995),
organization studies (Czarniawska, 1997), some sociolinguistics
'oligoptica', Latour
(Taylor, 1993), panoptica (or what I now call
and Hermant, 1998),economics,the anthropology of markets,and
'really' big or 'overall', or 'overarching',
so on. Big does not mean
but connected, blind, local, mediated, related. This is already an
important contribution of ANT since it means that when one
explores the structures of the social, one is not led away from the
local sites-as it was the case with the dissatisfiedsocial scientistbut closer to them.
The secondconsequenceis lesswell developedbut equally important: actantiality is not what an actor does-with its consequence
what provides actants with
for the demiurgic version of ANT-but
their actions, with their subjectivity,with their intentionality, with
their morality. When you hook up with this circulating entity, then
you are partially provided with consciousness,subjectivity, actoriality, etc. There is no reason to alternate between a conception of
social order as made of a Society and another one obtained from
the stochasticcomposition of individual atoms. To become an actor
'total'
structure.I will
is as much a local achievementas obtaining a
come back to this aspect in a moment, but the consequence is
already important: there is nothing especially local, and nothing
especially human, in a local intersubjective encounter. I have pro'interobjectivity'
posed
as a way of phrasing the new position of the
actor (Latour, 1996).
The third and very puzzling consequenceis that, by following the
movement allowed by ANT, we are never led to study social order,
in a displacement that would allow an observer to zoom from the
global to the local and back. In the social domain there is no
change of scale.It is so to speak always flat and folded and this is
especially true of the natural sciencesthat are said to provide the
context, the frame, the global environment in which society is supposed to be located. Contexts too flow locally through networks, be
these geography,medicine, statistics,economics, or even sociology.
This is where ANT has used the insights of sociology of scienceincluding of course the sociology of the social sciences-as much as
possible:economiesemergeout of economics;societiesout of sociologies; cultures out of anthropologies;etc. The topology of the
social, John Law is right, is rather bizarre, but I don't think it is
fractal. Each locus can be seenas framing and summing up. Actor'
'network' to play the role
is not here to play the role of agency and
of society.Actor and network-if we want to still use those terms-
t8
O The Editorial Board ofThe Sociological Revrew I999
designatestwo faces of the same phenomeno
cles,the slow realizationthat the social is a
tion that can travel endlessly without ever e
micro-level-there is never an interaction tha
macro-level-there are only local summing u
local totalities('oligoptica') or total localities
To have transformed the social from what
tory, a province of reality, into a circulatio
been the mosti useful contribution of ANT.
negativecontri,bution, becauseit has simply r
a fourth consequencewhich is also the mosl
zoom going from macro structure to micrr
micro and macro are local effects of hooking
ties. if contexts flow inside narrow conduits,
plenty of 'space' in between the tiny traject<
called the local productions of 'phusigen
'psychogenics'.
'Nature', 'Society', 'Subjectivity'
do not de
like, but what circulates locally and to which
as we subscribe to cable TV and sewers-ir
subscription that allows us to say 'we' and 'c
'in
between' the networks, those terra incognit
aspectsof ANT becausethey show the exten
the immense reservethat is open for change.E
be drawn from this vast empty space 'in betw
ries is not clear yet becauseof a third difficu
tackle.
The third nail in the coffin is the word th
said some time ago, ANT should really be <
ontology'. But who would have cared for suc
of words-not to mention the acronym AR
point. If it is a theory,of what it is a theory?
It was never a theory of what the social is
the reading of many sociologists who belie
school trying to explain the behaviour of socia
uas simply another way of being faithful t<
nomethodology: actors know what they do
t-romthem not only what they do, but how an
rrs. the social scientists,who lack knowledge
not they who are missing the explanation of
tingly manipulated by forces exterior to then
the social scientist'spowerful gaze and meth<
The Editorial Board ofThe Socioloeical Review 1999
On recalling ANT
accounting, managerial practice (Power, 1995),
(Czarniawska, 1997), some sociolinguistics
ptica (or what I now call 'oligoptica', Latour
, economics, the anthropology of markets, and
'really'
'overall',
'overarching',
mean
big or
or
[, local, mediated, related. This is already an
ion of ANT since it means that when one
es of the social, one is not led away from the
the case with the dissatisfiedsocial scientistluenceis lesswell developedbut equally imporrot what an actor does with its consequence
:sion of ANT-but
whar provides actants with
reir subjectivity, with their intentionality, with
you hook up with this circulating entity, then
rided with consciousness,subjectivity, actorialreason to alternate between a conception of
r of a Society and another one obtained from
sition of individual atoms. To become an actor
rievementas obtaining a'total' structure.I will
rspect in a moment, but the consequence is
here is nothing especially local, and nothing
a local intersubjective encounter. I have proy' as a way of phrasing the new position of the
puzzling consequenceis that, by following the
y ANT, we are never led to study social order,
at would allow an observer to zoom from the
and back. In the social domain there is no
so to speak always flat and folded and this is
: natural sciencesthat are said to provide the
re global environment in which society is supSontexts too flow locally through networks, be
licine, statistics,economics, or even sociology.
ras used the insights of sociology of sciencere sociology of the social sciences-as much as
:mergeout of economics;societiesout of sociof anthropologies; etc. The topology of the
right, is rather bizarre, but I don't think it is
in be seenas framing and summing up. Actor'
'network'
e role of agency and
to play the role
network-if we want to still use those termsO The Editorial Board ofThe Sociolosical Review 1999
designatestwo faces of the same phenomenon, like wavesand particles, the slow realization that the social is a certain type of circulation that can travel endlessly without ever encountering either the
micro-level-there is never an interaction that is not framed-or the
macro-level-there are only local summing up which produce either
local totalities('oligoptica') or total localities(agencies).
To have transformed the social from what was a surface, a territory, a province of reality, into a circulation, is what I think has
been the most useful contribution of ANT. It is, I agree,a largely
negativecontribution, becauseit has simply rendered us sensitiveto
a fourth consequencewhich is also the most bizarre: if there is no
zoom going from macro structure to micro interactions.if both
micro and macro are local effects of hooking up to circulating entities, if contexts flow inside narrow conduits, it means that there is
plenty of 'space' in between the tiny trajectories of what could be
'phusigenics', 'sociogenics'
called the local productions of
and
'psychogenics'.
'Nature', 'Society', 'Subjectivity'
do not define what the world is
like, but what circulates locally and to which one 'subscribes'much
as we subscribe to cable TV and sewers-including of course the
'we'
'one'.
subscription that allows us to say
This empty space
and
'in
between' the networks, those terra incognita are the most exciting
aspectsof ANT becausethey show the extent of our ignorance and
the immense reservethat is open for change.But the benefit that can
'in
be drawn from this vast empty space
between' network trajectories is not clear yet becauseof a third difficulty that I now have to
tackle.
The third nail in the coffin is the word theory. As Mike Lynch
said some time ago, ANT should really be called 'actant-rhizome
ontology'. But who would have cared for such a horrible mouthful
of words-not to mention the acronym ARO'? Yet, Lynch has a
point. If it is a theory, of what it is a theory?
It was never a theory of what the social is made of, contrary to
the reading of many sociologists who believed it was one more
school trying to explain the behaviour of social actors. For us, ANT
was simply another way of being faithful to the insights of ethnomethodology: actors know what they do and we have to learn
from them not only what they do, but how and why they do it. It is
ars,the social scientists,who lack knowledge of what they do, and
not they who are missing the explanation of why they are unwittingly manipulated by forces exterior to themselvesand known to
the social scientist'spowerful gaze and methods. ANT is a wav of
O The Editorial Board of The Sociolosical Review I 999
t9
Bruno Latour
delegitimatingthe incrediblepretensionsof sociologistswho, to r'rse
Bauman'sforceful expression(Bauman, 1992),want to act as legislators and to open yet another spacefor interpretivesociology.Far
from being a theory of the social or even worse an explanation of
what makes society exert pressureon actors, it always was, and this
from its very inception (Callon and Latour, 198I ), a very crude
method to learn from the actors without imposing on them an n
priori defrnition of their world-building capacities.The ridiculous
poverty of the ANT vocabulary-association, translation. alliance.
obligatory passagepoint, etc.-was a clear signal that none of these
words could replace the rich vocabulary of the actor's practice, but
was simply a way to systematicallyavoid replacing their sociology,
their metaphysicsand their ontology with those of the social scientists who were connecting with them through some researchprotocol--I use this cumbersome circumlocution to avoid the loaded
'studying', becauseANT researchers
cannot exactly be said to
term
'study'
the other socialactors.
I agreethat we have not always been true to the original task, and
that a great deal of our olvn vocabulary has contaminated our ability to let the actors build their own space,as many critiques have
charitably shown (Chateauraynaud,1991; Lee and Brown, 1994).
This weakness on our part does not mean, however. that our
vocabularywas too poor, but that, on the contrary, it was not poor
enough and that designing a space for the actors to deploy their
own categoriesis a much harder task than we thought at first-and
this appliesof course to this notion of deploymentitself. From the
very beginning, ANT has been sliding in a sort of race to overcome
its limits and to drop from the list of its methodologicalterms any
which would make it impossiblefor new actors (actantsin fact) to
define the world in their own terms, using their own dimensions and
touchstones. John Law and Annemarie Mol have used the word
fluid (Mol and Law 1994),Adrian Cussins,the word trails (Cussins,
1992),Charis Cussins,the word choreography(Cussins,1996).All
of thesewords designatein my view what the theory should be and
'double-cliçk'networks has rendered
diffusion of
what the excessive
irretrievable:it is a theory that saysthat by following circulations we
can get more than by defining entities, essenceor provinces.In that
sense,ANT is merely one of the many anti-essentialistmovements
that seemsto characterizethe end of the century. But it is also, like
ethnomethodology,simply a way for the social scientiststo access
sites,a method and not a theor1,,a way to travel from one spot to
the next, from one field site to the next, not an interpretation of
20
e The Editorial Board of The Socioiogical Review I 999
what actors do sirnply glossed in a differe
more universalistlanguage.
I have often compared it to perspectivec
because of this peculiar relation between i
that is nonethelessstrictly determinedbut v
than disappearingonce the picture is left to
am well awareof the limits of this metapho
more constraining method than three dir
drawing! Yet the image has its advantase:AI\
the shape that is to be drawn--circles-or cu
how to go about systematicallyrecording th
ties of the sitesto be documentedand resist
potentialitiesof ANT are srill largelyuntalpe
cal implications of a social theory that wàut
the actors' behaviourand reasons.but onlv
rvhich render actors able to negotiate the
another'sworld-buildingactivity.
The fourth and last nail in the coffin is tl
and distinguishesthe two words .actor' and
rndicatedabove,it is an unfortunate reminder
agency and structure into which we never wa
also a place holder for a much bigger probl
become aware of only very slowly, and whos
much felt in the future. By clealingsimuitane
non-human agencies.we happened to fall
iretrveenthe four major concerns of the mode
\\-e were not conscious of this coherence
at fi
rard way when we beganto understandthat t,
:rr.n most interested in our work, that is soci
:hoseof SSK (the Sociologyof ScientificKnor
"c its harshestcritics (Collins and yearlev. 199
..,cial explanationdid nor seemto
us to irold r
' ..n
of society was part of the problem not
il,,rr could that be possible.anà how could
':rrger
suchentirelydifferent researchprogram
\\T slowly drifted from a sociology of sci
- ,rt a social
theory, into another enquirv (
^:er c-alled
comparative. symmetrical, o. ,
-):.cola and Palsson,1996).The differencebr
-' :.icS of reflection
on modernity and post_,l
- .ir'rnit\,.was
simply that it took to task all r
- - :: could be called the modernist
nredica
' : .: :rrrrl Board
ofThe Sociologicai Review 1999
On recalling ANT
ncrediblepretensionsof sociologistswho, to use
:xpression(Bauman, 1992),want to act as legisyet another spacelbr interpretive sociology. Far
y of the social or even worse an explanation of
exert pressureon actors, it always was. and this
rtion (Callon and Latour, l98l). a very crude
om the actors without imposing on them an a
their world-building capacities.The ridiculous
I vocabulary association,translation,alliance,
point, etc.-was a clear signalthat none of these
: the rich vocabulary of the actor's practice, but
o systematicallyavoid replacingtheir sociology,
nd their ontology with those of the social scienIecting with them through some researchprotonbersome circumlocution to avoid the loaded
:auseANT researchers
cannot exactlybe said to
:ial actors.
Ive not alwaysbeentrue to the original task, and
our own vocabularyhas contaminatedour abill build their own space.as many critiques have
Chateauraynaud,l99l; Lee and Brown, 1994).
our part does not mean, however. that our
poor. but that, on the contrary. it was not poor
esigning a space for the actors to deploy their
much harder task than we thought at first-and
se to this notion of deploymentitself. From the
T has been sliding in a sort of race to overcome
rp from the list of its methodologicalterms any
it impossiblefor new actors (actantsin fact) to
iheir own terms,using their own dimensionsand
Law and Annemarie Mol have used the word
,1994\, Adrian Cussins,the word trails (Cussins,
ns. the word choreography(Cussins,1996).All
;nate in my view what the theory should be and
Iiffusionof 'double-click'networks has rendered
heory that saysthat by following circulationswe
ry defining entities. essenceor provinces.In that
rly one of the many anti-essentialistmovements
cterize the end of the century. But it is also, like
simply a way for the social scientiststo access
not a theory, a way to travel from one spot to
field site to the next, not an interpretation of
O The Editorial Board ofThe Sociolosical Review 1999
.ihat actors do simply glossedin a difl'erent more palatable and
:'.!)reuniversalistlanguage.
I have often compared it to perspectivedrawing (Latour, 1997),
\'.uuse of this peculiar relation between an empty construction
:h.it is nonethelessstrictly determinedbut which has no other aim
:r.rn disappearingonce the picture is left to deploy its own space.I
-rm rr!ll awareof the limits of this metaphor sincethere is hardly a
lrr)re constraining method than three dimensional perspectival
jra*'ing! Yet the image has its advantage:ANT does not tell anyone
:he shape that is to be drawn----circlesor cubes or lines-but only
rtr\\' to go about systematicallyrecording the world-building abili:resof the sitesto be documentedand registered.In that sense,the
:r)tÈntialitiesof ANT are still largelyuntapped.especiallythe politi;al implicationsof a social theory that would not claim to explain
:he actors' behaviour and reasons,but only to find the procedures
lhich render actors able to negotiate their ways through one
r n o t h e r ' sw o r l d - b u i l d i n ga c t i v i t v .
The fourth and last nail in the coffin is the hyphen that relates
.rnd distinguishesthe two words 'actor' and 'network'. As I have
rndicatedabove,it is an unfortunate reminder of the debate between
rgency and structure into which we never wanted to enter. But it is
.rlso a place holder for a much bigger problem, cne that we have
become aware of only very slowly, and whose impact will be very
much felt in the future. By ciealingsimultaneouslywith human and
non-human agencies.we happened to fall into an entpty space
betweenthe four major concernsof the modernistway of thinking.
We were not conscious of this coherenceat first. but learned it the
hard way when we began to understand that those who should have
been most interestedin our work, that is social scientists,including
thoseof SSK (the Sociologyof ScientificKnowledge).turned out to
be its harshestcritics (Collins and Yearley,1992;Bloor. 1998).Their
social explanation did not seemto us to hold water: the very definition of society was part of the problem not part of the solution.
How could that be possible,and how could sociology of science
trigger such entirely different researchprograms?
ANT slowly drifted from a sociology o[ scienceand technology,
from a social theory, into another enquiry of modernity-sometimes called comparative, symmetrical, or monist anthropology
(Descolaand Palsson,1996).The differencebetweenANT and the
massesof reflection on modernity and post-, hyper-, pre- and antimodernity,was simply that it took to task all of the componentsof
what could be called the modernisi predicament simultaneousl),.
O The Editorial Board ofThe Socioloeical Review 1999
2l
Bruno Latour
The reason why it could not stick to a theory of social order is that
the whole theory of society soon appeared to be enmeshed in a
much more complex struggle to define an epistemological settlement about: (a) what the world is llke outsidewithout human intervention; (b) a psychology inside-an isolated subjectivity still able
to also comprehend the word out there; (c) a political theory of how
to keep the crowds at bay without them intervening with their
unruly passionsand ruining the social order; and finally (d) a rather
repressedbut very present theology that is the only way to guarantee the differences and the connections between those three other
domains of reality. There is not one problem of deciding what society is, a second of explaining why there is a psychology, a third of
defining politics, and a fourth of accounting for the deletion of theological interests. Instead there is only one single predicament
which, no matter how entangled, has to be tackled at once. To sum
'in
'out
there' psychology,
there' nature,
it up in one simple formula:
'up there' theology. It is this whole package
'down
politics,
there'
that by happenstanceANT called into question at once.
There is no room here to review the whole question-I have done
so elsewhere(Latout 1999)-but only to indicate the consequences
for one possible future of ANT. ANT is not a theory of the social,
any more than it is a theory of the subject, or a theory of God, or a
theory of nature. It is a theory of the spaceor fluids circulating in a
non-modern situation. What type of connection can be established
between those terms, other than the systematicmodernist solution?
'after'
ANT and
This is, I think, clearly the direction of what is
in the
expressed
worries
number
of
the
a
to
solve
what would begin
book.
contributionsto this
Let us not forget that the first thing we made circulate is nature
'out there' box. I was struck to see that
and reference,that is the
none of the writers. in this book or at the conferencefrom which it
derived, mentioned social constructivism and the recent Science
Wars. Clearly the treatment of the collective of scientific reality as a
circulation of transformations-is it even necessaryto say again
that referenceis real, social and narrative at once?-is now, if not
taken for granted, at least clearly articulated. If ANT can be credited
with something, it is to have developeda sciencestudiesthat entirely
'social construction' and the 'realist/
bypasses the question of
relativistdebate'.lt is not, it never was. a pertinent question.even
though it still amusesmany people who are not familiar with either
science studies or ANT. Social theory is now allowed to have as
with a bountiful
many points of contact. as many correspondences.
22
O The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review I 999
reality as there are circulating references.Al
realities without having to spend a single mo
not believing in an 'outside' reality. On the r
to explain why on earth the modernist had tl
ing reality 'outside'.
What I call the 'second wave' of science
.offering) the same sort of treatment to the ot
Subjectivity, corporeality, is no more a prope
viduals, of intentional subjects, than being i
property of nature. This new tack is so w
papers in this book that there is no need to r
(seethe chapter by Annemarie Mol). Subiect
circulating capacity.something that is partii
hooking up to certain bodies of practice. Mar
the chapter by Emilie Gomart and Antoine F
the work I am doing on ethnopsychiatry (Latc
Charis Cussins, the new book by Marc Berg
(Berg and Mol, 1998), all have the character
tributing subjectivequality outside-but of co
ferent 'outside' now that epistemology has
circulating reference.The two movements-th
wave, one on objectivity, the other on sub
related: the more we have ,socialized' so to s
the more 'outside' objectivity the content oi
gain. There is plenty of room now for both.
What is next? Clearly the .down there' asp
predicament, namely political theory as indir
growing body of work (seework by Dick pels)
..f our definition of political practice escapest
ncrlogy ('out there') and psychology (,in ther
:he specificity of a certain type of circulatior
Body Politic into one, that is, some type of circ
::ie collective, we would have made an immer
.\(ruld have at last freed politics from science_
rristemology (Latour, 1997)-a result that wou
tr)ple who are still often accusedto have politi
-:pairl From
the recent work in political ecolog
\:.ngers call 'cosmopolitics'(Stengers,
1996;S
-,:her confident
that this will soon come to fi
--'.:r3nçs
that academicsalways searchfor, so
-:r.rot be obtained without a relocationof the
- ., ::r of political
circulation.
': !.:rrtrrial
Board ofThe Sociological Review 1999
On recalling ANT
)uld not stick to a theory of social order is that
f society soon appeared to be enmeshed in a
x struggle to define an epistemological settlet the world is llke outsidewithout human interology inside-an isolated subjectivity still able
the word out there; (c) a political theory of how
r at bay without them intervening with their
ruining the social order; and finally (d) a rather
resent theology that is the only way to guaranLnd the connections between those three other
fhere is not one problem of deciding what socixplaining why there is a psychology, a third of
I a fourth of accounting for the deletion of thenstead there is only one single predicament
w entangled, has to be tackled at once. To sum
'out
'in
rrmula:
there' nature,
there' psychology,
'up
;,
there' theology. It is this whole package
: ANT called into questionat once.
here to review the whole question-I have done
:, 1999)-but only to indicate the consequences
rre of ANT. ANT is not a theory of the social,
. theory of the subject, or a theory of God, or a
s a theory of the spaceor fluids circulating in a
,n. What type of connection can be established
, other than the systematicmodernist solution?
'after'
rrly the direction of what is
ANT and
solve a number of the worries expressedin the
book.
that the first thing we made circulate is nature
'out
s the
there' box. I was struck to see that
in this book or at the conferencefrom which it
social constructivism and the recent Science
atment of the collective of scientific reality as a
brmations-is it even necessaryto say again
, social and narrative at once?-is noq if not
least clearly articulated. If ANT can be credited
to have developeda sciencestudiesthat entirely
'social
'realist/
on of
construction' and the
is not, it never was, a pertinent question,even
s many people who are not familiar with either
NT. Social theory is now allowed to have as
rct, as many correspondences,with a bountiful
O The Editorial Board of The Sociolosical Review I 999
reality as there are circulating references.ANT can gorge itself on
realitieswithout having to spend a single moment excusingitself for
not believing in an 'outside' reality. On the contrary, it is now able
to explain why on earth the modernist had the bizarre idea of makrng reality'outside'.
What I call the 'second wave' of sciencestudies has offered (is
offering) the same sort of treatment to the other sphere-'in there'.
Subjectivity,corporeality, is no more a property of humans, of indir iduals, of intentional subjects, than being an outside reality is a
property of nature. This new tack is so well represented in the
papers in this book that there is no need to develop the point here
tseethe chapter by Annemarie Mol). Subjectivity seemsalso to be a
circulating capacity, something that is partially gained or lost by
hooking up to certain bodies of practice. Madeleine Akrich's work,
the chapter by Emilie Gomart and Antoine Hennion for this book,
the work I am doing on ethnopsychiatry (Latour, 1996),the work of
Charis Cussins, the new book by Marc Berg and Annemarie Mol
lBerg and Mol, 1998),all have the character of, so to speak, redistributing subjectivequality outside-buT of course,it is a totally dif'outside'
Èrent
now that epistemology has been turned into a
circulating reference.The two movements-the first and the second
\\'ave, one on objectivity, the other on subjectivity-are closely
related: the more we have 'socialized' so to speak 'outside' nature,
the more 'outside' objectivity the content of our subjectivity can
gain. There is plenty of room now for both.
What is next? Clearly the 'down there' aspect of the modernist
predicament, namely political theory as indicated by a small but
growing body of work (seework by Dick Pels).Not a single feature
of our definition of political practice escapesthe pressureof epistemology ('out there') and psychology ('in there'). If we could elicit
the specificity of a certain type of circulation that is turning the
Body Politic into one, that is, some type of circulation that 'collects'
the collective, we would have made an immense step forward. We
would have at last freed politics from science-or more exactly from
epistemology(Latour, 1997)-a result that would be quite a feat for
people who are still often accusedto have politicized sciencebeyond
repair! From the recent work in political ecology,or in what Isabelle
Stengerscall'cosmopolitics' (Stengers,1996;Stengers,1997),I am
rather confident that this will soon come to fruition. The political
relevancethat academics always search for, somewhat desperately,
cannot be obtained without a relocation of the extraordinary originality of political circulation.
O The Editorial Board ofThe Socioloeical Review 1999
ZJ
Bruno Latour
What about the half hidden sphereabove,that has been used as a
guarantee for the rest of the modernist systems?I know this is a
very risky territory since if there is anything worse than dabbling
with non-humans, it is to take theology seriously.This line of work
is not representedat all, I agree,in this book. Yet, I think that it is
in theology that the notion of circulation is the most rewarding. preciselybecauseit quickly rejuvenatesa tissueof absurdities(what has
become a tissue of absurdities) becauseof the shadow cast by the
notion of a Science and by the notion of Society. Morality that
seemstotally absent from the engineering dreams of ANI may be
very abundant if we care to take it also for a certain type of circulation.
The point on which I want to conclude is somewhat different
from that of John Law. In his chapter, he asks us to limit ANT and
to tackle complexity and locality seriously and modestly. As with
severalof us, he is somewhat terrified by the monster that we have
begot. But you cannot do to ideas what auto manufacturers do with
badly conceived cars: you cannot recall them all by sending advertisements to the owners, retrofitting them with improved enginesor
parts. and sending them back again, all for free. Once launched in
this unplanned and uncharted experimentin collectivephilosophy
there is no way to retract and once again be modest. The only solution is to do what Victor Frankenstein did not do. that is, not to
abandonthe creatureto its fate but continue all the way in developi n g i t s s t r a n g ep o t e n t i a l .
Yes,I think there is life after ANT. Once we have strongly pushed
a stake into the heart of the creature safely buried in its coffin-thus
'actor', 'network',
abandoningwhat is so wrong with ANT, that is
'theory'
without forgettingthe hyphenl-some other creaturemight
emerse,light and beautiful:our future collectiveachievement.
Collins. H. and S. \'êarley (1992). 'Epistemological
Ch
A . p i c k e r i n g .C h i c a _ e oC: h i c a g o U n i v e r s i t y I
,Culture.
'
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
,
C u s s i n s ,A . ( 1 9 9 2 ) ,
E m b o c l i m e n ta n < lO b i e c t
Trails."tl inJ l 0 l t+04): 65 1_6g8.
'Onrological
Cussins, C. (1996).
Choreography: Agen
I n f e r t i l i t y C I i n i c . ' p a g e s 1 6 6 2 0 1 i n M . B e r . ea n d
A.
Durham. N. Carolina:Duke Universirr pres-s.
Czarniarwska. B. { lq97). .\urrtttittg rlte Orgtni:ation.
Chicago Press.
Descola. P and G. palsson (eds) (1996\, Nature
r
Perspet I i ves. London: Routledse.
L a r o u r . B . ( l 9 q 6 ) . ' O n I n t e r o b j i e c t i rt y w i r h d i s c u s
Lvnch and Yrjo Engelstrôm.' LIind. Culturt,und ,4t.ri
Latour B. (19961,petite réflerion sur le tulte noderne
t
Empécheursde penseren rond.
Latour. B. (1997), 'socrates' and Callicles.Settlem
Impossible Body Politic.' Confgurutions.Spring(2):
lg
Latour. B. (1997). 'The Trouble with Actor Net,"or
-169381
Lrttour. B. (1999), Pondora's Hope. E.ysays <tn
the
C a m b r i t l g e .M a s s . :H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t v p r e s s .
Liitour. B. and E. Hermant (199g). pari:; r,ille invisib!
Empêcheursde penseren rond.
L e e . N . a n d S . B r o w n ( 1 9 9 4 ) .. O t h e r n e s sa n d t h e A c t o r
Continent.' Anterit un Behat,ioral Scientist3i'(6J:772-.
\ 1 o 1 . A . a n d J . L a w ( 1 9 9 4 ) , . R e g i o n s ,N e t w o r k s .
and l
Topologlr' SociulSrudie.yoJ'Scientt,24(4): 641 672.
: ) , , r r e r .M . ( e d . ) ( 1 9 9 5 ) . A c t o u n t i n g a n d S c i e n < . e :
Natio
.R.,rf-r{//r.
Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
\:3r'rgers.I. (1996). Co.sttropolitiqucs_Tonte
l: lu suerre a
. e r t e a n d L e s E m p è c h e u r sd e p e n s e re n r o n d .
\ : j n s e r s , L ( 1 9 9 7 ) ,P o r e r a n d
I n t e nl l o r . M i n n e a p o l i s :U n
',r1.'r.
J . R . t 1 9 9 3 t . R e r h i n A i n t, h
s e T h t , , r 1 , , 1O t l s , t n i : u t i
R , t J u n O r q u n i : u t ù n . N o r w o o d . N e w J e r s e yA
: bler pL
References
Bauman, Z. (19921.Intitnation.so/' Po.srnroderniî.r'.
London: Routledge.
Berg, M. and A. Mol (1998) (eds). Dif.ferencesin llleclicine'.Lnratelling PraLtices,
Tedmiquesund Brtriri's.Durham. North Carolina: Duke University Press.
Bloor, D. ( 1998).Anti-Latour.' .S/r./iesin Historv und Philosoph.t,
o.fScience.
C a l l o n . M . a n d B . L a t o u r ( [ 9 8 [ ) , ' L l n s c r e w i n g ( h e B i g L e v i a t h a n :H o w D o A c t o r s
Macrostructure Reality'. Atlvnces in Social Theorv untl lv[ethodology. Tov'ard an
Integrution o.f lltiuo and Mutro Sociolo.qlcs.K. Knorr and A. Cicourel. London:
Routledge.277 303.
C h a t e a u r a y n a u dF. ( 1 9 9 1 ) , ' F o r c e se t f a i b l e s s e ds e l a n o u v e l l ea n t h r o p o l o g i ed e s s c i ences.'C'ririail( (529 530):4-58 478,
^lÀ
:a
O The Editorial Board ofThe Socioloeical Review 1999
Jrtrrrrll Board ot The Sociological Review 1999
On recalling ANT
.alf hidden sphereabove,that has been used as a
est of the modernist systems?I know this is a
since if there is anything worse than dabbling
t is to take theology seriously.This line of work
t all, I agree,in this book. Yet, I think that it is
notion of circulation is the most rewarding, preckly rejuvenatesa tissueof absurdities(what has
absurdities) becauseof the shadow cast by the
e and by the notion of Society. Morality that
t from the engineering dreams of ANI may be
r care to take it also for a certain type of circularich I want to conclude is somewhat different
,aw. In his chapter, he asks us to limit ANT and
y and locality seriously and modestly. As with
somewhat terrified by the monster that we have
rot do to ideas what auto manufacturers do with
's: you cannot recall them all by sending adverners, retrofitting them with improved enginesor
them back again, all for free. Once launched in
uncharted experiment in collective philosophy
etract and once again be modest. The only soluVictor Frankenstein did not do. that is, not to
re to its fate but continue all the way in developrtial.
is life after ANT. Once we have strongly pushed
rt of the creature safely buried in its coffin-thus
'network',
r so wrong with ANT, that is'actor',
'getting the hyphen!-some other creature might
rautiful: our future collective achievement.
t ollrns. H. and S. Yearley (1992),'Epistemological Chicken'. Scient.eos Practice and
Culture. A. Pickering. Chicago: Chicago University Press.30l-326.
( ussrns.A. (1992). 'Content, Embodiment and Objectivity: The Theory of Cognitive
T r a l l s . 'M i n d l 0 l ( 4 0 4 ) : 6 5 1 - 6 8 8 .
('ussins. C. (1996), 'Ontological Choreography: Agency for Women Patients in an
lnlertility Clinic.'Pages 166-201 in M. Berg and A. Mol, DiJferencesin Medit'ine,
Durham, N. Carolina: Duke University Press.
L-zarniarwska. B. (1997), Nurrating the Organi:atioir, Chicago: The University of
(ihicago Press.
Descola. P and G. Palsson (eds) (1996), Nature and Sociery. Anthropologicul
Pt'rs
pecI i|es. London: Routledge.
l-rtour. B. (1996). 'On Interobjectivity with discussion by Marc Berg, Michael
Llnch and Yrjo Engelstrôm.' lrlind. Cultura arul Actir.ir.l'3(4): 228 245.
L.rtcrur. B. (1996). Petite ré.fle.ritm sur le culte moderne de.sdieux Faitiches. Paris. Les
Empêcheursde penseren rond.
Lrtour. B. (1997). 'Socrates'and Callicles' Settlementor the Invention of the
Impossible Bodl Politic.' ConfigurationsSpring(2): 189-240.
I rtour. B. (1997). 'The Trouble with Actor Network Theory.' So:iale lltelt 47:
. . 1 6-93 8 1 .
L.rtour. B. (1999]r. Pandoras Hope. Essays on the realit.l' of science studies.
Cambridge. Mass.: Harvard University Press.
L.rtour. B. and E. Hermant (1998). Paris yille inyisihle Paris, La Découverte-Les
Empêcheursde penseren rond.
Lee. N. and S. Brown (1994).'Otherness and the Actor-Nettvork: the Undiscovered
Continent.' Anteritun Behayioral Srientist 37(61 772 790.
\ 1 o 1 . A . a n d J . L a r v ( 1 9 9 4 ) , ' R e g i o n s ,N e r w o r k s , a n d F l u i d s : A n a e m i a a n d S o c i a l
Topology.' Sotial Studiesof Science24(4):641 672.
Ptrner, M. (ed.) (1995). Atcounîing and Sciente: Nutional Inquirt'and Conrmercial
Rcason.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stengers.I. (1996), Cosmopolitiques Tonte l'. Ia guerre des stiences.Paris, La décou\erte and Les Empêcheursde penseren rond.
Stengers.l. (1997t, Pover and Inlenrron. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Taylor, J.R. (19931.Rethinking tht, Theor.+'
o.f'Organi:ational Cctnmtunication:Hort to
Read un Organi:ution. Norwood, New Jersey:Ablex Publishing.
utions of Po.stnndernitl'.London: Routledge.
1998) (eds). Differentes in Medicine: Unruvelling Prat'tices.
, Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press.
atour.' .S/rrlre.rin History and Phibsopht'oJ St'ience.
' U n s c r e w i n gt h e B i g L e v i a t h a n :H o w D o A c t o r s
ur (1981).
y'. Advantts irt Social Theor"vund Methodology-. Tot'ard an
,nd Mucro Socioloeies.K. Knorr and A. Cicourel. London:
rl). 'Forces et faiblessesde la nouvelle anthropologie des scii30):458478.
O The Editorial Board of The Sociolosical Review I 999
O The Editorial Board of The Sociolosical Review 1999
25