Oh what a tangled web we weave,

I am impressed with Chad’s obvious understanding of ANT. I must say my own understanding appears to come and go in various parts of the book.

On page 22 LaTour gives five uncertainties: the nature of groups, the nature of actions, the nature of objects, the nature of facts, and the the type of studies done under the laboe of a science of the social. This is one of those things that actually makes sense to me, however, I’m unsure of how it is more salient when combined with ANT than when discussed under the term “sociology.” It is because there are such uncertainties within groupings of the populace that “social sciences” came into being, is it not? I probably misunderstood something.

Latour states,”The task of defining and ordering the social should be left to the actors themselves, not taken up by the analyst. This is why to regain some sense of order, the best solution is to trace connections between the controversies themselves rather than try to decide how to settle any given controversy” (23). I believe this to be very true, but then when I began to think about it I began to wonder which analyst had taken up what controversies to settle. I really can’t think of an example, which is my point, and I wondered if one of you braniacs out there could give me one.

He also states, “To use the word ‘actor’ means that it’s never clear who and what is acting when we act since an actor on stage is never alone in acting” (46). Some of me understands this, and parts of me don’t. (The left hand and the right big toe are the dissenters). Anyway, what I would like to know is if me means an individual does not know when he or she is acting of their own accord. Is everything we do a reaction to something or someone else? On the one hand I can buy that, but on the other I wonder if this is the case, is there ultimately the singular self? But then, perhaps that is the question at hand.

When talking about “The Third Source of Uncertainty” LaTour explains that objects can be actors, too. He describes this as an association between entities which are in no way recognizable as being social in the ordinary manner, except during the brief moment when they are reshuffled together” (65). These items have something social through the modifications made throughout the whole place in the organization of all the goods. These minute shifts reveal to the observer which new combinations are explored and which paths will be taken (65). I liked this example in that it made the term “network” very clear to me. It also made me wonder how in the world anyone would be able to trace a “complete” network of anything. It would wind up being an extraordinarily vast project.

Ah, well.