>In a seminar at York last week, reference was made to "actor network
>theory". Googling the phrase connects it to post-structuralism (the main
>person associated with the ideas involved seemed to be Latour). In the
>seminar, a local person at the University of Toronto, Joel Baum, was
>identified as the author of an edited collection setting out the basis of
>the approach. When I went to his website
>(<http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/~baum/> I found that that his work is
>based in "game theory" and "complexity theory".
OMG! I had to wear garlic before I could view that page! it reminds me of when I was doing the lit review for the first (later discarded) version of my diss on downsizing. The topic meant I had to get more specifically into organizational theory. BLAH! to the majority of it!
I don't know for sure what actor network theory is all about, since I was never especially interested in pursuing organizational theory, but I'll guess this is or is an offshoot of what we call "Network Theory" in sociology. It was big among some polisci students at the Maxwell School where I did some fellowship work. Some of my soc. colleagues were pursuing it by virtue of association with the polisci studs. I remember helping a colleague with his diss--proofreading for English b/c he was from China. He was big time into structuralist organization theory. Luhmann!
But I'm not much inclined toward that sociological perspective. The man who recruited me to the Center for the Study of Citizenship had written a book called _The Technological Conscience: Survival and Dignity in an Age of Expertise_, which was a critique of the uses and abuses of cybernetics system theory as appropriated into social theory. I was not inclined to pursue this field. :)
The sense in which they are using post-structuralist theory may seem incongruous because this strand of thought--network theory/exchange theory as pursued in the US-tends to be heavily influenced by Parsons' revisionism and the influence of the Chicago School. I don't know LaTour, though I know of him and skimming around I see he nods to Bloor, a theorist that folks in organizational theory draw on, on occ.
Network theory abjures Grand Theorizing such as Talcott Parsons' in favor of empirical research. Its abstractions tend to be in the form of mathematical models of social structure that, they argue, actually account for social structure. (statistical modeling--about as mathematical as most sociology gets--is about individuals, not social structure. I've never had time to pursue this, but if I were to do so, mathematical modeling of social structure is most likely where its at. Furhtermore, Raymond Morrow argues that its a promising model for a leftist critical method to flesh out critical theory. From what I've read is seems so: we need something more progressive than the positivist explanada/explanadum crap that passes for general theory --in the generalizable, explanatory theory way. e.g., Justin's right; Yoshie's wrong. :p )
Of all the people connected to this sociological lineage, the theorist/researcher I know best is Mark Granovetter who did a marvelous (but limited) study on the sociology of the job market. He didn't study individuals and their attributes. Rather, he studied the ties between individuals and the groups to which they belong. I've drawn on his work in my own work on real estate markets. Granovetter distinguishes "strong ties" (close friends/family) from "weak ties" (acquaintances, people you meet at dinner parties, rel. forged on LBO). He doesn't place a moral value on them, however.
Granovetter argues that there is "strength in weak ties" --something which most people would find counterintuitive. Weak ties--such as my relationship with you, Ted--can form a bridge between the two of us and the groups to which we belong. Without that weak tie, it's possible to be totally isolated, even though ensconced in the strong ties of our respective, usually small, groups.
anyway, the point here is that network theory rejects the individualistic approach of, say, statistical modeling, which can only account for individuals and their attributes. Barry Wellman is a big proponent of this view. See, for ex., "Different Strokes for Different Folks: Community Ties and Social Support.")
They also reject the emphasis on the socialization of norms and values which the structuralist Talcott Parsons pursued in his grand theoretical attempt to connect psyche, family, socialization, community, organizations, institutions, social structures and back again: from the microscopic to the mesoscopic to the macroscopic.
So, basically, the focus of network sociology is on social structures. To see social structure--to see its footprint--we must look at what Wellman calls the "pattern of ties linking members" seeking out "regular network patterns beneath the complex surface of social systems. ... Actors and their behavior are seen as constrained by these structures. Thus, the focus is not on voluntaristic actors, but on structural constraints." (Wellman, "Network Analysis: some Basic Principles." in Randall Collins (ed) _Sociological Theory_, 1983) As an aside, contrast that claim with the claim that, say, I would make: social structures are both enabling AND constraining.
Now, I'll bet that Wellman's version of network theory has been adopted by (or vice versa or something) those interested in what is called exchange theory--probably because exchange theory brings in an analysis of power, conflict, etc. (as limited as it is). These folks, from what I remember, are def. big on computer simulation. Wojtek can probably tell you a ton more.
Karen Cook, Jodi O'Brien, and Peter Kollock from "Exchange Theory: A Blueprint for Structure and Process" which is in Goerge Ritzer's _Frontiers of Social Theory_, 1990:
Their goal is to integrate individual (micro) level of exchange with the structural (macro) level of exchange. Exchange theory "includes within a single theoretical framework propositions that apply to individual actors as well as to the macro-level (or systemic level) and it attempts to formulate explicitly the consequences of changes at one level for other levels of analysis."
They see society as composed of individual or collective actors. Resources are distributed among actors. Actors in a network share a set of exchange opportunities and, thus, exchange relations exist among these actors. Exchange relations, in turn, form a single network structure.
Here, decision theory is "a better understanding of the way actors make choices relevant to transactions" and cognitive psychological, anthropology, artificial intelligence research illuminates the ways "in which actors perceive, process, and retrieve information. ... While exchange network theory has much promise, there are potential pitfalls in any attempt to extend a well-developed micro-level framework to apply to more macro-levels. Exchange theory will need a more explicit specification of the processes at the macro-level it seeks to explain and some vision of the nature of these macro0-level processes in relation to other existing structures and events (e.g. an explict acknowledgement of the historical, political, and institutional context in which events of interest are likely to occur.)
>What is "actor network theory" and what, if any, are its connections to
>post-structuralism, "game theory" and "complexity theory"?
I really have no idea, but the above is probably related to some extent. I realize that they call this theoretical approach, ANT, for Actor netowork Theory. LaTour also indicates that it's pretty much dead and must be superceded. Yeah, they all make these concession speeches and they theory never dies, just twists in the academic winds. :)
I'd be interested in the analysis of game theory as psychotic, though!
kelley
>Ted
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk