On The Idea Of Actors' Agency And Its Adequacy

ANT (Short for Actor-Network-Theory), which is put forward by B.Latour, insists that both human beings and nonhumans are actors in scientific activities, and the roles they play in scientific activities are completely symmetrical. So, nonhuman actors share equal agency with human beings. ANT is constructed based on the idea of the actors'agency.In traditional philosophy and Mertonian sociology of science, science is regarded as a form of knowledge in our culture. The strong reflective logic built by the traditional views of science limits scientists in methodology or scientific norms. In these two science studies paradigms which are characterized obviously with positivism, the subjectivity and agency of scientists, namely humans in science activities, are neglected to some extent, not mention the agency of nonhumans.Based on detailed anthropological research of the process of science activities (and this research method got so popular that a new paradigm of science studies was established as laboratory study), Latour revealed the falsity of the logic mentioned above. Meanwhile, Latour became interested in the earlier paradigm of SSK. He tried once for a time to realize his anti-realism(especially anti-natural-realism) ambition by extending Strong Programme.The laboratory study paradigm established by Latour aims to follow some basic epistemological principles of SSK. However, this micro-approach disintegrates the macro-interest-analysis model, and grows up to be an important traitorous and reflexive force in SSK. After the well-known arguments about the metaphysical basis of science between Latour and D. Bloor, who is the advocator of Strong Programme, and with the critique of symmetrical and causal postulates, Latour thoroughly deconstructed and gave up Strong Programme. Since then, he began to explore the new paradigm of science studies, that is, Actor-Network-Theory.Combining the historical consideration of the actors'agency, the paper puts stress on the idea of the actors'agency of Latour, reflecting on the adequacy of the idea to ANT and trying to resolve the theoretical problems resulted by it. There are altogether 6 chapters in this paper: Chapter 1:The analysis firstly concentrates on the the actors whose agency is partly neglected in traditional philosophy of science and Mertonian sociology of science. In traditional philosophy of science and Mertonian sociology, science is regarded just as a copy or reflection of Nature. Accordingly, scientists are only contemplators and facsimilers. They are regarded as honest observers of scientific methodologies, norms and ethos, and their agency and subjective characteristics are thus paid inadequate attention. As an extreme result, science could even be kept as an epistemological mythology and scientists could be limited strictly by scientific methodology or norms.The explanation of science made by the traditional view of science faces a dilemma, that is, science is an activity of human beings while it has non-human (or non-social) characteristics. Kuhn brings the beliefs of scientific community into the shaping process of scientific knowledge by means of the concept of paradigm. Human beings'or social factors'influence to scientific knowledge begins to enter the horizons. The theory of paradigm should have turned out to be an enlightening work to shake off the dilemma mentioned above. However, SSK makes an extravagant reading and Overextension of Kuhn'theory. It stresses too much on the influence of social factors and social interest to scientific knowledge. Interest-analysis goes further to link the shaping of scientific knowledge directly with the economical, political and cultural interests of scientists. Scientists'agency is also paid inadequate attention in SSK.Chapter 2:This part makes clear why Latour turns from Strong Programme to ANT. Because of the conflict between macro- and social- analysis and Latour's anthropological micro-research of scientific knowledge, that is, the former cannot explain the micro-building of scientific facts, Latour gives up Strong Programme he once worked for.In the arguments between Latour and Bloor, the focus is whether or not to stick to the dualism between nature and society, and, between Human and Nonhumans.For Latour, it is quite important to stride over the romantic dualism between Human and Nonhumans, as well as to change the asymmetrical attitude to Human and Nonhuamans. In the traditional views, people usually think that human beings and the nonhumans are unequal, and that human beings are actors while nonhumans are not, not mention their agency. After the confession of causal postulate and the critique of the symmetrical postulate of Strong Programme, Latour clears up the epistemological model of long-lasting dualism. He puts forward the concept of entity's stabilization gradient as the metaphysical basis of ANT.Chapter 3:This part is mainly about the idea of the actors'agency. According to the general symmetrical postulate, Latour puts forward his concept of "actor", namely human beings and nonhumans with agency. They are both granted agency symmetrically.Latour insists to distribute agency symmetrically among human beings and nonhumans. In ANT, nonhumans are paid never witnessed attention because of their agency. Accordingly, the central status of human beings is weakened comparatively. The agency of nonhumans is realized by a political method, namely by choosing scientists as their spokesman. Agency of human beings and nonhumans appear together with each other during the entanglement between human beings and nonhumans. It's quite easy to understand human's agency. Nonhumans, too, also have agency. This is the most distinctive character of ANT differing from former science studies paradigms.Chapter 4:This part analyzes from different perspectives the characteristics of ANT based on the idea of the actors'agency. The concept of stabilization gradient of entities supplies a metaphysical basis of ANT; By means of the dynamical mechanism (translation), different actors realize the heterogeneous links and the network is thus built; ANT supplies a new perspective to understand the relationship among science, technology and society by emphasizing the actors'agency, the boundaries disappear altogether. In the field which is called technoscience by Latour, the question to discuss the relationship among science, technology and society becomes a false one; ANT contributes many new research approaches to current science studies.Chapter 5:This part analyses the academic evaluation of ANT on two dimensions, affirming the progress ANT makes in both philosophy of science and post-SSK research on one hand and, on the other hand, pointing out the difficulties of ANT combining the doubt of Collins and others about ANT as well as ANT's own problems resulted from its anti-normative research and its reflectivity.Chapter 6:This part reflects on the adequacy of the idea of the actors'agency. Latour tries to redefine the relationship between nature and society by means of the idea that nonhumans also have agency. In doing so, he wants to weak the tendency to over-emphasize the influences of social factors in science-making and thus to neglect nonhumans in the course, achieving the decentralization in science studies. Although Latour has much theoretical ambition and good intentions, ANT still has many problems. The reason lies in the inadequacy of the idea of the actors' agency, especially the nonhumans' agency. After all, the agency of nonhumans is different from that of human beings.The last part of the paper thinks that Latour'idea of the actors'agency aims to grasp the diachronic characteristics of science. However, it does not mean that agency should necessarily be granted to nonhumans. Furthermore, it's also hard to realize the decentralization of human beings in science studies. For a better understanding of science, the paper suggests canceling nonhumans'agency from the perspective of pragmatic semiotics and puts forward Weak Asymmetry as the third choice between the two "strong" attitudes ("Strong Asymmetry" and "Strong Symmetry") to such opposite sides of dualism. As for the relationship between human beings and nonhumans in scientific activities, the paper suggests to keep a weak asymmetrical attitude in science studies. Weak Asymmetry acknowledges the demarcation between Human and Nonhumans but does not put it to the extreme. It weakens the priority of one side over the other, but does not deny their boundary. It admits the central status of human beings in all kinds of social activities but does not make this central status absolute.