Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Actor-network theory musings
Transcript of Actor-network theory musings
needs a god's eye to "see" it
assumes an ability of all the bits to interact/influence each other
the game of having the last say in over views
this is not bad
Schatzki has a god-like eye for ANT
analogy with wave/particle nature of light?
Prolly not... just an attempt at being the bigger god
useful/related scribble sites for practice
it's practice all the way down
It's gods all the way up?
Behind a fiction is always another fiction- it is turtles all the way down.
Czarniawska, B. (2003). Management she wrote: organization studies and detective stories. In S. Linstead (Ed.), Text/work: Representing organization and organizing representation (pp. 15-40). London, England: Routledge. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=0415304733
Schatzi argues that posthumanists are wrong in debunking the integrity, unique richness and significance of human agency.
Latour & ethics
so what are the literacy folk doin/sayin?
There is also a sense in Schatzki of ways to determine a superior ontology, cf. ANT which is curious about how various ontologies interact/intersect and live in tension or not. In all of this, to me, there is a strong sense of "my over view is better than your over view"
wondering what is behind the turtle fiction... pizzas all the way down?
Bill from Ockham, famous for his razor
no universals separate from objects
something of a relative of nominalism
Ah. The centrality of humans... again!
Nominalism versus contextualism is a key issue for all accounts of social life, especially those seeking to chart the forms and determinants of social change. Nominalism contends that the character and transformation of sociality can be explained solely through the properties of and relations among the particular entities that compose social life. It thereby opposes contextualism, which argues that these matters must be referred to a context, diﬀerent from these entities, in which the latter exist. By “context,” I mean, provisionally, a setting or backdrop that envelops and determines phenomena. The distinction between nominalism and contextualism becomes palpable when applied to the phenomenon of social orders qua arrangements. It then becomes a distinction between those theories that maintain that the character and transformation of arrangements are beholden to nothing but properties of and transactions among the components of arrangements and those accounts that declare these matters to depend on a context in which arrangements subside.
Lovely piece by Kelly in what technology wants about the free will of sub-atomic stuff