MAPPING THE THEORETICAL TERRAIN AND LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1.3 Mapping the distinctive theoretical tenets of ANT
ANT is a distinctive approach to social theory which originated in the field of science and technology studies. ANT’s distinctive approach to social theory makes it unique. So how is ANT different from other social theories?
2.1.3.1 Sociology of the social vs sociology of association
Latour (2005) argues that there are two distinct forms of sociology - traditional sociology, which he refers to as the sociology of the social, and then the sociology of associations. What differentiates theses two forms is that in the sociology of the social, the social (i.e. context) is taken as a given, while in the sociology of association, the social is produced via the actors and their associations (Latour, 2005). Hence, in the sociology of the social the actors are embedded in a context that is readily available to explain the phenomenon being explored (Latour, 2005). The implication of taking the social as a given to explain the phenomenon being explored is that it denies actors the opportunity to show how associations unfold or account for their actions. Furthermore, it prevents actors from making their own theories
not arise via the trails created by the actors (Latour, 2005). To support his argument Latour (2005) draws on Einstein’s theory of relativity.
Originally it was assumed by physicists that there must be ether, or a medium present, for the propagation of electromagnetic waves. This presumed medium was thought to fill the universe. Einstein’s theory of relativity, however, rejected the idea of ether being needed for the propagation of waves. Similarly, a problem arises when social scientists use the adjective
‘social’ to designate a stable state of affairs, which can later be used to explain some other phenomenon (Latour, 2005, p.1). This means it is acceptable for social scientists to comment on what is being assembled (Latour, 2005). For example, in assembling a group of girls, social scientists can comment on the girls’ phenotype or outward appearance, i.e. height, colour of eyes and hair texture. Latour (2005) argues that a problem arises when social scientists aspire to the next level and comment on the nature of what is assembled. In other words, the problem arises when social scientists infer, for example, genotypic characteristics from what is assembled without focusing on the nature of what is assembled. It is in this regard, according to Latour (2005), that sociologists of the social fail to see that the social only becomes visible by the traces it leaves when new associations are produced between elements.
In contrast to the sociology of the social, the sociology of association approach sees the social not as a glue holding society together, but as something made up of human and non-human entities (Latour, 2005). These entities constitute networks of relationships (Latour, 2005);
therefore, actors are never embedded in an overarching social context - they create the context by their associations or connection with other actors (Latour, 2005). In other words, in the sociology of associations the social is placed under erasure (Latour, 2005). Placing the social under erasure does not mean that the existing social context does not exist. The implications are that the overarching existing context is suspended and it cannot be used to explain a scenario as if it is applicable to all actors. Rather, the context should be allowed to emerge via the actors’ actions, associations and the trails they create (Latour, 2005). This means that actors must be allowed to formulate their own theories regarding the structure of their social world (Latour, 2005, 1987). The tracing and assemblage of networks will illuminate how and why actors weave elements of “sociality8
8 Sociality: Human actors and their influence on networks traced (Mulchay, 2005, p. 12)
and materiality” (Mulchay,
2005, p. 12) into the very topography they chart. Therefore, in the tracing attention is paid to the associations among the actors.
It is these associations among the actors that reveal the hidden presence of social aggregates or forces. The sociology of association resumes the work of connections by engaging in the tracing and assembling of associations. To trace associations I have to firstly follow the actors and the trails they create (Latour, 2005). To assemble associations I have to juxtapose the actors’ trails to allow the social to emerge via the associations formed (Latour, 2005).
Thus the sociology of association is an ANT account of what practice occurs when a particular arrangement of socio-material elements are established in a network (Latour, 2005). It makes us ask how practice is constructed through this socio-material network (which SKAV are constituted in practice, how policy gets constructed and translated in practice, whether there an interface between policy construction and SKAV development and, if so, what the nature of the interface is). Drawing on ANT, curricula policy reform can be viewed as a field of socio-material practices (Harris & Marsh, 2005), and curriculum policy reform and SKAV development becomes an accomplishment of a network rather than of an individual actor (Latour, 2005). Since shifting associations among actors are traced, ANT is a mobile framework to travel with.
2.1.3.2 Mobile framework
The travel entails the tracing and assemblage of socio-material networks without making a priori assumptions of the impact of the social on the networks traced (Latour, 2005). ANT allows me to, firstly, travel the many networks created by the actors. Secondly, it allows me to trace the trajectory of the NCS-FET Life Sciences Policy over multiple sites. Thirdly, it allows me to gain insight into how actors account for their actions during network formation.
Since socio-material networks are traced, ANT extends the analysis to both human and non- human actors. Such analysis brings to the fore convergences, alignments, strengthening of ties among elements in the network, divergence and non-alignments and weakening in the ties among elements in the network. An ANT analysis illuminates emergences within a network. The tracing and assemblage of networks is only possible due to ANT’s unique vocabulary.
2.1.3.3. Unique vocabulary and theoretical implications for tracing and assemblage
ANT has a special vocabulary that is an integral part of the theory. These unique ANT terms are not insular or isolated, but are dynamic, interrelated and interconnected. They incorporate, embrace, shape and clarify each other in a relational manner. Together these extraordinary ANT terms are used in the tracing and assemblage of networks in this study. They jointly unravel and demystify the tensions, uncertainties, contradictions and relationships in the actor network - exposing the “networky”9 effect of the actor network.
When one considers the word ‘association’ in the sociology of association, what comes to mind is that it denotes a particular definition of the social. The word ‘social’ is construed as all-embracing, including both human (social or subject) and non-human (material or object) actors. The term association inconspicuously unveils ANT’s orientation towards the principle of general symmetry. Put very simply, this principle states that the categories of nature and society should both be explained from the same vantage points (Latour, 2005). This invariably means that the principle of general symmetry alludes to there being no dichotomy between objects and subjects. Consequently, by ANT embracing the principle of general symmetry, it bypasses the dualistic notion of modernity that divides our world into three purified categories, namely human and non-human, mind and body, local and global (Latour, 2005). Hence the principle of general symmetry has clear implications for how ANT conceives of what actors are.
According to Latour (1997), an actor or actant in ANT is a semiotic being, that is, “something that acts, or to which activity is granted by others” (Latour, 1997, p. 10). It implies no special motivation of human individual actors or of humans in general. Thus an actant can literally be anything, provided it is granted to be the source of an action. Therefore ANT allows for policy to be considered as an actor that can be followed. By the very nature of its definition of an actor, ANT proposes a theoretical shift in emphasis, away from the centrality and primacy of the human subject (Latour, 1999). Of particular importance is the fact that ANT grants agency to both human and non-human actors and is thereby considered to be non- dualistic.
9 Networky: (the term I use to describe the interconnectedness of the multiple associations formed among the actors in the network
Agency in ANT terms refers to the capacity to cause an effect and make a difference to a state of affairs (Callon, 1986; Latour, 2005). ANT’s orientation towards general symmetry allows me to trace the trajectory of the NCS-FET Life Sciences Policy as it traverses the nodes of this study. It also allows me to map the interface in respect of policy construction and SKAV development across the nodes. According to Latour (2005, 1999), by granting agency to both human and non-human actors we dissolve the uncertainty on the nature of objects. In doing so, we are able to see who the actors are in the phenomenon being explored and the ties they form with other actors in the network. The implication of embracing the principle of general symmetry is that by removing the divide between human and non-human actors, one is better able to scrutinise the nature of the interaction that forms the building blocks of networks (Latour, 1991). This eventually means that unsuspecting, behind-the- scenes actors involved in practice are illuminated. Therefore, to study the actors it is necessary to look into the relations involving them and the networks they create (Latour, 2005).
There are many conceptualisations of networks in the ANT literature. Networks can be seen as associations between actors, a trace that is left behind by a moving agent (Latour, 2005), as something within which “things” circulate, as connections between actors (Nespor, 1994) or as fluid spaces (Law, 2007). Networks can also be seen as producing and constitutive of material spaces of social practice and as channels of communication (Nespor, 2002).
Furthermore, networks can be traced, described (Latour, 2005), and be seen as enacted (Mol, 2007). Most importantly, they can be seen as contextualising and generating the social and natural world (Law, 2007). Networks consist of nodes that are connected together by associations or more concrete links. Circulating in the networks are actors, mediators or intermediaries (Latour, 2005).
Tracing networks elucidates how socio-material elements participate in practice and what gets performed through their participation (Mol, 2007). These elements (for example, policy, hammer, scallop) show how network relations get enacted into practice (Mol, 2007; Law, 2004). ANT demonstrates that networks are outcomes that emerge from complex sets of relations among heterogeneous elements (Latour, 2005). Entities emerge as their associations are consolidated. In observing movement via shifting associations, we see relations to which we were previously oblivious. Not only is the actor coming into being, but the practice itself
interlinked. According to Mol (2007), an actor that is enrolled in practice is performed anew within each context and through each enactment
The question arises: how do we choose the actors we follow? In this study, the transformative agenda attached by the Government to educational reform in South Africa granted agency to structures such as the DoE, schools and industry. These structures aid in human resources development and overcoming the skills shortage. Furthermore, this transformative agenda also identified the actor that will be trailed in this study, viz. the NCS-FET Life Sciences Policy that will traverse the nodes of this study. Within each node there are many other actors that drive and move these nodes to deliver the NCS-FET Life Sciences Policy: for example, at the DoE node subject advisors, at the school node Life Sciences teachers, and at the industry node NTEW and mentors. The actors within the nodes are identified by their association with the NCS-FET Life Sciences Policy.
The actors and networks are mutually constitutive (Latour, 2005). Actors are seen as being a part of a network, and a network cannot exist without actors, nor can an actor exist outside a network (Latour, 2005). Both the actor and the network are important to allow for the unfolding of associations and to make the social apparent. The network and the actor are the starting- and end-point of the research (Latour, 2005). This means that the network reflects the work, practice, performance and relations of actors. In other words, the network highlights the practices of actors within the network of relations. Therefore, the network shows a type of relational continuity that is based on reciprocal relations between heterogeneous elements (Latour, 2005).
This implies a relational interplay among the actors in a network, and means the interconnectedness among actors is brought to the fore. For example, the NCS-FET Life Sciences curriculum is formulated at the DoE node, but is implemented and enacted at the school node. In this way, the DoE node is connected to the school node. The school node enrolls learners with SKAV and many of the learners enter the world of work. This means that the school node is linked to the industry node. In this way actors are connecting with each other - hence the interconnectedness among actors and nodes. Therefore, Latour (1999, p. 9) maintains that reality does not exist per se, but is constructed through the relational interplay between different actors in the network.
This means that the actors create reality in their interaction. Consequently, the relationships developed within the network dynamically shape and reshape and define the characteristics of the actors. Therefore, these actors affect each other in a complex web of interconnections which involve a process of mutual shaping. The actors are therefore not simply shaped by the network in which they are located, but also influence the other actors with which they interact (Law & Callon, 1997). Callon (1986) described the continual displacements and transformation of actors as translation.
During translation, actors change from who or what they are, to whom or what they want to be or become (Callon, 1986). Translation is the network process through which actors come into being. It highlights the practice of actors and how they must constantly work in relationships (Brown, 2002). Translation involves the process of mobilisation, enrolment, interessment and problematisation (Callon 1986). To trace the process of translation and use it as an analytical tool, actors must explain who they are, what they say or do, or who they want to become (Latour, 2005). It is only when this premise is met that Callon’s translation can be used as an analytical tool.
Problematisation occurs when the principal actor defines the nature of the problem and proposes a way forward; for example, the post-apartheid Government identifies the backlog created by apartheid in respect of human resources development, poverty, job opportunities, redress and equity, and proposes to use education as leverage for human resources development. Interessment occurs when the principal actor locks the other actors into place and defines the linkage between actors - e.g. the national DoE expects the provincial DoE to train teachers, and teachers are expected to implement the curriculum at schools. Enrolment occurs when the principal actor defines the roles that are to be played and the way in which others will relate to one another within the network - e.g. the role of the subject advisor is defined by the national DoE, and subject advisors are expected to enroll teachers to implement the NCS-FET Life Sciences Policy. During mobilisation the network starts to operate to implement the solution proposed – e.g. subject advisors mobilise teachers to focus on the exams.
The focus is on how these actors use their influence within the network on other actors. The concept of mobilisation will allow me to accentuate issues of power dynamics, domination
definitions, recruitment and practice provided by the focal actor (Callon, 1986). Hence, actors are not defined and analysed in a stable set of relationships in ANT, but according to the networks within which they are situated.
The advantage of tracing networks is that it dissolves the spatial dimension of inside or outside (Latour, 2005). The dissolution of this boundary allows for the exact nature of what lies within the network to be exposed, e.g. practice, policy construction, SKAV development, and the interface. Furthermore, it allows for the social to be momentarily suspended. This stance dissolves the notion of an overarching social to explain the phenomenon being explored (Latour, 2005).
What is worth noting from this particular perspective of a network is that I do not look outside a network to add or find an explanation for the phenomenon being explored – e.g.
policy constitution and translation as it traverses the nodes of this study. The phenomenon being explored is what lies within the network. I trace the growth of the networks of policy construction and translation in order to assemble the nature of the interface. I do not need an explanation from an historical context hovering over the network in addition to the network’s own historical growth. Thus network tracing allows for explanations to be made about related elements, or show how one element holds the actors together or forces them apart (Latour, 2005).
By following the actors within the network and allowing the actors to explain their actions, I dissolve the uncertainty about the nature of facts. This means that the actors account for their actions, unlike in the sociology of the social where the sociologist reports their actions using social aggregates. Each network, by growing, binds the materials around it. It is not possible to detect these materials by merely looking at the growth of the network. We have to trace the growth of the network in order to detect the materials (Latour, 2005). Therefore, according to Latour (2005), each network formed surrounds itself with its own frame of reference, its own definition of growth. To be able to engage in the tracing of network, I must first resolve uncertainties proposed by Latour (2005).