Actor-Network Theory

Actor-network theory is an approach that attempts to capture the complexity of the social world by uncovering the relations among human and nonhuman actors. Supporters of this approach argue that it is only through the tracing of all types of connections between actors that one can come to understand how different social processes and phenomena arise. Because of its emphasis on relations, actor-network theory is also called the sociology of associations: The focus is always on the connections among disparate things rather than on the similarities or regularities that may appear to be grouping actors together.

Actor-network theory shares some antiessentialist sentiments (an opposition to fixed entities and essences) with other strands of postmodern and poststructural thinking. As a result, the approach is suspicious of explanations that draw on common social theory constructs or conceptual aggregates such as social ties, structure, context, and so on. Actor-network theory also adopts a unique view of agency. Rather than being limited to intentional human action, actor-network theory locates agency in any “actant” (any human or nonhuman entity) that can be indentified as the source of action. However, those engaging in this approach should keep in mind that the ultimate aim of actor-network theory is to reassemble the social through detailed studies of all the elements and connections that come together to produce whatever phenomena are being studied. In this sense, actor-network theory moves away from mere critique or deconstruction and instead offers explanations that are based on analysis of the effects of the relations among different types of entities.

Actor-network theory had its origins in studies of the sociology of science and technology carried out by some of the theory's main proponents, Bruno Latour, John Law, and Michael Callon. Today, the approach has transcended its original disciplinary boundaries and goals. Actor-network theory is one of several relational perspectives adopted in the past decade by critical human geographers. In the process, geographers have further refined the vocabulary of actor-network theory and built on some of its foundations in the development of other conceptual approaches such as nonrepresentational theory and hybrid geographies. Geographers also have developed more complex accounts of the geographic implications of adopting the actor-network perspective. For example, despite being a theory identified with networks, the approach does not lend itself to the traditional representations of networks based on Euclidean space common in some strands of spatial and network analysis. Instead, actor-network theory adopts a relational view of spatiality where society and space are mutually constituted, where the positions and roles of actors in a network lead to different configurations of power relations through space-time, and where places are not territorially circumscribed but rather are always in the process of being formed through relations. Rather than imagining space as a container, actor-network theory imagines multiple spatialities operating simultaneoulsy, performed through networks and constantly becoming. Geographers have fruitfully adopted this imagery and vocabulary to conduct studies that range from analyses of urban and environmental planning to tracings of global wildlife protection networks.