scholarly journals The selected premises for the reconfiguration of the disability model. The posthumanist perspective

2020 ◽  
pp. 55-81
Author(s):  
TERESA ŻÓŁKOWSKA ◽  
KAROLINA KALISZEWSKA
Keyword(s):  
Network Theory ◽  
Transition Period ◽  
Actor Network Theory ◽  
Social Model ◽  
New Materialism ◽  
Bruno Latour ◽  
Actor Network ◽  
Social Model Of Disability ◽  
Models Of Disability ◽  
New Models

Teresa Żółkowska, Karolina Kaliszewska, The selected premises for the reconfigura-tion of the disability model. The posthu-manist perspective. Interdisciplinary Contexts of Special Pedagogy, no. 25, Poznań 2019. Pp. 55-81. Adam Mickiewicz University Press. ISSN 2300-391X. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14746/ikps.2019.25.03 In the contemporary special pedagogy, it is clearly seen, that we are dealing with a situation of passing over scholarly programmes that refer, i.a. to the medical and social model of disability. We remain in a inter-paradigmatic transition period, in which new views on disability are appearing. One of the most popular scholarly approaches is the posthumanism, the characteristics of which are, i.a.: the critique of humanism, the departure from anthropocentrism, the appearance of a new materialism, the direction of research towards objects, animals, as well as, the relations of people and non-people. The example of such posthumanist approach, that may constitute the context for the creation of new models of disability, is the Actor-Network theory developed by Bruno Latour and his associates.

The Politics of Nature: New Materialist Responses to the Anthropocene

2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 73-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arianne Françoise Conty
Keyword(s):  
Coral Reefs ◽  
Network Theory ◽  
Actor Network Theory ◽  
Ecological Crisis ◽  
New Materialism ◽  
Polar Bears ◽  
Actor Network ◽  
Technological Tools ◽  
Ecological Politics ◽  
Politics Of Nature

In order to explore some of the divergences within new materialism and elucidate their relationship to actor-network theory, this article will develop Latour’s theory of agency and then compare it to those new materialists who uphold a ‘flat ontology’ that includes technological tools (Jane Bennett) and those who uphold an animate/inanimate distinction (Tim Ingold and Eduardo Kohn). In light of the ecological crisis called the Anthropocene, the dissolution of the animate/inanimate distinction will be defended in order to address both polar bears and glaciers, coral reefs and clown fish. Though Latour himself has defended such a dissolution, his political proposals to address the ecological crisis revert back to the modern and dualist position he has himself critiqued for so long. Using the gains of actor-network theory, while differentiating a new materialist ecological politics from that of Latour, will be shown to be necessary in order to find a solution to the crisis of the Anthropocene.

Talking about Associations and Descriptions or a Short Story about Associology

2017 ◽  
pp. 220-233
Author(s):  
Beate Ochsner
Keyword(s):  
Short Story ◽  
Network Theory ◽  
Actor Network Theory ◽  
Bruno Latour ◽  
Actor Network ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Human Actors ◽  
Agency And Structure

In 1999, Bruno Latour advocated for “abandoning what was wrong with ANT, that is ‘actor,' ‘network,' ‘theory' without forgetting the hyphen.” However, it seems that the “hyphen,” which brings with it the operation of hyphenating or connecting, was abandoned too quickly. If one investigates what something is by asking what it is meant as well as how it emerges, by (re-)tracing the strategy in materials in situated practices and sets of relations, and, by bypassing the distinction between agency and structure, one shifts from studying “what causes what” to describing “how things happen.” This perspective not only makes it necessary for us to clarify the changing positions and displacements of human and non-human actors in the assemblage, but, also question the role (the enrolment) of the researcher him/herself: What kind of “relation” connects the researcher to his/her research and associates him/her with the subject, how to prevent (or not) his/her own involvement, and, to what degree s/he ignores the relationality of his/her writing in a “sociology of association?”

From the Sacred to the Sacred Object

2012 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 105-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edwin Sayes ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Network Theory ◽  
Actor Network Theory ◽  
Social Thought ◽  
Bruno Latour ◽  
Actor Network ◽  
Rene Girard ◽  
Michel Serres ◽  
Sacred Object ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

The philosophy of Bruno Latour has given us one of the most important statements on the part played by technology in the ordering of the human collective. Typically presented as a radical departure from mainstream social thought, Latour is not without his intellectual creditors: Michel Serres and, through him, René Girard. By tracing this development, we are led to understand better the relationship of Latour’s work, and Actor-Network Theory more generally, to traditional sociological concerns. By doing so we can also hope to understand better the role that objects play in structuring society.

scholarly journals Latour and Literary Studies

PMLA ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 130 (3) ◽  
pp. 737-742 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rita Felski
Keyword(s):  
Network Theory ◽  
Actor Network Theory ◽  
Literary Studies ◽  
Bruno Latour ◽  
Actor Network ◽  
Style Of Thought

I am interested in questions of reading and interpretation. I am also drawn to actor-network theory and the work of Bruno Latour. Can these attractions be brought into alignment? To what extent can a style of thought that describes itself as empiricist and rejects critique speak to the dominant concerns of literary studies? Can actor-network theory help us think more adequately about interpretation? Might it inspire us to become more generous readers? How do literary studies and Latourian thought engage, enlist, seduce, or speak past each other? What duels, rivalries, intrigues, appropriations, or love affairs will ensue?

scholarly journals A.I. in Religion, A.I. for Religion, A.I. and Religion: Towards a Theory of Religious Studies and Artificial Intelligence

Religions ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 401
Author(s):  
Randall Reed
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
New Testament ◽  
Network Theory ◽  
Actor Network Theory ◽  
Religious Studies ◽  
Bruno Latour ◽  
Actor Network ◽  
The New Testament

Artificial intelligence is increasingly used in a variety of fields and disciplines. Its promise is often seen in a variety of tasks, from playing games to driving cars. In this article, I will sketch a theory that opens the door to the use of artificial intelligence in the study of religion. Focusing on the work of Jonathan Z. Smith, I will show that if, following Smith, the study of religion is considered primarily an act of classification, it can be aided by narrow artificial intelligence that excels at classification and prediction. Then, using a web A.I. called EMMA to classify the New Testament texts as Pauline or non-Pauline as a toy example, I will explore the issues that occur in the application of A.I. Finally, I will turn to Bruno Latour and actor–network theory as a way to theorize the larger issues brought up by the productive use of artificial intelligence in the study of religion

Der Hiatus – zur Spiegelbildlichkeit der Forschungsprogramme Latours und Luhmanns

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Werner Vogd
Keyword(s):  
Network Theory ◽  
Actor Network Theory ◽  
Bruno Latour ◽  
Actor Network

Zusammenfassung:In seinem Spätwerk „Enquête sur les modes d’existence“ bricht Bruno Latour mit der actor network theory bzw. erweitert diese in Richtung einer Theorie unterschiedlicher Sinn- bzw. Wertsphären, die auf den ersten Blick der von Luhmann entwickelten Theorie der funktionalen Differenzierung zu ähneln scheint. Dieser Beitrag stellt die Frage nach dem Verhältnis der beiden Theorieprogramme. Zunächst wird deutlich, dass zwei unterschiedliche Ausgangspunkte genommen werden. Latour beginnt beim Realismus naturalisierter Netzwerke, Luhmann bei der Reflexivität von Sinnprozessen. Wie auch immer, beide landen bei dem gleichen Bezugsproblem – der konditionierten Koproduktion –, das sie zur Erweiterung der Theorieanlage zwingt. Der von Latour mit den ‚Existenzweisen‘ entwickelte Lösungsversuch wird ausführlich vorgestellt. Am Beispiel der Felder ‚Religion‘ und ‚Wirtschaft‘ wird aufgezeigt, welche Einsichten hierdurch möglich werden. Latours und Luhmanns Zugänge erscheinen gewissermaßen spiegelbildlich, was sich nicht zuletzt auch in der unterschiedlichen Pointierung der Rolle des soziologischen Beobachters zeigt.

Actor–Network Theory

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annelies Kamp
Keyword(s):  
Network Theory ◽  
Actor Network Theory ◽  
New Materialism ◽  
Data Generation ◽  
Actor Network ◽  
Social Studies Of Science ◽  
The Social ◽  
The World ◽  
The Moment

Actor–network theory (ANT) is an approach to research that sits with a broader body of new materialism; a body of work that displaces humanism to consider dynamic assemblages of humans and nonhumans. Originally developed in the social studies of science and technology undertaken in the second half of the 20th century, ANT has increasingly been taken up in other arenas of social inquiry. Researchers working with ANT do not accept the unquestioned use of “social” explanations for educational phenomena. Rather, the social, like all other effects, is taken to be an enactment of heterogenous assemblages of human and nonhuman entities. The role of the educational researcher is to trace these processes of assemblage and reassemblage, foregrounding the ways in which certain entities establish sufficient allies to assume some degree of “realness” in the world. Aligning most closely with ethnographic orientations, ANT does not outline a method. However, it could be argued that a number of propositions are shared in ANT-inspired approaches: first, that the world is made up of actors/actants, all of which are ontologically symmetrical. Humans are not privileged in ANT. Second, the principle of irreduction—there is no essence within or beyond any process of assemblage. Actors are concrete; there is no “potential” other than their actions in the moment. Entities are nothing more than an effect of assemblage. Third, the concept of translation and its processes of mediation that transform objects when they encounter one another. Finally, the principle of alliance. Actants gain strength only through their alliances. These propositions have specific implications for data generation, analysis, and reporting.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document