In reference to the ‘On The Difficulty of Being An ANT: An Interlude In The Form Of A Dialog’ article that Adrian gave out in Week 4:

What my thoughts were as I read this particular article:

• Utter confusion – what is this?
• You mean the insect ‘ants’?
• Oh not the insect, something else… Oh, my bad…
• ANT Theory? Hmm… That is interesting. I thought the insect ants had a theory for a second there.
• It was horrible to read
• I’ll admit that I struggled reading this article, but at least I tried
• Structured creatively: not my cup of tea

I would of sworn Adrian wanted to test our patience with this article…

I am more than willing to admit that I struggled immensely when I read this article. I disliked it instantly when Adrian handing it out to me as I briefly scanned from page to page. This article was an alien to me. Why was it structured this way: in a conversation? Honestly, I’ve only read half of the article, it pained me too much to go on.

At first, the article reminded me of a film script.

The article follows the conversation between a professor and a student as they discuss what the ANT theory is. This role-playing confused me during the first couple of pages however, when I got used to reading the article in the format that it was in, I realised how much sense the article made. Nonetheless, after reading the article, I was still confused at what I’ve just read, it just didn’t click, but at the same time it did? Weird.

Some quotes in the reading that interested me:

• ‘Because it’s not a tool, or rather because tools are never ‘mere’ tools ready to be applied: they always modify the goals you had in mind. That’s what ‘actor’ means. Actor Network allows you to produce some effects that you would not have obtained by some other social theory’ (Professor pp. 143). The Professor attempts to explain what the ANT is to the student.
• ‘It depends entirely on what you yourself allow your actors (or rather, your actants) to do. Being connected, being interconnected, or being heterogeneous is not enough. It all depends on the sort of action that is flowing from one to the other, hence the words ‘net’ and ‘work’. Really, we should say ‘worknet’ instead of ‘network’. It’s the work, and the movement, and the flow, and the changes that should be stressed. But now we are stuck with ‘network’ and everyone things we mean the World Wide Wed or something like that’ (Professor pp. 143).
• ‘With Actor-Network you may describe something that doesn’t at all look like a network – an individual state of mind, a piece of machinery, a fictional character; conversely, you may describe a network – subways, sewages, telephones, – which is not all drawn in an ‘Actor-Network’ way. You are simply confusing the object with the method. ANT is a method, and mostly a negative one at that, it says nothing about the shape of what is being described with it!’ (Professor pp. 142).
• ‘But that’s exactly what ‘interpretive’ sociologies argue? No?’ (Student pp. 144).
• ‘Oh no, not at all. They would say that human desires, human meanings, human intentions, etc., introduce some ‘interpretive flexibility’ into a world of inflexible objects, of ‘pure causal relations’, of ‘strictly material connections’ (Professor pp. 144).
• ‘But I am always limited to my situated viewpoint, to my perspective, to my own subjectivity? (Student pp. 145).
• ‘Of course you are! But what makes you think that ‘having a viewpoint’ means ‘being limited’ or especially ‘subjective’? When you travel abroad and you follow the sign ‘Belvedere 1.5km’, Panorama’, ‘Belle vista’, when you finally reach the breath-taking site, in what way is this proof of your ‘subjective limits’? It’s the thing itself, the valley, the peaks, the roads, that offer you this grasp, this handle, this take’ (Professor pp. 145).

I wished this was a proper article… It would make more sense to me.