Traduction / Trahison: Notes on ANT

Abstract

What would it be to speak for a the ory or a tradition in Science, echnology and Society? What would it be to represent that theory? To offer an account? An authoritative account of its charac er, its development, its strengths and its weak nesses? Some times I am faced with this question. I am asked to speak for actor network theory. To tell about it. To offer a verdict. When this happens I feel uncomfortable. For the request poses a problem. The problem of what it is to be a faithful representative . And in particular with what it might mean to represent a theory that talks of representation in terms of translation. Which seeks to undermine the very idea that there might be such a thing as fidelity. Faithful translation. Which stresses that all representation also betrays its object. Per haps there is no good an swer. Or perhaps, there are many. But here is one possibility. That one might represent actor network theory by performing it rather than summarising it. By exploring a small number of case studies rather than seeking to uncover its fundamental rules . By telling of examples that are both faithful and un faithful. By stressing that traduction is also trahison.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 199 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.