Is actant-rhizome ontology a more appropriate term for ANT?

Abstract

This chapter examines the relation between actor-network theory (ANT) and Gilles Deleuze’s rhizomes by taking seriously Michael Lynch’s offhanded suggestion that ANT ought to have been called ARO: Actant-rhizome ontology. The starting point is a tracing of Latour’s scattered references to Deleuze. This is limiting, however, due to the occasional nature of these remarks. However, a broader comparison indicates significant overlaps between Latour’s networks and Deleuze’s rhizomes, including that the multiplicity of heterogeneous connections, that any entity can be seen as both composed and composing relations, and that the scales of reality are emergent effects of extended connections. Nevertheless, there are also significant points of divergence. Central among are questions of power and politics, and questions of just how varied relations are allowed to be. I examine these topics by considering how Isabelle Stengers has brought the concerns of Latour and Deleuze and Guattari into contact. Although Latour’s parliament of things is usually seen to embody a reformist pragmatism, it can be reconceived as an institution for experimenting with minoritarian practical ontologies. And although the network is often seen as limited to the tracing of observable, material connections, I indicate that an alignment with the rhizome enables ANT, in the words of Deleuze, to travel “from science to dreams and back.”

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 — 11 citations exist upstream.

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