Actor-Network Theory

The week four readings look at Actor-Network Theory and its many criticisms. The ANT explains a series of connections between actors that make up a network. Interactions between these actors and any external actors or networks links them as well. Actor-Network Theory is a way of looking at how relationships are formed between actors in all walks of life. It could be used to explain ecosystems, management structures or publishing practices. It is a very general theory which allows for a massive flexibility. It can include thousands and thousands of nodes in a network, or as few as just two.

The theory also suggests that all actors in the network are equal. The actors, human or non-human, all have the same importance to the network and if one is removed or displaced, it affects the entire network and changes its dynamics.

The ANT has been acclaimed as a great method of better understanding the millions of networks and micro-networks that exist in society and nature. Using the ANT, one can gain a good understanding of how many systems operate through the existence of networks of components. In a publics and publishing sense, broad processes like publishing a book can be broken down by ANT and explained. Non-human and human actors include the printing press, computer, keys, paper, ink, publisher, author and publishing house. Semiotics could be the idea for the book, intended audience, appealing features of the writing etc. These facets are all linked in the network and each play a part in the publishing of the book. They could be seen as being equal parts.

The criticism of this theory is that it does treat all actors as equal. Using the same example as above, it seems like all actors are equal in that system, but some criticism suggests that there are actors more important within the network than others. For example, a pen might be included as an actor in the network. It is important to publishing a book, but is it as important as the author? Or the publisher?