Latour's 'Actor-Network Theory (ANT.'

‘Actor-Network Theory (ANT) is notoriously difficult to summarize, define or explain’(Cressman, D. 2009). In doing an essay on ANT and in particular on Latour’s book ‘Reassembling the Social’(Latour, B. 2005) it is extremely important that I try and portray just how difficult the concept of ANT is to understand. It is a concept that has drawn many critics in sociological and other circles due to its lack of clear definition. In fact, there is no definition for ANT. In short, ANT is a theory which treats objects as part of social networks. It considers many factors including cultural factors, restrictions, other people, tools and many other objects. It is a theory that has drawn a lot of criticism in its own right but also a theory which has been developed by Latour and others as a way of criticising the more conventional theories in modern sociology. Latour believes that it is a strong theory as it tells us ‘how to not study’ things-’or rather, how to let the actors have some room to express themselves’. In this essay

They are both visions. Latour feels that ANT is a standpoint which is somewhere he can stand and ‘modify’ his theories in many different ways. However, conventional theories don’t allow this. Yes they are a standpoint, but with only one point of view. ANT might be considered by Latour as a glass box with views in every direction and wherever one may look there are different possibilities, different answers, different descriptions. It is an open standpoint which allows its actors freedom. On the contrary, Latour would see the conventional theories as a shed with just one window. There is only one view, one possibility, one answer and one description. It is a predetermined standpoint which gives the actors no room to act. If any actor can’t act then what is it? Does it exist? Do actors exist in most of the conventional sociological