Akrich and Latour (1992) — Actor‐Network Theory
Prescription; proscription; affordances, allowances: What a device
allows or forbids from the actors ‐‐ humans and nonhuman ‐‐ that it
anticipates; it is the morality of a setting both negative (what it
prescribes) and positive (what it permits).
NB: IF you are looking for this, you can find it in Chapter 9 (pages 259-264) of Bijker & Law (1992) - Shaping Technology / Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change
Let me briefly muse on the advantages of having a brand, as Latour undeniably does: if a student produced this in, say, an IELTS test, they would be marked down for their inability to handle pronoun reference. But since Latour is inside the Guild, we must struggle to read him "up" to coherence.
So, the first "it" is clearly the device. Is the second "it" also the device? Is "it" simultaneously a device and a morality? I guess that's possible - but I find it extremely difficult to imagine that simultaneity. Perhaps "it" means "they", the pre/pro-scriptions etc.: it's a common error to allow the intuitive singularity of "What" to override the formal accuracy of determining number by "what"'s reference. That seems easier to understand; now the "prescriptions/proscriptions/affordances/allowances" are the "morality" of "a setting". Is this a setting of the device? Or should we read the device and the setting as equivalences, dual metaphors (in the name of variety) for a site in the network? Maybe this distinction doesn't matter so much - we can postpone finalising it until it becomes necessary. "Morality" is a very interesting word to have chosen. Why not "ethics", or "statute", or "constitution", or "rule set"? Morality is much more heavily loaded word than any of these others, and morality is a word strongly associated with people, rather than machines, or "devices"? Are the authors trying to re-invest their model with humanity, having originally set out to divest it? Is there a attempt to signify the complexity & the emotional intensity associated with public discussions of morality?
There's also a curious asymmetry in the final binary - "negative" includes "prescribes", which presumably stands for "proscribes" , while apparently neither "affordance" nor "allowance" can stand for both, and instead another word has to be introduced "permits". (There is also the question of whether the "it" is the morality, the setting, or the device; I've provisionally assumed "morality"). Is there a purpose behind this asymmetry, or is it an(other) accident of style?
It's not at all how I would set up the binary, either. OK, I guess you can see "prescription", which says "Thou shalt" as negative, in that it strongly suggests that you shouldn't do the opposite, but it's a bit of a triple-twist with tuck. Why not characterise "prescribe/proscribe" as compulsion, positive or negative? Does that simpler division miss some point?
I'm not completely sure that I'd include permission in "affordance" either, although that might be more idiosyncratic. I see affordance as "opportunity of resource", and allowance as "opportunity of authority". So the binary that I would set up from the initial four words is compulsion vs opportunity. I am not persuaded by this that I should change my mind.
So, another question. Is this good or bad writing? It's very sticky, in that it stuck in my mind the instant I saw it, and has been bedevilling my morning runs for 2 weeks now. It's very suggestive, in that I think I can construct from it a useful (set of) discourse fragment(s). In a generous mood, I might call it "poetic". They're all good things. But is it clear? Does it give me confidence? No.
Of course, maybe it wasn't intended to.
Prescription; proscription; affordances, allowances: What a device
allows or forbids from the actors ‐‐ humans and nonhuman ‐‐ that it
anticipates; it is the morality of a setting both negative (what it
prescribes) and positive (what it permits).
NB: IF you are looking for this, you can find it in Chapter 9 (pages 259-264) of Bijker & Law (1992) - Shaping Technology / Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change
Let me briefly muse on the advantages of having a brand, as Latour undeniably does: if a student produced this in, say, an IELTS test, they would be marked down for their inability to handle pronoun reference. But since Latour is inside the Guild, we must struggle to read him "up" to coherence.
So, the first "it" is clearly the device. Is the second "it" also the device? Is "it" simultaneously a device and a morality? I guess that's possible - but I find it extremely difficult to imagine that simultaneity. Perhaps "it" means "they", the pre/pro-scriptions etc.: it's a common error to allow the intuitive singularity of "What" to override the formal accuracy of determining number by "what"'s reference. That seems easier to understand; now the "prescriptions/proscriptions/affordances/allowances" are the "morality" of "a setting". Is this a setting of the device? Or should we read the device and the setting as equivalences, dual metaphors (in the name of variety) for a site in the network? Maybe this distinction doesn't matter so much - we can postpone finalising it until it becomes necessary. "Morality" is a very interesting word to have chosen. Why not "ethics", or "statute", or "constitution", or "rule set"? Morality is much more heavily loaded word than any of these others, and morality is a word strongly associated with people, rather than machines, or "devices"? Are the authors trying to re-invest their model with humanity, having originally set out to divest it? Is there a attempt to signify the complexity & the emotional intensity associated with public discussions of morality?
There's also a curious asymmetry in the final binary - "negative" includes "prescribes", which presumably stands for "proscribes" , while apparently neither "affordance" nor "allowance" can stand for both, and instead another word has to be introduced "permits". (There is also the question of whether the "it" is the morality, the setting, or the device; I've provisionally assumed "morality"). Is there a purpose behind this asymmetry, or is it an(other) accident of style?
It's not at all how I would set up the binary, either. OK, I guess you can see "prescription", which says "Thou shalt" as negative, in that it strongly suggests that you shouldn't do the opposite, but it's a bit of a triple-twist with tuck. Why not characterise "prescribe/proscribe" as compulsion, positive or negative? Does that simpler division miss some point?
I'm not completely sure that I'd include permission in "affordance" either, although that might be more idiosyncratic. I see affordance as "opportunity of resource", and allowance as "opportunity of authority". So the binary that I would set up from the initial four words is compulsion vs opportunity. I am not persuaded by this that I should change my mind.
So, another question. Is this good or bad writing? It's very sticky, in that it stuck in my mind the instant I saw it, and has been bedevilling my morning runs for 2 weeks now. It's very suggestive, in that I think I can construct from it a useful (set of) discourse fragment(s). In a generous mood, I might call it "poetic". They're all good things. But is it clear? Does it give me confidence? No.
Of course, maybe it wasn't intended to.
No comments:
Post a Comment