ru | En
PHILOSOPHICAL
LITERARY
JOURNAL
ISSN 0869-5377
Author: Erofeeva Maria

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman

Erofeeva Maria

Senior Research Fellow, International Center for Contemporary Social eory, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES); Research Fellow, Center for Sociological Research, malutcacnos@gmail.com. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), 84 Vernadskogo ave., 119571 Moscow, Russia.

Publications

Actor-Network theory: An Object-Oriented Sociology Without Objects? / Logos. 2017. № 3 (118). P. 83-112
annotation:  This article compares different ways of conceptualizing the object in actor-network theory (ANT). Contrary to Graham Harman, the author argues that ANT considers objects as trajectories, and their material realizations as events. This allows us to speak of the sameness of an object. The interpretation of objects proposed here is connected with the conceptualization of objects as institutions and projects, which one can read about in ANT studies of socio-technical artefacts. Different phases of a project represent different forms of the existence of an object, which brings about an object-institution, i.e. technology embedded in collective life. The institution and the project represent actantial and temporal dimensions of delegation respectively, i.e. the ability to act while being absent (in the article this is called “a folded presence in an object”). In this conceptualization, objects have a relational being. In order to find a pattern for analyzing all kinds of objects particular to ANT, the author turns to the problem of technology as “a privileged object.” Drawing on the works of Bruno Latour on the anthropology of the moderns, it is demonstrated that technological objects are hybrids (quasi-objects) which produce other kinds of objects (natural and social), and therefore can be seen as privileged. At the same time, the article stresses that the constitutive feature of technologies is not materiality, but rather the specificity of the folded presence, which makes only technological objects visible, while technology itself is invisible. The author concludes that technology cannot be considered as a privileged object; instead, ANT uses a relational pattern of describing how actions of different actors are connected in order to analyze them.
Keywords:  actor-network theory; object-oriented sociology; object-oriented ontology; material turn; object; technology; Bruno Latour; Graham Harman
All authors

© 1991—2019 Логос. Философско-литературный журнал.
Все права защищены.
Дизайн Юлия Михина, jmikhina@gmail.com,
программирование Антон Чубченко