Elder-Vass Dave
Department of Sociology, University of Essex.
Br J Sociol. 2008 Sep;59(3):455-73. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-4446.2008.00203.x.
Superficially, Actor Network Theory (ANT) and critical realism (CR) are radically opposed research traditions. Written from a realist perspective, this paper asks whether there might be a basis for finding common ground between these two traditions. It looks in turn at the questions of realism, structure, and agency, analysing the differences between the two perspectives and seeking to identify what each might learn from the other. Overall, the paper argues that there is a great deal that realists can learn from actor network theory; yet ANT remains stunted by its lack of a depth ontology. It fails to recognize the significance of mechanisms, and of their dependence on emergence, and thus lacks both dimensions of the depth that is characteristic of critical realism's ontology. This prevents ANT from recognizing the role and powers of social structure; but on the other hand, realists would do well to heed ANT's call for us to trace the connections through which structures are constantly made and remade. A lack of ontological depth also underpins ANT's practice of treating human and non-human actors symmetrically, yet this remains a valuable provocation to sociologists who neglect non-human entities entirely.
表面上看,行动者网络理论(ANT)和批判实在论(CR)是截然不同的研究传统。本文从实在论的视角出发,探讨这两种传统之间是否可能存在达成共识的基础。文章依次审视了实在论、结构和能动性的问题,分析了两种视角之间的差异,并试图明确彼此能从对方身上学到什么。总体而言,本文认为实在论者能从行动者网络理论中学到很多;然而,行动者网络理论因缺乏深度本体论而发展受限。它没有认识到机制的重要性以及机制对突现的依赖性,因此缺乏批判实在论本体论所特有的深度的两个维度。这使得行动者网络理论无法认识到社会结构的作用和力量;但另一方面,实在论者最好留意行动者网络理论的呼吁,即我们要追踪那些结构不断被塑造和重塑的联系。本体论深度的缺失也是行动者网络理论将人类和非人类行动者对称对待的做法的基础,不过这对那些完全忽视非人类实体的社会学家来说仍是一种有价值的刺激。