Actor-Network Theory

Origins and core idea

Actor-network theory developed in science and technology studies in the 1980s around Bruno Latour and Michel Callon at the École des Mines in Paris and John Law in Britain. Latour and Woolgar (1979) studied a laboratory ethnographically and argued that scientific facts are made as instruments, inscriptions, papers and colleagues are linked together. ANT's central claim is that explanations should not presuppose "social forces" or "structures" but should trace how people and things become connected into stable orders (Latour, 2005). An actor, or actant, is anything that makes a difference to the action of others, including speed bumps, keys, microbes and documents. ANT thus tries to move beyond both the view that society shapes technology and the view that technology determines society, engaging the debate over technological determinism and social construction.

Translation, black boxes and symmetry

Callon (1986) presented the "sociology of translation" through scientists' attempt to cultivate scallops in St Brieuc Bay, France. Through four moments, problematization (making oneself an obligatory passage point), interessement, enrolment (assigning roles) and mobilization (establishing spokespersons), fishermen, scientific colleagues and scallops were bound into a network, which collapsed when the scallops failed to anchor and the fishermen broke ranks. Latour (1987) called technologies and facts that work so well that their insides vanish from view "black boxes," and in The Pasteurization of France (1988) he analyzed Pasteur's success as the result of linking microbes, laboratories, hygienists and farmers. Akrich (1992) argued that designers inscribe "scripts" prescribing users' behavior into technologies, and Law (1987) explained Portuguese maritime expansion as "heterogeneous engineering" of ships, winds and navigational instruments. The principle of "generalized symmetry," describing humans and nonhumans, nature and society in the same terms, led to Latour's We Have Never Been Modern (1991).

Critiques and later developments

ANT has drawn many critiques. Collins and Yearley (1992) argued that granting agency to nonhumans is a retreat that ultimately relies on scientists' accounts, and David Bloor (1999) contended that it misread the symmetry principle of the sociology of scientific knowledge. Others charge that it neglects power, inequality, intentions and meaning and settles for descriptions that merely follow networks. In response, Law and Hassard (1999) discussed "ANT and after," and Annemarie Mol (2002) helped lead an ontological turn with The Body Multiple, showing atherosclerosis enacted differently in the clinic, laboratory and operating room. Callon (1998) extended ANT to markets, arguing that economic theory does not just describe markets but performatively shapes them. Today ANT is widely used in research on digital platforms, infrastructure and the environment, alongside structuration theory and Foucault's analysis of power.

FAQ

Does calling objects "actors" in ANT mean they have intentions?

No. Actors are defined not by intention or consciousness but by whether they make a difference to others' action; a speed bump is analyzed as an actor because it changes drivers' speed.

Where is actor-network theory used?

It is used to trace connections between people and things in studies of how scientific facts and technologies are made, why innovations succeed or fail, markets and finance, medical practice, and digital platforms and infrastructure.

Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26

References

1. Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, Action and Belief (pp. 196–233). London: Routledge.
2. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
3. Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4. Latour, B. (1988). The Pasteurization of France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5. Latour, B. (1991/1993). We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7. Law, J. (1987). Technology and heterogeneous engineering: The case of Portuguese expansion. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes & T. Pinch (Eds.), The Social Construction of Technological Systems (pp. 111–134). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8. Akrich, M. (1992). The de-scription of technical objects. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping Technology/Building Society (pp. 205–224). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9. Law, J., & Hassard, J. (Eds.). (1999). Actor Network Theory and After. Oxford: Blackwell.
10. Mol, A. (2002). The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
11. Collins, H. M., & Yearley, S. (1992). Epistemological chicken. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as Practice and Culture (pp. 301–326). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12. Bloor, D. (1999). Anti-Latour. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 30(1), 81–112.
13. Callon, M. (Ed.). (1998). The Laws of the Markets. Oxford: Blackwell.