Theory of Structuration and Actor-Network Theory - Essay Example

Theory of Structuration and Actor-Network Theory Actor network theory The Actor-network theory is a systemic way of describing how the society works to achieve technological and scientific development. Unlike many other sociological theories, this theory places equal agency to all actors in the human society (network) and also to nonhuman agents in the network (Law & Hassard, 1999). It assumes that there is no one single agent in the network that work alone but instead all agents work together to make sure that technological development is achieved. The necessity of this theory is that it clearly defines how the society works as a network made of connections between people and the objects they interact with on a daily basis (Latour, 2007). The Actor network theory acknowledges that for any technological achievement, it takes a network of agents in order for the technology to be achieved. Even in cases where one person has been credited for the invention of a certain technology, the Actor network theory claims that even in such a case, it takes a whole network of agents to be able to deliver a technology. For instance, although Thomas Edison has been credited with the invention of the light bulb, his ability to invent the light bulb was as a result of his interaction with so many people as well as so many objects. Without each of these actors playing their role, people like Thomas Edison could never have produced these technologies. The same applies to all other scientific inventions such as Newton’s discovery of the laws of gravity. According to the Actor network theory, these scientific development requires a network environment where various agents, both human and non human act together to deliver the technology. However, the theory has been criticized for a number of reasons. Criticism of the Actor network theory This theory has been criticized in the first place because it is not a theory in essence (Farías, 2012). Even some of the best scholars have shied away from calling it a theory but prefer to call it other names. While Actor network theory is very good in explaining how human society works as a network, it does not give a proper explanation of why this is so. In essence therefore, it is not a theory for explaining sociological phenomena especially the explaining why the human society works as a network. Nonhuman agents The theory assigns agency to nonhumans and this is seen to be absurd by most scholars who feel that it is absurd to assign agency to the non human objects (Arthur, 2010). Some critics feel that the assignment of agency to nonhuman objects is not necessary and that this is an unnecessary part this theory. While they agree that humans interact with other in order to produce technological and scientific development, they do not agree that nonhuman objects should be included as being part of the larger system. Too many definitions Some critical have also argued that the theory uses too many definitions which are not necessary and which make the theory to be unnecessarily complicated. Critics argue that these deifications of the theory are not necessary and only make the theory harder to understand and therefore negative results with regard to using it to understand society. Refuses to acknowledge the power imbalances in society The Actor network theory assigns equal agency to all actors in the society without regarding the fact that in any society, some agents have more participation than others. Even in any other forms of nonsocial networks, it is not all agents in the networks that have equal contribution to the network and in fact some agents can be crucial for the networked to work while others may have less importance (Fenwick & Edwards, 2012). The Actor network theory fails to recognize that not all actors have the same amount of power or agency within the social networks. By failing to recognize this, it leaves a very big gap with regard to how the agents act within the network (Tara & Richard, 2010). It is only by acknowledging that the agents in a network do not have equal power that one can fully understand how the human social network works. This can be said to be the only way that one can understand why some agents have too much power in the network while others have little power and impotence. The Actor network theory fails to offer this explanation and assumes that the agents in a network are all the same and have equal amount of power. The other criticism that the theory has received with regard to defining and explaining how societies work is that it is amoral in nature (Westen, 2012). It refuses to take consideration of the moral implications of the society and how morals affect the human network. However, this criticisms may not affect the Actor network theory very much because the Actor network theory does not seek to look at the moral nature of the society but seeks to understand how the human networks develops the technology and scientific knowledge (Disco & Meulen, 1998). Application to technology With regard to technology, the actor-network theory can be seen to be very applicable. To begin with, the theory argues that no one human is able to bring a technological invention without in some way depending on some other people within the society. This is very true because according to most social theories, including constructivist theories, every human being is a product of his human interactions with other humans. Although every human achieves some things on their own, these achievements are to a greater extent influenced by the kinds of integrations that he or she has had with other people (Watson, 2013). The other good thing with the Actor network theory is that it refuses to look as hierarchies in the human society but prefers to look at the human social networks as a flat network where everyone have the same equal chance to made things to happen. In terms of technological , this is important and necessary because anyone in the system can be part of the structure that brings in new scientific knowledge of technological innovation. The theory of structuration was developed by sociologist Anthony Giddens in the 1980s. The basic argument in this theory is that humans live in a structured society and that the structure in this society affects the way people act, and behave. Anthony Giddens identified that even though the rules and norms that a society subscribes to are not explicit but only implicit, this does not prevent these rules and norms from being there and to be followed by people. He argued that the rules exist in the subconscious of people and are not necessarily represented in a formal way (Joseph, 2012). However, people have to live by these norms and those who fail to apply these social norms will not be well received by the society. Some of the critics of this social theory argue that these rules do not exist and so the theory is faulty. Anthony Giddens has responded to such criticisms by saying that the theory is straightforward and should be easy to understand as long as people do not complicate it. This theory is very different from the Actor network theory in a number of respects. The theory considers moral factors Unlike the actor-network theory, this theory considers the moral issues. In fact, the fact that this theory is based on the fact that there are norms and rules that govern human relations means that it considers moral values. These moral values are derived from these rules and it is only when a person is able to subscribe to these rules that they can be said to be living in accordance with the requirements of the society. The actor-network theory however does not consider moral issues with regard to how people relate with each other and so fails to recognize that people do not just relate with each other without some rules and norms. In the theory of structuration, the theory appreciates that there are norms and laws and that these laws and norms change over time since the people can choose to replace these norms with others, or they can choose to ignore some and start observing others (Rose, 2012). However, at any given time, there are those norms and these norms have to observe various issues such as the hierarchy of social classes. These norms and rules determine and regulate the way people relate with each other. They are not written by anyone but exist in themselves and when they are broken, it is very clear that they have been broken. While these norms may vary a little from one society to another, there are those that are universal. For instance, these laws are people are expected to be polite and humbel towards others, they are expected to regard others with respect also their property. In some societies and neighborhoods for instance, all neighbors are expected to welcome a new neighbor by giving the neighbor a gift of welcome. It considers that not everyone is equal in the society Unlike the actor-network theory, the theory of strcuturisation considers that not everyone in the society is the same or has the same level of agency (Greenhalgha, 2010). The actor-network theory has been criticized for overlooking this important factor. The actor-networks treats all actors and agents the same and fails to recognize that structure of the society is hierarchical where the there are several levels that each individual belongs to at least one of them. However, the theory of structuration recognizes that not all actors in the society have the same level of agency. It recognizes that based on social class as well as other factors such as economic status, one individual will have higher level of agency than the others, based on the amount of resources that he or she ahs in his exposure. For instance, the president of a nation has more influences within such a structure than an ordinary citize. This is a very big difference between the two theories of sociology. The fact that the social structure is not a flat structure but has important hierarchies and levels is useful in understanding how the social systems work. The theory of structuration is one of the best ways to understand this as it provides the means to understand that. At the same time, unlike the actor-network sociological theory, the theory of structuration does not consider nonhuman objects to be agents in the social system. This is also another very good distinction between the two social theories. The actor-network theory has been criticized for using non human objects as part of the network agents. However, the theory of structuration does not recognize these non human objects as agents. It only considers people because people are the ones who interact in the social systems and networks. It is based on simple understanding of how the society works The theory of structuration is not a complicated theory and as the developer of the theory says, only when people try to complicate it that it is misunderstood (Robert, 2012). He argues that the theory is developed from simple observation of how life works and how humans interact with each other. In this regard, it is a simple practical theory that does not draw too much theorizing in the development of the theory. Unlike the actor-networks theory that has been accused of having too long definition and explanation that can lead to the confusion of anyone trying to understand it, the theory of structuration is simplistic and easy to understand. It is not difficult forpeople one to comprehend that the society is based on some implicit rules that all people apply and have to observe. That is self evident and that is not hard for anyone to understand. Additonally , it is not hard for anyone to know that there are various way in which the people interact and that these rules can change from society to society another and from one time to another (Mouzelis, 1989). This is basically the core of the theory of structuridation. This also makes a very good distinction between the two theories of sociology. Application of theory of structuration to technology The theory of structuration is a very broad they in that it covers not just the issue of how social systems affect the growth of technology and scientific knowledge, but all the issues that happens within a social system. However, one of the technologies that can be applied to theory of structuration is the information technology. Of all the technologies that are there in existence, the information technology is one of the technologies that ahs the biggest potential to change the social structures. The technology has changed the way people communicate, the way people relate and the way people learn. It has also changed the way people play and work. These shifts that have been made possible by the information technology have changed some social norms, especially those that are related to the easy people work and the way people communicate. With regard to the way people communicate, the availability of informal communication channels that done require formal communication, such as facebook.com, twitter or any other social media has reshaped the way people relate with each other. This is in line with what the theory of structuration posits; that the social morns change over time, but that some structure and agency has to remain in place as a way to determine how people communicate. It is not only the technology  advances that have affect the social structure, but is can also be argued that the social structure was also the one that inspired the development of the information technology. It has been said that need is the one that drives technological innovation. As a result, it can be argued that the growth of human social structure is the one that lead to the growth of the information technology and that the modern advancements in the information technology has been as a result of the ever changing and ever growing social structure as well as the roles of the various agents in the social systems. In the theory of structuring, the agency change of over time and this can also be seen with the introduction of the information technology. As the information technology has grown, various roles within the social systems have also changed and this is supported by the theory of structuration (Healy, 1998). This can especially be evidenced in the media production. Before the development of the internet, a majority of the people in any society used to be consumers of information produced by a few media houses. In today’s world, these people use their devices including handheld devices such as Smartphone as a way to not only access media produced by other people but to also produce this media and have it used by other people. This has definitely changed the way people interact and has also changed the agency within the system. However, this does not necessarily mean that there are no agents in the social system, or that the norms and rules have been removed it only means that these have changed over time. Bibliography Arthur, T. (2010). Actor-Network Theory and Technology Innovation: Advancements and New Concepts: Advancements and New Concepts. New York, NY: IGI Global. Disco, C., & Meulen, B. (1998). Getting New Technologies Together: Studies in Making Sociotechnical Order. London, UK: Walter de Gruyter. Farías, I. (2012). Urban Assemblages: How Actor-Network Theory Changes Urban Studies. London, UK: Routledge. Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2012). Researching Education Through Actor-Network Theory. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Greenhalgha, T. (2010). Theorising big IT programmes in healthcare: Strong structuration theory meets actor-network theory. Social Science & Medicine Volume, 70, 9 , pp. 1285–1294. Healy, K. (1998). "Conceptualising constraint: Mouzelis, Archer, and the concept of social structure." Sociology, 613(4), pp.613-635. Joseph, P. (2012). Modern Social Theories . New York, NY: Cengene. Latour, B. (2007). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: OUP Oxford. Law, J., & Hassard, J. (1999). Actor Network Theory and After. New York, NY: Wiley. Mouzelis, N. Mouzelis, N. (1989). "Restructuring structuration theory." The Sociological Review, 32(3), pp.509-522. Robert, D. (2012). Theory of Structuration and the Modern World od Scoail Networks . London, UK: Cebgeen Books. Rose, J. (2012). Structuration theory and information system development - frameworks for practice. Journal of Modern Social Studies , pp. 56-57. Tara, F., & Richard, E. (2010). Actor-Network Theory in Education. London, UK: Taylor & Francis. Watson, T. (2013). Modern Social Theory . New York, NY: Pearson Books. Westen, P. (2012). Actor-Network Social Theory, A Look into Modern Society and Technology. New York, NY: Pearson Books. Read More