Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory (Clarendon Lectures in Management Studies) [Paperback]

In short, this book is a fantastic summary of the theoretical aspects of Actor Network Theory and should be an indispensable companion for anyone looking to situate Actor Network Theory in a theoretical context. This is a well written book, replete with the verve and élan one would associate with Bruno Latour. Despite this, it is not an easy book to read, requiring re-reading if one is to fully grasp the implications of Latour's thesis.

Given that the central problem Latour hopes to address is; `Is a science of the social possible again provided we modify what is meant by social and science?' it serves as a useful clarification of Latour's `project'. Although those familiar with his corpus will know on what side of this question he is likely to come down, it is fascinating to see how he justifies his work in relation to the history and substantive problems of social science.

The substantive content of the book is divided into two sections, the first dealing with five `uncertainties' (or theoretical problems) which Actor Network Theory reacts to and the second explores some of the moves that ANT takes in order to ameliorate the problems it has identified in non-ANT social science. Although it strikes most clearly in the sociological register, this book should also be of interest to those interested other fields, such as philosophy, literary theory and political science.

If I have one qualm with this book, it's that I'm not sure how well it serves as an introduction to ANT. Although the introductory chapter is excellent in positioning Latour's version of ANT against its competitors and reading ANT in relation to the history of social theory, the work is perhaps better described as a `theoretical clarification of ANT'. In these situations, I am minded to ask how my appreciation of ANT would differ if this had been my first port of call. After some consideration, I think that if I had the chance to start reading this literature again, I don't think that I would begin with this book. Given that ANT is at its most powerful when doing actual explanatory work, `We Have Never Been Modern' (my own starting point) might be a better bet.

However, this is only a minor quibble. The book is very good at what it does; acting as a theoretical summary/manifesto for ANT. Serving as a synopsis of the theoretical concerns which undergird ANT, it should be essential reading for anyone seeking to apply ANT in an academic context. Indeed, if pushed to make a judgment, I would say that this was Latour's own aim in writing this text. If assessed with reference to Latour's own aim that `this book [should be] an introduction to help the interested reader in drawing the social theory consequences of the sociology of science', then this book is a resounding success.

This book is a "paradoxical" endeavour on a number of counts, and I'm drawing here on the Greek etymology of the word meaning `beyond received opinion.' While on the surface it purports to be an introduction to a particular research methodology--presumably for the benefit of social science PhD students--appealing to common sense, at the same time it is also a philosophical tour de force, engaging with metaphysical and ontological issues of the highest order.

It is quite possible to read it in a few days, as it is written in a colourful style peppered with amusing metaphors and examples, but it is more likely that a number of reads are required to fully experience what this book has to offer (unless you are an ANT enthusiast already). In the end it is a thought experiment and it will either work for you or it won't. You will either come away hating actor-network-theory for the rest of your life or you will have a conversion experience and you will never be able to look at baboons and the map of the London Underground quite the same way again.

In many ways this book reminds me of Heidegger's Being and Time, but the differences might be more important than the similarities. For one Latour completes the book as promised in the introduction, in contrast to Heidegger. But also Latour is a lot more specific and optimistic about the outcomes of his `deconstruction' of traditional sociology, as opposed to Heidegger's pessimistic and rather vague conclusions stemming from his destruction of traditional metaphysics.

In this sense Latour's Reassembling the Social is not so much an introduction to a theory as a handbook or guide to practical living. However the practical or empirical metaphysics he proposes for (re)assembling a better world is far from being a quick-fix solution: it asks for a tireless, on-going effort to collect and rearrange the world, morsel by morsel, just like an ant.

This is a quite readable book in the context of its topic area. It is not a book I personally like although I think it is widely read.

The key problem of the book is its tendency to largely ignore swathes of existing mainstream sociology (particularly American). Many of the gaps or problematizations Bruno identifies with our orthodoxy are questionable given my (more sympathetic) reading of the mainstream sociology. Some of the claims he makes to justify his ANT approach are simply false. Consequently, I would recommend PhD students not to read ANT extensively as a basis for their understanding of the field -- lest they reinvent the wheel. Rather, ANT can be a source of inspiration (particularly the empirical stories). ANT is not sufficient due to its inability to build knowledge that accumulates over existing knowledge, unless you work in some weird academic context enamoured by ANT and largely ignorant of the 'lamestream scholarship'.

Many of Bruno's insights, I feel personally, are just rhetoric tricks where the old is said in a new way. Of course the new way of saying things 'reveals' or 'highlights' aspects we might otherwise miss but from a more analytical perspective the insights tend to often be not much else but footnotes to the existing understanding. Well, in all honestly there are not many scholars who can do even that. He bravely seeks to reinvent a field. It is an impossible project, which I guess we should admire.