Actor-Network Theory (ANT) is most closely associated to the writings of Bruno Latour and Michel Callon. The following papers emerged out of discussions at the Virtec conference at the University of Hull in March 2010.<\/p>\n
Johan S\u00f6derberg<\/strong> elucidates the philosophical foundations on which ANT was built. He argues that many of the attractive features within ANT can be found elsewhere, in a more politically effective tradition, that of Marxism.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
2.<\/strong> In defence of ANT<\/a><\/span><\/h1>\n
In response to S\u00f6derberg, Nathaniel Tkacz<\/strong> argues that the political insights afforded by ANT are not reducible to the Marxist tradition. He argues that ANT is especially well suited to describe how force flows through peer-production projects – projects which already perform their own critique of Capital. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
3.<\/strong> Domination & networks<\/a><\/span><\/h1>\n
In reply to Tkacz, Mathieu O’Neil<\/strong> argues that ANT and Foucault’s networked conception of power does not account for how domination is reproduced over time or for people’s inner sense of justice, preventing ANT from constituting a credible alternative.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Actor-Network Theory (ANT) is most closely associated to the writings of Bruno Latour and Michel Callon. The following papers emerged out of discussions at the Virtec conference at the University of Hull in March 2010. Johan S\u00f6derberg elucidates the philosophical foundations on which ANT was built. He argues that many<\/p>\n