actor-network theory: literature fdm 20c introduction to digital media lecture 07.02.2005

1. actor-network theory: literature fdm 20c introduction to digital media lecture 07.02.2005 warren sack / film & digital media department / university of california, santa cruz

2. last time: cscw • winograd and flores • the language/action perspective of work • a diagram of a conversation for action • keypoint: Every digital media technology has an architecture that can be used to transform work, play and governance. • using diagrams to compare physical architectures with digital architectures • agre • the surveillance model • architectures of surveillance • the capture model & its relation to winograd and flores

3. outline • latour’s first two “rules of method” • latour’s first principle

4. rule of method: a definition • a means to allow outsiders to follow science and technology

5. principle: a definition • a summary of a large number of empiricial facts

6. the first two of latour’s rules of method • “We study science in action and not ready made science or technology; to do so, we either arrive before the facts and machines are blackboxed or we follow the controversies that reopen them.” (Introduction) • “To determine the objectivity or subjectivity of a claim, the efficiency or perfection of a mechanism, we do not look for their intrinsic qualities but at all the transformations they undergo later in the hands of others.” (Chapter 1)

7. latour’s first principle • “The fate of facts and machines is in later users’ hands; their qualities are thus a consequence, not a cause, of collective action.” (Chapter 1)

8. black box: a first, rough definition • “...black box is used by cyberneticians whenever a piece of machinery or a set of commands is too complex. In its place they draw a little box about which they need to know nothing but its input and output.” (pp. 2-3) • in latour’s description a “black box” can take at least two forms and can be either • a fact, or • a machine • this definition will be refined as we progress

9. latour’s first rule of method • “We study science in action and not ready made science or technology; to do so, we either arrive before the facts and machines are blackboxed or we follow the controversies that reopen them.” (Introduction) • So, what does it mean to arrive before the “facts and machines are blackboxed”?

10. first rule of method: the comic strip

11. an explanation of the first rule of method ...picture the [previous] comic strip: we start with a technical sentence which is devoid of any trace of fabrication, construction or ownership; we then put it in quotation marks, add to this speaking character another character to whom it is speaking; then we place all of them in a specific situation, somewhere in time and space, surrounded by equipment, machines colleagues; then when the controversy heats up a bit we look at where the disputing people go and what sort of new elements they fetch, recruit or seduce in order to convince their colleagues; then, we see how the people being convinced stop discussing with one another; situations, localizations, even people start being slowly erased; on the last picture we see a new sentence, without any quotation marks, written in a text book [or technical manual; or piece of software; etc.] similar to the one we started with in the first picture. (p. 15)

12. compare latour to winograd and flores • note that the conversations and discussions that latour describes are arguments and controversies; latour is interested in storytelling and rhetoric -- the art of persuasion • note that the “conversations for action” described by winograd and flores are not controversies but requests, actions and negotiations: it is assumed that no one gets mad or emotional; winograd and flores are interested in what is classically called dialectic -- the art of dialogue and a means to resolve conflict • but, sometimes dialectic = rhetoric = storytelling

13. on modalities and the blackboxing of facts New Soviet missiles aimed against Minutemen silos are accurate to 100 meters. • Positive Modality: Since [new Soviet missiles are accurate with 100 meters] this means that Minutemen are not safe any more, and this is the main reason why the MX weapon system is necessary. • Negative Modality: Advocates of the MX in the Pentagon cleverly leaked information contending that [new Soviet missiles are accurate within 100 meters]. (p. 22)

14. another negative modality • The undercover agent 009 in Novosibirsk whispered to the household maid before dying that he had heard in bars that some officers thought that some of their [missiles] in ideal test conditions might [have an accuracy] somewhere between [100] and 1000 [meters] or this is at least how the report came to Washington.

15. negative modalities: a definition • We will call negative modalities those sentences that lead a statement in the other direction towards its conditions of production and that explain in detail why it is solid or weak instead of using it to render some other consequences more necessary. (p. 23)

16. positive modalities: a definition • We will call positive modalities those sentences that lead a statement away from its conditions of production, making it solid enough to render some other consequences necessary. (p. 23)

17. the form of a fact or black box • A fact is stated, and a black box is used, in a form that is devoid of any trace of ownership, construction, time and place. • Consider a fact, like water is a molecule of hydrogen and oxygen. We can just write H2O without stating that this was Lavoisier’s discovery. • Similarly, to use a computer as a black box, does one need to know the writings of Turing?

18. fact: an etymology • Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere • facere: act, do, make, perform • Latour’s first rule of method allows us to see how facts are acted, done, made or performed

19. fact: a definition • “...a fact is what is collectively stabilized from the midst of controversies when the activity of later papers does not consist only of criticism or deformation but also of confirmation.” (p. 42)

20. how are facts made? • Facts are made collectively; isolated people build claims, not facts; cf., Latour’s first principle: • “The fate of facts and machines is in later users’ hands; their qualities are thus a consequence, not a cause, of collective action.” (Chapter 1)

21. where are facts made? • look for the controversies: ...when we approach the places where facts and machines are made we get into the midst of controversies (p. 30) • but, what does a scientific controversy look like?: ...when controversies flare up the literature becomes technical (p. 30) • so, the most controversial literature is the most technical!

22. scientific controversies and rhetoric • scientific controversies are conducted in a scientific and technical rhetoric that includes these forms: • bringing friends in (i.e., arguing from authority), p. 31 • referring to former texts (i.e., citing other texts), p. 33 • being referred to by later texts (i.e., being cited by other texts), p. 38 • see figures on pages 34, 38, 40 and 41

23. scientific rhetoric v. ordinary rhetoric • “The difference ... between technical and non-technical literature is not that one is about fact and the other about fiction, but that the latter gathers only a few resources at hand, and the former a lot of resources, even from far away in time and space.

24. latour’s metaphors and analogies • sometimes latour is difficult to follow because he mixes metaphors and analogies: • technoscience is war (e.g., “gathering allies”) • technoscience is sports (e.g., “reading science is like watching tennis”) • technoscience is storytelling (e.g., it has heroes, the heroes have trials) • technoscience is weaving (e.g., “tying, untying and raveling claims” • technoscience is construction (e.g., writing an article is “like building a stone hut” or like “building a dam”) • technoscience is like electronics (e.g., opening a black box, closing a black box, connecting elements, etc.)

25. reading versus writing technical texts • also note how latour moves back and forth from the perspective of the reader of a scientific text and the perspective of a writer of a scientific text

26. how are scientific papers constructed? • they are stratified: “The text is arranged in layers. Each claim is interrupted by references outside the texts or inside the texts to other parts, to figures, to columns, tables, legends, graphs. Each of these in turn may send you back to other parts of the same texts or to more outside references.” (p. 48) • recall Engelbart’s discussion of the construction of an argument (using index cards) and the idea of hypertext

27. how are scientific papers constructed? • their layers and elements (text, figures, graphs, etc.) are stacked: How does one go from a few snippets of evidence to the largest and wildest claims? (see. figure 1.7 on p. 51) • stacking rules: • never stack two layers exactly on top of one another; • never go straight from the first to the last layer; • prove as much as possible with as little as possible; (p. 51)

28. how are scientific papers constructed? • by staging and framing, the authors describe themselves, their intended readers, the heroes and trials of their described subjects (pp. 52-54) • Latour’s point: “It is hard to popularize science because it is designed to force out most people in the first place.” (p. 52)

29. how are scientific papers constructed? • captation: the subtle control of the objectors’ moves: How does one make it more difficult for the reader to go in all directions outwards, from the text? “By carefully stacking more black boxes, less easily disputable arguments. The nature of the game is exactly like that of building a dam.” (p. 57; see also figure 1.8 on p. 58) • “When such a result is attained...a text is said to be logical.” (p. 58)

30. latour’s second rule of method 2. “To determine the objectivity or subjectivity of a claim, the efficiency or perfection of a mechanism, we do not look for their intrinsic qualities but at all the transformations they undergo later in the hands of others.”

31. “taking our bearings” • our point of departure is science in the making and specifically a claim in dispute; • look to see who is trying to make the claim more of a fact and who wants it to be less of a fact; • check to see which direction the claim is pushed by the opposite actions of these two groups of people (up the “ladder” or down? see figure 1.6) • measure the distance (i.e., the “drift”) from the original claim and the new claim • thereby find the line of controversy (figure 1.9)

32. reading fact-writing versus fiction-writing • the reader is limited to three responses to fact-writing: • give up; • go along; or, • re-enact everything the authors went through (p. 61)

33. why is technoscience so uncomfortable to read? • “...the scientific text is chasing its readers away whether or not it is successful. Made for attack and defence, it is no more a place for a leisurely stay than a bastion or a bunker.” • notice how the metaphors of war and constructed are blended together here in latour’s words

34. scientific (new) rhetoric v. old rhetoric • “The difference between the old rhetoric and the new is not that the first makes use of external allies which the second refrains from using; the difference is that the first uses only a few of them and the second very many. This distinction allows [one] to avoid a wrong way of interpreting this chapter which would be to say that we studied the “rhetorical aspects” of technical literature, as if the other spects could be left to reason, logic and technical details.” (p. 61)

35. next time • actor-network theory: machines • bring your book to class so that we can read some of the latour together • also, today, a list of potential midterm questions can be found here: dmedia.ucsc.edu/FDM20c/Winter2005/Midterm/possible-questions.doc • midterm exam will be held one week from today, next monday