MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_01C5A3DE.8CBD2380"
This document is a Single File Web Page, also known as a Web Archive file. If you are seeing this message, your browser or editor doesn't support Web Archive files. Please download a browser that supports Web Archive, such as Microsoft Internet Explorer.
------=_NextPart_01C5A3DE.8CBD2380
Content-Location: file:///C:/85899DF7/MW.htm
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252"
objects and agency
This presentation contains content that your browser may not be able to =
show
properly. This presentation was optimized for more recent versions of Micro=
soft
Internet Explorer.
The
basic aim of the presentation is to talk through some perspectives on the
agency of objects within contemporary social science, informed particular=
ly
by STS and where that literature crosses over into studies of consumption=
.
first
briefly outline the very limited roles that the material world have playe=
d in
the dominant history of social science
Then
introduce agency as a theme around which to explore how objects shape soc=
ial
life
I’ll
then introduce a short series of concepts, through which an increasingly
sophisticated understanding of the nature of agency can be outlined.
I need
to stress that I’m not aiming to give a comprehensive view of each concep=
t –
to do so in the time available would in any case be impossible. It’s also
ultimately a rather superficial engagement with the complex concept of
agency.
My aim
is rather to provide, along with Tom’s talk, some basis for developing co=
mmon
ground for discussing the agency of objects in this diverse group of peop=
le
in this session and the next workshop. If that common ground develops from
questioning and debating what I’m presenting or highlighting my omissions=
, so
much the better.
•‘stuff’ strangely absent from consumption
studies
•=
reflects
historic neglect of the materia=
l in
social sciences
<=
span
class=3DBB style=3D'position:absolute;left:-4.44%'>•substantial strides in recent years,
especially in STS
•
The
project of which this workshop is part initially sprang from the realisat=
ion
that academic study of consumption has left a surprising theoretical gap =
at
its heart. Absent from dominant approaches to consumption is theorisation=
of
the ‘stuff’ itself – the hardware and materials of consumption.
This may
seem surprising when we think of what consumption is about. But when we t=
hink
about the inheritance of social science from which studies of consumption
emerge, it is less surprising. Social science was substantially built on =
the
purification of the social of the material, the latter being the proper
preserve of natural sciences. Whether as autonomous Cartesian subject, or=
in
terms of Durkheim’s collective conscience of the social group, the nonhum=
an
is left passive, constituting a mute world external to either the individ=
ual
human subject or the collective subjectivity of society. The material wor=
ld
exists as the bounds of possibility for the social, or, at its most activ=
e,
as a screen for the projection of social categories, meanings and identit=
ies.
There
have of course been niches of social science, such as material culture
growing out of anthropology, where the material world has been present in
social analysis, and recent years have seen a gathering of calls for soci=
al
science to recognise the full interdependence of the social with the mate=
rial
world, with conceptual strides taken in a range of sub disciplines, perha=
ps
most notably that of Science and Technology Studies (STS), and cognate fi=
elds
such as innovation studies, with far reaching implications in other
disciplines.
An
incisive way into the perspectives on objects generated through such work=
is
to take the theme of ‘agency’ =
span>-
the capacity to act - as a point of argument, a way to get in to the acti=
ve
role of objects as social entities
Agency
is of course a complex concept. But its possible to recognise certain com=
mon
characteristics that define conventional uses and understandings of the t=
erm.
In many respects, conventionally it can be seen as the defining
characteristic of the human subject, that which differentiates the human =
from
the rest of the world. To the extent that agency has become a defining and
distinguishing characteristic of the human, it has also become conflated =
with
other such characteristics – specifically, intentionality and linguistic
ability.
It is
general understandings of agency such as these that make it seem so bizar=
re
to speak of the agency of nonhumans,
for
agency here is something the human subject exercises over the passive obj=
ect.
To talk of the agency of objects demands a different formulation of agenc=
y –
recognising it as a distributed, relational achievement, and as something
separable from intentionality and linguistic ability. Rather, agency is t=
he
essentially contextual capacity to have an effect.
•objects ‘script’ or ‘configure’ the uses to which they are =
span>put
•
So, a
good place to start in disrupting the conventional attribution of agency =
only
to human subjects is to look at the concept of scripting. It makes
immediate intuitive sense, more challenging for social scientists than for
designers – that objects to some extent script or configure
(Woolgar 1990) the uses to which they are put, that in the shape and
interfaces of objects messages are inscribed. Whether intentionally or no=
t,
the design of a technology embeds particular expectations of purpose,
context, practice and use.
Scripting
is most obvious when objects are designed to configure the user in specif=
ic
and practical ways. For example, Latour (1992) analyses hotel key fobs wh=
ich
are bulky enough to be an encumbrance, thereby 'telling' guests to return
them to the desk. In this case the message 'leave me at the desk' is i=
nscribed
in the key itself.
So
scripting clearly relates closely to fundamental concerns of product desi=
gn,
as designers seek to condition the actions of users of products – not lea=
st
as Jack discussed in terms of man-machine interface design etc.
So at a
superficial level at least, notions of scripting seem to reverse the loca=
tion
and relation of agency, the object having the effect in the specific cont=
ext
concerned. This looks like an essentially technologically deterministic
position
<=
span
style=3D'position:absolute;top:29.5%;left:8.23%;width:80.14%;height:7.5%'>=
•processes
through which technologies and
commodities are embraced, subv=
erted
or resisted as they are assimila=
ted into everyday life
•
In part
developed in response to the technologically determinist overtones of
scripting, but also emerging from cultural and consumer studies, the conc=
epts
of appropriation and domestication cast light on the active relationsh=
ip
between subject and object, the user and the product, highlighting the ac=
tive
part that users/consumers play in fitting technologies and commodities in=
to
existing ways of life, frameworks of meaning and contexts of practice.
In
extreme cases, users actively develop and implement ‘anti-programmes’ (Je=
lsma
1999) in response or resistance to those inscribed in the technologies in
question.This kind of appropria=
tion
could take the form of direct technical intervention, for example, in
overcoming built in obsolescence by fixing a component that is intended to
wear out. However, appropriation is more often a matter of finding
alternative scripts as technologies and products are assimilated into
peoples' lives and as they take their part alongside or within existing
assemblages of possessions and routine practices.
So
appropriation and domestication describe the processes through which
standardised technologies and commodities are embraced, subverted or resi=
sted
as they are assimilated into everyday life. It demonstrates that the agen=
cy
within the relation between subject and object, user and product, is two =
way,
mutual, co-determining. A given object carries particular scripts and
possibilities but rarely can a product finally determine the uses to whic=
h it
is put and the meanings found in it – a standardised product can therefore
become a different object in different contexts of use – a theme closely
related to looking at the affordances of products, as Tom talked about.=
font>
But the
necessary focus on broader contexts of use in understanding the relation
between user and product necessarily opens up any sense of a closed relat=
ion
between a subject and an object.
•Gets to the contextual =
conventions and ‘rules’ of appropriation
•In this, a significant determinant is the need to establish
a coherent assembly of goods
The
concept of assembly helps to expand the network of entities involved. Wit=
hin
this theme, the concept of assembly tries to get to the contextual
conventions and ‘rules’ of appropriation. In this a significant determina=
nt
is the need to establish a coherent assembly of goods.
At its
most obvious this exists in the design of pre-determined bundles of goods=
on
the production side, where goods have a pragmatic functional relationship
which causes them to be assembled by the consumer.
However
consumers necessarily have to do work themselves to integrate products in=
to
their daily lives as products, perhaps resulting in unforseen interdepend=
ent
assemblages of products, which can emerge as a result of issues of appear=
ance
and style as well as through pragmatic functional relations. An example h=
ere
is the tale of Diderot, who was given a new red gown as a present. Becaus=
e it
made other items his study look shabby, he progressively replaced his des=
k,
curtains and carpet so that they went with his new robe (McCracken 1988).=
(So),
even at a superficial level its clearly untenable to focus on the agency =
of
an object divorced from the material context of that object – the network
involved has to extend over a network of products interrelated by functio=
n,
style, meaning, temporality or use.
However,
the logic by which products are assembled is ultimately far more
sophisticated, conditioned by the practical, symbolic and temporal regime=
s of
the household concerned. The human subject introduced to these diagrams as
sole repository of agency is itself decentred. The relation between user =
and
product is contextualised in a distributed network of agency involving not
only other objects and aspects of material context but also
<=
span
style=3D'position:absolute;top:29.5%;left:8.05%;width:90.44%;height:7.5%'>=
•products
actively shape broad reaching socio-tec=
hnical
systems of which they are a =
=
part, whilst the products themselv=
es,
their meaning uses and purposes, are
themselves reshaped by the journey
Continuing
in similar vein, provides what is for this talk the final step of complex=
ity
in understanding where agency lies.
Normalisation
introduces a temporal dimension to these relations and in so doing locates
them in broader social dynamics well beyond the household level.
Explanations
for how novel products become normal and ubiquitous can focus on how prod=
ucts
diffuse through society as if desire for them were infectious. However, m=
ore
sophisticated accounts look at how products actively shape broad reaching
socio-technical systems of which they are a part, whilst the products
themselves, their meaning uses and purposes, are themselves reshaped by t=
he
journey. So, for example, mobile phones have reshaped communication
infrastructures, possibilities for time-space coordination, entirely new
practices of communication, social expectations of individual availabilit=
y,
more recently reshaping practices and meaning of photography, so on and so
on. In the process the phones themselves have been reshaped both technica=
lly
and symbolically by the journey from yuppie status symbols to ubiquitous
technologies kept back from the brink of mundanity only by ceaseless
innovation.
So,
returning to agency, where do concepts like these get us in understanding=
the
agency of object? In the way I’ve presented the concepts, we’ve ended up =
with
a steadily increasing complexity of entities which form the network of
relations through which agency and effects emerge. The agency which
conditions the effects of a relation between a user and a product is prop=
erty
neither of the human subject or the object, rather it is distributed in t=
he
network of relations which surrounds and supports that specific user-prod=
uct
relation.
Ultimately
then, these concepts, and the understanding of agency, takes us to the po=
int
of problematising the very bounding of objects, and of the boundary betwe=
en
subject and object….
•=
‘[=
we] are
never faced with people on the one=
hand
and things on the other, they are=
faced with programs of action, sections of which are endowed to
parts of humans, while other sectio=
ns are
entrusted to parts of nonhumans'
•=
Latour 1992: 254
'students
of technology are never faced with people on the one hand and things on t=
he
other, they are faced with programs of action, sections of which are endo=
wed
to parts of humans, while other sections are entrusted to parts of nonhum=
ans'
(Latour 1992) p254
To speak
of the agency of objects can therefore become once more problematic, not
because only human subjects can have agency, but because agency can be the
property of no single entity.
agency of objects lies in the complex
of relations in which they
intervene
objects reshape those relations,
and in the process are themselv=
es
changed
The
point then is to look for the agency of objects of products, not in
themselves, but in the complex of relations in which they intervene, the
objects reshaping those relations and in the process themselves changing.=
The basic aim =
of the
presentation is to talk through some perspectives on the agency of objects within contemporary social science, informed
particularly by STS and where that literature cr=
osses
over into studies of consumption.
What I’m going to do is
first briefly outline the very limited roles that the
material world have played in the dominant histo=
ry of
social science
Then introduce agency as a th=
eme
around which to explore how objects shape social life
I’ll then introduce a short series of concepts, through which=
an
increasingly sophisticated understanding of the =
nature
of agency can be outlined.
I need to stress=
that
I’m not aiming to give a comprehensive view of each concept – to do so in the time available would in any case be impossible. =
It’s
also ultimately a rather superficial engagement =
with
the complex concept of agency.
My aim is rat=
her to
provide, along with Tom’s talk, some basis for developing common ground for discussing the agency of objects in this di=
verse
group of people in this session and the next wor=
kshop.
If that common ground develops from questioning =
and
debating what I’m presenting or highlighting my omissions, so much the bet=
ter.
The project of=
which
this workshop is part initially sprang from the realisation that academic study of consumption has left a surprising theoretic=
al gap
at its heart. Absent from dominant approaches to
consumption is theorisation of the ‘stuff’ itself – the
hardware and materials of consumption.
This =
may
seem surprising when we think of what consumption is about. But when we =
span>think about the inheritance of social science from which stud=
ies of
consumption emerge, it is less surprising. Social
science was substantially built on the purification of
the social of the material, the latter being the proper preserve of natural
sciences. Whether as autonomous Cartesian subjec=
t, or
in terms of Durkheim’s collective conscience of =
the
social group, the nonhuman is left passive, constituting a mute world external to either the individual human subject or the
collective subjectivity of society. The material=
world
exists as the bounds of possibility for the social, or, at its most active, as a screen for the projection of social categor=
ies,
meanings and identities.
There
have of course been niches of social science, such as material culture gro=
wing
out of anthropology, where the material world ha=
s been
present in social analysis, and recent years hav=
e seen
a gathering of calls for social science to recognise the full interdependence of the social with the material world, with
conceptual strides taken in a range of sub
disciplines, perhaps most notably that of Science and Technology Studies (STS), and cognate fields such as innovation studies,=
with
far reaching implications in other disciplines.<=
/span>
An incisive wa=
y into the
perspectives on objects generated through such work is to take the theme of ‘agency’=
span>- the capacity to a=
ct - as
a point of argument, a way to get in to the acti=
ve
role of objects as social entities
Agency is=
of
course a complex concept. But its possible to recognise certain common characteristics that define conventional uses and understandi=
ngs of
the term. In many respects, conventionally it ca=
n be
seen as the defining characteristic of the human subject,
that which differentiates the human from the rest of the world. To the ext=
ent that agency has become a defining and distinguishing characte=
ristic
of the human, it has also become conflated with =
other
such characteristics – specifically, intentionality and
linguistic ability.
It is general understan=
dings
of agency such as these that make it seem so bizarre to speak of the agency of nonhumans,
for agency her=
e is
something the human subject exercises over the passive object. To <=
span
lang=3DEN-GB>talk of the agency of objects demands a different formulation=
of
agency – recognising it as a distributed, relati=
onal
achievement, and as something separable from int=
entionality
and linguistic ability. Rather, agency is the essentially contextual capacity to have an effect.
So, a good pla=
ce to
start in disrupting the conventional attribution of agency only to =
human subjects is to look at the concept of scripting. It makes immediate
intuitive sense, more challenging for social
scientists than for designers – that objects to some extent
script or configure (Woolgar 1990) the=
uses to
which they are put, that in the shape and interf=
aces
of objects messages are inscribed. Whether intentionally or not, the design of a technology embeds particular expectations of
purpose, context, practice and use.
=
Scripting is most obvious when objects are designed to config=
ure
the user in specific and practical ways. For exa=
mple,
Latour (1992) analyses hotel key fobs which are =
bulky
enough to be an encumbrance, thereby 'telling' guests to return them to the
desk. In this case the message 'leave me at the =
desk'
is inscribed in=
the key
itself.
So scripting clearly relates closel=
y to
fundamental concerns of product design, as desig=
ners
seek to condition the actions of users of products – not least as Jack discussed in terms of man-machine interface design etc.
So at a superf=
icial
level at least, notions of scripting seem to reverse the location and relation of agency, the object having the effect in the speci=
fic
context concerned. This looks like an essentially
technologically deterministic position
=
div>
In part develo=
ped in
response to the technologically determinist overtones of scripting, but also emerging from cultural and consumer studies, the con=
cepts
of appropriation and domestication cast light on=
the active relationship between =
subject
and object, the user and the product, highlighti=
ng the
active part that users/consumers play in fitting technologies
and commodities into existing ways of life, frameworks of meaning and contexts of practice.
In extre=
me
cases, users actively develop and implement ‘anti-programmes’ (Jelsma 1999) in response or resistance to those inscribed in the
technologies in question.This =
span>kind of appropriation could take the form of direct technical
intervention, for example, in overcoming built in
obsolescence by fixing a component that is intended to wear out. However, appropriation is more often a matter of finding
alternative scripts as technologies and products=
are
assimilated into peoples' lives and as they take their part alongside or within existing assemblages of possessions and r=
outine
practices.
So
appropriation and domestication describe the processes through which standardised technolog=
ies and
commodities are embrace=
d,
subverted or resisted as they are assimilated into everyday life. It demonstrates that the agency wi=
thin
the relation between su=
bject
and object, user and product, is two way, mutual, co-determining. A given object carries
particular scripts and
possibilities but rarely can a product finally determine the uses to which it is put and the mean=
ings
found in it – a standar=
dised
product can therefore become a different object in different contexts of use – a theme closely relat=
ed to
looking at the affordan=
ces of
products, as Tom talked about.
But the necessary focus on broader contexts of use in understanding the relation between u=
ser and
product necessarily ope=
ns up
any sense of a closed relation between a subject and an object.
The concept of=
assembly
helps to expand the network of entities involved. Within this theme, the concept of assembly tries to get to the contextual
conventions and ‘rules’ of appropriation. In thi=
s a
significant determinant is the need to establish a coherent assembly of goods.
At its most=
obvious
this exists in the design of pre-determined bundles of goods on the production side, where goods have a pragmatic functional
relationship which causes them to be assembled b=
y the
consumer.
However consumers necessarily hav=
e to
do work themselves to integrate products into th=
eir
daily lives as products, perhaps resulting in unforseen interdependent assemblages of products, which can emerge as a result of issu=
es of
appearance and style as well as through pragmatic
functional relations. An example here is the tale of Diderot,
who was given a new red gown as a present. Because it made other items his=
study look shabby, he progressively replaced his desk, curtai=
ns and
carpet so that they went with his new robe (McCr=
acken
1988).
=
div>
So,…
So,…
(So), even at=
a
superficial level its clearly untenable to focus on the agency of an object divorced from the material context of that object – the
network involved has to extend over a network of
products interrelated by function, style, meaning, temporality
or use.
However, the =
logic by
which products are assembled is ultimately far more sophisticated,
conditioned by the practical, symbolic and temporal regimes of the =
household concerned. The human subject introduced to these di=
agrams
as sole repository of agency is itself decentred=
. The
relation between user and product is contextuali=
sed in
a distributed network of agency involving not only other objects and aspects of material context but also
other humans,=
temporal
routines of the household, social conventions, issues of identity and social distinction, etc etc…
Continuing in =
similar
vein, provides what is for this talk the final step of complexity <=
span
lang=3DEN-GB>in understanding where agency lies.
Normalisation
introduces a temporal dimension to these relations and in so doing =
locates them in broader social dynamics well beyond the house=
hold
level.
Explanations for how novel products =
become
normal and ubiquitous can focus on how products
diffuse through society as if desire for them were infectious. However, mo=
re sophisticated accounts look at how products actively shape br=
oad
reaching socio-technical systems of which they a=
re a
part, whilst the products themselves, their mean=
ing
uses and purposes, are themselves reshaped by the journey. So, for example=
, mobile phones have reshaped communication infrastructures,
possibilities for time-space coordination, entir=
ely
new practices of communication, social expectations of individual availability, more recently reshaping practices and
meaning of photography, so on and so on. In the
process the phones themselves have been reshaped=
both
technically and symbolically by the journey from yuppie status symbols to ubiquitous technologies kept back from the brink of mundan=
ity
only by ceaseless innovation.
So, returning=
to
agency, where do concepts like these get us in understanding the agency of object? In the way I’ve presented the concepts, we’=
ve
ended up with a steadily increasing complexity of
entities which form the network of relations through which
agency and effects emerge. The agency which conditions the effects of a =
span>relation between a user and a product is property neither of =
the
human subject or the object, rather it is distri=
buted
in the network of relations which surrounds and supports that specific user-product relation.
Ultimately
then, these concepts, and the understanding of agency, takes us to the poi=
nt of problematising the very bounding of objects, and of the bo=
undary
between subject and object….
'students of =
technology
are never faced with people on the one hand and things on the other, they are faced with programs of action, sections of wh=
ich
are endowed to parts of humans, while other sect=
ions
are entrusted to parts of nonhumans' (Latour 1992) p254
To speak of the agency of objects can therefore become once m=
ore
problematic, not because only human subjects can=
have
agency, but because agency can be the property o=
f no
single entity.
The point the=
n is to
look for the agency of objects of products, not in themselves, but =
in the complex of relations in which they intervene, the obje=
cts
reshaping those relations and in the process
themselves changing.
products actively shape broad reaching socio-technical systems of wh=
ich
they are a part, whilst the products themselves, their meaning uses =
and
purposes, are themselves reshaped by the journey
‘[we] are never faced with people on the one hand and things on the
other, they are faced with programs of action, sections of which are
endowed to parts of humans, while other sections are entrusted to pa=
rts
of nonhumans'