An Actor–Network is a "heterogeneous network of aligned interests, including people, organizations and standards" (Walsham, 1997). ANT accounts describe the process whereby an entity becomes the exclusive spokesman for the interests of other actors who accept them as the gateway to satisfaction of their own interests (Callon, 1986). In ANT’s most important methodological work, Callon (1986) distilled the stages (“moments”) of translation into four steps.
3.6.1 Problematisation
ANT is concerned with action, thus it is frequently used to describe the formation of a set of alliances which developed into an Actor–Network. The actors themselves are identified and their interdependencies established. For the formation of a durable network, the actors must come to accept that their various interests are advanced through some process on which they all rely, an Obligatory Passage Point (OPP) as illustrated in Fig. 6. This requires these problems to be framed in such a way that the focal actor can make an offer to assist the others through an association with them. Fig. 6: Illustration of OPP formation, from Callon (1986, pp.206–207).
Problematisation thus “describes a system of alliances, or associations, between entities, thereby defining the identity and what they ‘want’” (Law 1986, p.206).
3.6.2 Interessement
Once the actors are defined, an actor hoping to become a spokesman for the entire network must begin interesting the others in their work. Simultaneously they begin divorcing them from any rival actors which allow an alternative route to the state being offered (alternative passage points). A campaign of sorts is undertaken (through devices: tactics or some physical entity) which lobbies the actors to be recruited to the endeavour. The attempt is – through negotiation – to align the actor’s interests with those of the putative spokesman and hence consent to the alliance and strengthening the emerging network. This process is the incarnation of the concepts advanced during Problematisation (Callon, 1986).
3.6.3 Enrolment
If Interessement is successful, the various actors will be enrolled by the focal actor (Callon, 1986), in that they will consent to the alliance and accept their roles in the network and donate
their own capabilities to supporting it. Callon is quick to point out that these are not roles in the sense of generally accepted societal positions; rather this stage defines what each actor does and wants and how it relates to the others. The actor allows himself to be represented by the focal actor as a “spokesman” for the aligned group’s interests.
3.6.4 Mobilisation
“An actant can gain strength only by associating with others.”
(Latour 1988, p.160) Representation of those mobilised may be indirect, performed through negotiation with a spokesman. Such a spokesman may be a representative as traditionally understood (such as a union shop steward), the representation of a subset of objects through a sample or the presentation of a set of actors’ interests through a mouthpiece such as the representation of the behaviour of some object through a figure or instrument. This facilitates the mobilisation of a large number of allies to a cause through that figurehead, however this only holds whilst that support continues (which might be checked using a test of strength and whilst the spokesman does not betray the represented through self-interest, or at least is not found out).
“In our definition the crucial element is not the quality of the represented but only their number and the unity of the representative”.
(Latour 1987, p.72) Callon (1986) mentions the comparison of a spokesman as a political form of induction, the assumption that where one leads all will follow.
3.7 Success
A project, according to ANT, succeeds or fails on the basis of its ability to form a sufficiently durable alliance of interested parties who have been convinced that the project is the gateway to advancing their own interests. In Latour’s (1987) language, the price of dissent is raised by accumulating so many allies for which one can speak (and who can be protected from poaching by the challenger) that it is impractical to form a counter proposal.
Dery et al. (2013) note that the “neat” process above as described by Callon (1986) is not necessarily seen empirically in a perfect linear and sequential fashion thus success may only be visible after several attempts to fulfil the stages identified. Gonzales and Cox (2010) by way of example present an account of HR process implementation which partially failed due to lack of enrolment of key actors. An ANT account does not look at the morality of the movement, whether it is in general terms “beneficial” or achieves an externally-imposed success criterion
(Scott-Smith, 2013) but simply aims to describe the formation of the alliances through which the various interests are mobilised.
3.8 Criticism
ANT is not the work of a unified political organisation with a well-polished party line; it has evolved and developed through debate and even fracture (Walsham, 1997). Proponents and critics of ANT (not necessarily exclusive groups) have argued at length on the topic and it is not proposed to fully cover the area here, however some note must be taken of the limits of certain concepts.
The “symmetry” of treatment of human and non-human actants in terms of agency or ability to cause action is probably the most controversial aspect of ANT, even though the intent to introduce the non-human generally has had overall success (Sayes, 2014). Perhaps the most well-known criticism of the symmetry was by Collins and Yearley (1992) who, pointing to the absurdity of that symmetry taken to extremes, prefer to advance and retain the differentness of human intention. As many have noted (see McLean and Hassard (2004) for a useful summary) the principle of symmetry is useful in reminding the analyst that whilst humans can make strategic decisions – albeit as Callon (1999) notes, not all actors are in a position to make perfect choices with a full view of all available strategic options – non-human entities can cause effects and take their place in the network surrounding those human choices and acts. “Action” in this sense however is not a straightforward statement of direct intentional cause (Latour 2005, pp.70–72; Johnston, 2001).
Following the argument of Callon and Latour (1992), it is accepted that the position of ANT is a reaction to a sociology of human separateness and specialness which underplayed the interactions of heterogeneous materials and that the extreme equivalence positions alleged by some critics are straw man arguments. There are clearly differences of agency and intent between human and non-human, however it is not accepted a priori that all interesting events and translations inside the Information Security network – which is so completely dominated by the effects of and changing possibilities created from technological change – are the result of deliberate human action.
Further criticism must be answered concerning the lack of taking a moral position or judgement.
By taking no stance on the motivation of the action and concentrating purely on describing it, it is possible to level accusations of relativism; much of the criticism of ANT has centred on this lack of moral comment (see Winner, 1993; Amsterdamska, 1990). On the point of ethics, Law (1992) notes that this is an analytical position only which seeks to recognise the involvement of
objects in the networks which shape behaviour, which does not seek to make human and machine morally equivalent. As explored by Johnston (2001) it is possible also to consider some automatic processes which favour a given outcome (such as evolution) to be thus intentional, even if not rational or strategic.
Callon (1999, p.193) characterises some of the criticism as centred on the actor as “guided by the quest for power and solely interested in spreading networks and their influence” (see also Latour’s (1999a) defence). Indeed, the actor may have no intention or motivation and be enrolled by others (Callon, 1999). Studies using ANT have however been published which show a moral angle; some (such as Latour (1991)) argue that it is possible or indeed necessary to use an apolitical tool to describe a network before making a judgement. That emphasis on adopting no a priori assumptions about the nature of associations between entities which must be traced carefully and empirically arguably makes ANT a firmer basis for Critical studies to examine relationships of concern (Doolin and Lowe, 2002). Moreover, this study sets out to examine the state of a network but has no “mandate” from its title question to seek to cast judgement except where analytically necessary, therefore an amorality argument does not deter here.