Searching for realism, structure and agency in Actor Network Theory<sup>1</sup>

Dave Elder‐Vass

British Journal of Sociology · 2008 · 175 citations · 16 references

DOIFull text

Open access

Concepts

TL;DR

Actor Network Theory and critical realism are fundamentally opposed research traditions. The paper seeks to determine whether common ground can be found between ANT and critical realism. It examines realism, structure, and agency, comparing the two perspectives and identifying mutual learning opportunities. The study finds that realists can learn from ANT, yet ANT is limited by its shallow ontology, neglect of mechanisms and social structure, and symmetric treatment of actors, which nonetheless challenges sociologists to include non‑human entities.

Abstract

Superficially, Actor Network Theory (ANT) and critical realism (CR) are radically opposed research traditions. Written from a realist perspective, this paper asks whether there might be a basis for finding common ground between these two traditions. It looks in turn at the questions of realism, structure, and agency, analysing the differences between the two perspectives and seeking to identify what each might learn from the other. Overall, the paper argues that there is a great deal that realists can learn from actor network theory; yet ANT remains stunted by its lack of a depth ontology. It fails to recognize the significance of mechanisms, and of their dependence on emergence, and thus lacks both dimensions of the depth that is characteristic of critical realism's ontology. This prevents ANT from recognizing the role and powers of social structure; but on the other hand, realists would do well to heed ANT's call for us to trace the connections through which structures are constantly made and remade. A lack of ontological depth also underpins ANT's practice of treating human and non-human actors symmetrically, yet this remains a valuable provocation to sociologists who neglect non-human entities entirely.

References

16