Albena Yaneva’s ‘Making the Social Hold: Towards an Actor-Network Theory of Design’

Excerpt: Albena Yaneva’s paper, ‘Making the Social Hold’ (2009), discusses an implementation of Actor-Network Theory (ANT) on Design. ANT largely focuses its assumption on the formulation of social ties by nonhuman objects. The pithy concept here is: is it possible to forecast the impact a nonhuman object will have via the human characteristics they adopt? Will it aid or abet our democracy? A discussion on the moral deficiencies inherent in objects is pivotal when contemplating these questions. In one way it is easier to access these ideas through the lens of this personification as it expedites clarity of context. There is distributed agency at play here: what configuration of the world needs to come together to enable this outcome?

Albena Yaneva’s paper, ‘Making the Social Hold’ (2009), discusses an implementation of Actor-Network Theory (ANT) on Design. ANT largely focuses its assumption on the formulation of social ties by nonhuman objects. Yaneva reiterates this concept in support of her argument, stating that ‘design triggers specific ways of enacting the social’. She goes on to argue that one cannot ‘understand how a society works’ without this consideration; that Design viewed in this way, acts as ‘a type of connector’ (Yaneva 2009, p. 273). It is this concept of the social that underpins Yaneva’s paper on the role of Design via ANT.

Through the narrative of a mornings activities arriving to teach students at University, Yaneva chose to look at her usual routine through a different lens – one of an ‘objective pragmatism’ as she viewed the objects around her (Yaneva 2009, p. 276). We learn this perspective follows that of ANT, which analyses ‘every single technical feature of an object’ (Yaneva 2009, p. 276). We see here that her perspective on Design itself is also objective, enabling her to engage in this task. Yaneva continues with her historical repertoire, outlining other principles ANT scholars have identified: ‘ANT argues that artifacts are deliberately designed to shape or even replace human action’ (Yaneva 2009, p. 277). Yaneva’s citing of Latour which follows, solidifies her direction suitably: ‘By so doing, they play an important role in mediating human relationships, even prescribing morality, ethics and politics (Latour 1991)’ (Yaneva 2009, p.277).

Bruno Latour plays a significant role in ANT and here we begin to see his ideas through the lens of another, less enigmatic, thinker. Latour’s work thus far has a positive influence here, as we can begin to apply real-life practicalities to his theories. The analysis of Yaneva’s morning activities begins to shape an understanding of how it could be possible to apply ‘objective pragmatism’ (Yaneva 2009, p. 276) to my own contexts. Yaneva’s facilitation of this notion into the world of Design provokes deep inflection as it places these theories into a context where Designers live and breathe. It extends the responsibility to us in a sense as it illuminates questions of how  this knowledge can be applied to our own work. The lives of Designers illustrate an interesting paradox; we are impacted by nonhuman objects as well as being responsible for their design and therefore their key role in ‘prescribing morality, ethics and politics (Latour 1991)’ (Yaneva 2009, p.277).

The pithy concept here is: is it possible to forecast the impact a nonhuman object will have via these human characteristics they adopt? Will it aid or abet our democracy? A discussion on the moral deficiencies inherent in objects is pivotal when contemplating these questions. In one way it is easier to access these ideas through the lens of this personification as it expedites clarity of context. Delving further, there is distributed agency at play here: what configuration of the world needs to come together to enable this outcome?: the cluster of things as an Actor-Network. Considering the roles of objects (including humans) within this Network, the theory of inscription within ANT is where we connect to notions of the social ties by nonhuman objects in Yaneva’s paper: the design of the door-lock ‘tells us a lot about the social life of the university’ (Yaneva 2009, p. 278).

One’s mind begins to implode when beginning to move these theories into the contexts we move in and out of everyday. The role of Design in configuring our world seems to move between responsibility and possibility. Yaneva’s paper supports this insight as she provided accessibility and reference to Latour’s theories, complimenting his complexity.

References

Latour, Bruno. 1991. Nous n’avons jamais été modernes: essai d’anthropologie symétrique. Paris: La Découverte.

Yaneva, Albena. 2009. Design and Culture Vol 1, Issue 1. Border Crossings: Making the Social Hold: Towards an Actor-Network Theory of Design. Berg: UK.

Image source: Construction photography: http://www.constructionphotography.com/Details.aspx?ID=19966&TypeID=1