Advertisement

Qualitative Sociology

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 365–382 | Cite as

Black Boxes as Capacities for and Constraints on Action: Electoral Politics, Journalism, and Devices of Representation

  • C. W. AndersonEmail author
  • Daniel Kreiss
Article

Abstract

Actor-Network Theory, as a theoretical and methodological approach, is particularly insightful when applied to domains of social activity that are in flux, thus making it particularly useful for ethnographic research about unsettled socio-technical systems. Drawing from field research conducted over the last decade, this paper presents two empirical cases that reveal how ANT enables researchers to trace the associations that form the socio-technical objects of political and journalistic practice. We focus on “black-boxed” technical objects, exploring two distinct, yet complementary, analytical moments that emerged during our respective fieldwork. First, we detail the work that an electoral map performs in stabilizing networks of political representation and creating new capacities to act. We then go inside a journalistic organization to reveal a moment of breakdown when the black box of a content management system unravels and fails to do what it is seemingly supposed to do, throwing news production into a tenuous state. The paper concludes by interrogating our empirical findings through the lens of cultural practices, highlighting a few ways sociologists might need to supplement ANT-analysis with a more robust understanding of culture and symbolic belief systems.

Keywords

Actor-Network Theory Black-boxes Campaigns Communications Ethnography Journalism Politics Social theory Technology 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Fenwick McKelvey and the participants of the 2013 Objects of Journalism pre-conference at the International Communication Association annual meeting for their comments on earlier drafts of this article.

References

  1. Alexander, Jeffrey C. 2010. The performance of politics: Obama’s victory and the democratic struggle for power. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, Jeffrey C., Bernhard Giesen, and Jason L. Mast (eds.). 2006. Social performance: Symbolic action, cultural pragmatics, and ritual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, C.W. 2013. Rebuilding the news: Metropolitan journalism in the digital age. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, Benedict. 1983/2006. Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. New York: VersoGoogle Scholar
  5. Asdal, Kristin. 2012. Context in Action—And the Future of the Past in STS. Science Technology Human Values 37(4): 379–403.Google Scholar
  6. Barry, Andrew. 2001. Political machines: Governing a yechnological Society. London: The Athlone Press.Google Scholar
  7. Becker, Howard. 1982/2008. Art worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bennett, Tony. 2007a. Making culture, changing society: The perspective of culture studies. Culture Studies 21(4): 10–629.Google Scholar
  9. Bennett, Tony. 2007b. The work of culture. Cultural Sociology 1(1): 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boczkowski, Pablo J. 2004. Digitizing the news: Innovation in online newspapers. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Brennen, Steve. 2013. Culturing Latour: Reconstructing culture in Latour’s Actor-Network Theory. Paper presented at the 2013 International Commnications Association Conference. London, UKGoogle Scholar
  12. Callon, Michel. 1991. Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In A sociology of monsters? Essays on power, technology and domination, ed. J. Law, 132–161. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Callon, Michel, John Law, and Arie Rip (eds.). 1986. Mapping the dynamics of science and technology: Sociology of science in the real world. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. Citypaper. 2000. A bad case of Hermes. Last modified March 2, 2000. Accessed on February 17, 2012 from http://archives.citypaper.net/articles/022400/cb.onmedia.shtml?print=1
  15. Cofax. 2006. Last modified December 12, 2006. Accessed on February 18, 2012 from http://www.cofax.org/content/cofax/home/
  16. De Laet, Marianne, and Mol, Annemarie. 2000. The Zimbabwe bush pump: Mechanics of a fluid technology. Social Studies of Science 30: 225–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ganz, Marshall. 2010. Personal communication, September 20.Google Scholar
  18. Grofman, Bernard, and Davidson, Chandler. (eds.). 1992. Controversies in minority voting: The Voting Rights Act in perspective. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  19. Harman, Graham. 2009. Prince of networks: Bruno Latour and metaphysics. Re.Press. Available online at: http://re-press.org/books/prince-of-networks-bruno-latour-and-metaphysics/
  20. Heller, Karen. 2008. Anne d’Harnoncourt. Philly.com June 2, 2008. Accessed February 17, 2012 from http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/populist/19455984.html
  21. Hemmingway, Emma, and Loon, Joost van. 2011. We’ll always stay with a live, until we have something better to go to: The chronograms of 24-hour television news. Time and Society 20: 149.Google Scholar
  22. Jones, Douglas W. 2006. Technologists as political reformers: Lessons from the early history of voting machines. Presented at the Society for the history of technology annual meeting Las Vegas, October 13, 2006.Google Scholar
  23. Kreiss, Daniel. 2012. Taking our country back: The crafting of networked politics from Howard Dean to Barack Obama. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Latour, Bruno. 1991. Technology is society made durable. In A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, ed. J. Law, 103–131. Routledge: London.Google Scholar
  26. Latour, Bruno. 1993. The pasteurization of France. Cambridge: Harvvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Latour, Bruno. 1994. Pragmatogonies: A mythical account of how humans and nonhumans swap properties. The American Behavioral Scientist 37: 791–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Latour, Bruno. 1999. Pandora’s hope. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Latour, Bruno. 2004. The politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Latour, Bruno. 2005. From realpolitik to Dingpolitik or how to make things public. In Making things public: Atmospheres of democracy Cambridge, ed. B. Latour and P. Weibel, 1–32. MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Latour, Bruno. 2006. Reassembling the social. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Latour, B., G. Harman, and P. Erdelyi. 2010. The prince and the wolf. Washington: Zero Boorks.Google Scholar
  33. Lievrouw, Leah, and Livingstone, Sonia. 2006. The handbook of new media. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  34. Mansfield, Matt. 2012 Interview with author, January 25.Google Scholar
  35. Marres, Noortje. 2012. Material participation: Technology, the environment and everyday publics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  36. Moah.org. 2011. Printer’s Jargon. Last modified September 30, 2011. Accessed February 17, 2012 from http://www.moah.org/exhibits/virtual/printing2.html
  37. Nielsen, Rasmus. 2012. Ground wars. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Plouffe, David. 2008. The audacity to win. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  39. Quandt, Thorsten. 2008. News tuning and content management: An observation study of old and new routines in German online newsrooms. In Making online news: The ethnography of new media production, ed. D. Domingo and C. Paterson. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  40. Schudson, Michael. 1999. The good citizen. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Schudson, Michael. 2001. Politics as a cultural practice. Political Communication 18(4): 421–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shapiro, Michael 2006. Looking for light. Columbia journalism review March/April 2006.Google Scholar
  43. Stackoverflow.com. 2009. In django, what is a “slug”? Last modified August 15, 2009. Accessed February 17, 2012 from http://stackoverflow.com/questions/427102/in-django-what-is-a-slug
  44. Stark, David. 2009. The sense of dissonance: Accounts of worth in economic life. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Turner, Fred. 2005a. Where the counterculture met the new economy: Revisiting the WELL and the origins of virtual community. Technology and Culture 46(3): 585–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Turner, Fred. 2005b. Actor-Networking the news. Social Epistemology 19(4): 321–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vaisey, Stephen. 2009. Motivation and justification: A dual-process model of culture in action. American Journal of Sociology 114(6): 1675–1715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wark, McKenzie K. 2002. To the vector the spoils. In CTRL (SPACE) Rhetorics of surveillance from Bentham to Big Brother, ed. T.Y. Levin, U. Frohne, and P.W. Weibel. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  49. Weiss, Amy Schmitz, and Domingo David, 2010. Innovation processes in online newsrooms as actor-networks and communities of practice. New Media and Society 12(7): 1156–1171.Google Scholar
  50. Wikipedia.org. 2011. Slug (production). Last modified September 21, 2011. Accessed February 17, 2012 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slug_(production)

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Media CultureCollege of Staten IslandStaten IslandUSA
  2. 2.School of Journalism and Mass CommunicationUniversity of North Carolina-Chapel HillChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations