Skip to main content

Ethics in Actor Networks, or: What Latour Could Learn from Darwin and Dewey

Abstract

In contemporary Science, Technology and Society (STS) studies, Bruno Latour’s Actor Network Theory (ANT) is often used to study how social change arises from interaction between people and technologies. Though Latour’s approach is rich in the sense of enabling scholars to appreciate the complexity of many relevant technological, environmental, and social factors in their studies, the approach is poor from an ethical point of view: the doings of things and people are couched in one and the same behaviorist (third person) vocabulary without giving due recognition to the ethical relevance of human intelligence, sympathy and reflection in making responsible choices. This article argues that two other naturalist projects, the non-teleological virtue ethics of Charles Darwin and the pragmatist instrumentalism of John Dewey can enrich ANT-based STS studies, both, in a descriptive and in a normative sense.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. Unless indicated otherwise, all text references to Dewey refer to the collected works edition (Dewey 1996 [1882-1953]). Therein to the parts EW, MW and LW for early, middle & later works, respectively.

  2. Even though Dewey restricts his interpretation of the “interaction” stance strictly to causal interactions.

  3. We believe the term “virtue-ethics” provides a too narrow conception of this body of theories.

  4. Even in a classical Darwinian view “fittest” (in the superlative) is a misleading term since “fit enough” suffices for survival.

References

  • Bernstein, R. J. (1966). John Dewey. New York: Washington Square Press.

  • Blackburn, S. (2001). Being good. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgh, M. (1997). Gevolgen van voorspellend erfelijkheidsonderzoek; Alles beter dan onzeker-heid. Interview met medisch psycholoog Tibben. NRC Handelsblad.

  • Callon, M., & Latour, B. (1992). Don’t throw the baby out with the bath school! A reply to collins and yearley. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 343–368). Chigaco: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H., & Kusch, M. (1998). The shape of actions. What humans and machines can do. Cambridge: MIT press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H., & Yearley, S. (1992). Epistemological chicken. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 301–326). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. (1871/2010). The Descent of Man. New York: Dover Publications.

  • Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Waal, F. (1996). Good Natured. The origins of right and wrong in humans and other animals. Cambridge (Ma): Harvard U.P.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Waal, F. (2006). Primates and philosophers. How morality evolved. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Waal, F. (2009). The age of empathy. Nature’s lessons for a kinder society. New York: Harmony Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennet, D. (1995). Darwin’s dangerous idea. Evolution and the meanings of life. Harmondsworth Allen Lane: The Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1925). Experience and nature. Chicago: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1996 [1882-1953]). The collected works 1882–1953. In J. A. Boydston & L. Hickmann (Eds.), Past masters: The collected works of John Dewey. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.

  • Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. F. (1949). Knowing and the known. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorstewitz, P. (2008). Reconstructing Rationality: agency and inquiry in John Dewey’s project as a foundation for social and urban planning. PhD, London School of Economics, London.

  • Dorstewitz, P., & Kuruvilla, S. (2007). Reviewing rationality: A pragmatist perspective on policy & planning processes. Management and Philosophy, 6(1), 91–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1975). Surveiller et punir, naissance de la prison. Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grint, K., & Woolgar, S. (1992). Computers, guns, and roses: what’s social about being shot? Science, Technology and Human Values, 17(3), 366–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, L. E. (1970). Dewey's philosophy and philosophical method. In: Guide to the works of John Dewey (Ed.), Jo Ann Boydston. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.

  • Kuruvilla, S., & Dorstewitz, P. (2010). There is no “point” in decision-making: a model of transactive rationality for public policy and administration. Policy Sciences, 43(3), 263–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1987). Hoe “de Heerser” te schrijven voor zowel machinaties als machines. Krisis, 7(26), 42–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1988). How to write “The Prince” for machines. In B. Eliot (Ed.), Technology and social change (pp. 20–43). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1991). We have never been modern. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of the new mundane artefacts shaping technology, building society. Cambridge: MIT-press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1994). On technical mediation: Philosophy, sociology, genealogy. Common Knowledge, 94(4), 29–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2002). Morality and technology: the end of the means. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(5/6), 247–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor network theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mele, A. (2006). Action. In D. Borchert (Ed.), Encyclopedia of philosophy (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 14–22). Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montagsstiftung. (2011). Schulen Plannen und Bauen. Berlin: Jovis.

  • Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • School is Open BildungsRaumProjekt (2011). “Inklusive Universitaetsschule Koeln” - Eine Schule fuer alle -.

  • Smith, A. (2003). Do you believe in ethics? Latour and Ihde in the trenches of the science wars (or: watch out, Latour, Ihde’s got a gun). In D. Ihde & E. Selinger (Eds.), Chasing technoscience: Matrix for materiality (pp. 182–194). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swierstra, T. (1992). Latour de force. Kennis en methode, 16(1), 21–38.

  • Swierstra, T. (1995). Een koud bad. Krisis, tijdschrift voor filosofie, 15(1), 25–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tibben, A. (2000). Van vrees naar hoop: Erfelijke neurodegeneratieve zieken opnieuw bezien. Rede uitgesproken bij de openlijke aanvaarding van het ambt van bijzonder hoogleraar aan de Faculeit der geneeskunde. Leiden: University of Leiden.

  • Tibben, A., Timman, R., Bannink, E., & Duivenvoorden, H. (1997). Three-year follow-up after presymptomatic testing for huntington’s disease in tested individuals and partners. Health Psychology, 16, 20–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waelbers, K. (2009). Technological delegation: Responsibility for the unintended. Journal for Science and Engineering Ethics, 15, 51–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waelbers, K. (2011). Doing good with technologies: Taking responsibility for the social role of emerging technologies. Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Weele, C. van der (2011). Empathy’s purity, sympathy’s complexities; De Waal, Darwin and Adam Smith. Biological philosophy (online first: March 11, 2011).

  • White, M. (1943). The origin of Dewey's instrumentalism. New York: Columbia University Press.

  • Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philipp Dorstewitz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Waelbers, K., Dorstewitz, P. Ethics in Actor Networks, or: What Latour Could Learn from Darwin and Dewey. Sci Eng Ethics 20, 23–40 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-012-9408-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-012-9408-1

Keywords

  • Latour
  • Darwin
  • Dewey
  • ANT
  • Morality
  • Naturalistic ethics
  • Technology