Towards a Post-human Intra-actional Account of Sociomaterial Agency (and Morality)

  • Lucas D. IntronaEmail author
Part of the Philosophy of Engineering and Technology book series (POET, volume 17)


In the history of ethical thought there has always been an intimate relationship between agency and questions of morality. But what does this mean for artefacts? It would not be too controversial to claim that the idea that artefacts have, or embody, some level of agency—even if it is very limited or derived in some way—has become generally accepted. However, there still seems to be wide disagreements as to what is meant by the agency of artefacts, how it is accounted for, and the subsequent moral implications of such agency. I will suggest that one’s account of the agency of artefacts is fundamental to the subsequent discussion of the moral status and implications of artefacts, or technology more generally. In this contribution I will outline two different accounts of sociomaterial agency: (a) a human-centred inter-actional account (Johnson and VSD) and (b) a post-human intra-actional account (drawing on Latour, Barad and Heidegger). I will show that the post-human intra-actional account of sociomaterial agency posits the social and technical as ontologically inseparable from the start. Such a position has important implications for how one might understand sociomaterial agency and how one might deal with it. I will propose that the authors in the post-human approach all share what I call a ‘co-constitutive’ account of agency in which agency is not an attribute of the human or the technical as such but rather the outcome of intra-action. I will endeavour to illustrate the implications of such an account for our understanding of sociomaterial agency by considering the phenomenon of plagiarism detection. I will conclude by proposing disclosive ethics (in particular disclosive archaeology) as a possible way forward in dealing with the ethical and political implications of post-human intra-agencies.


Police Officer Sensitive Design Word Processor Academic Writing Constitutive Condition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Achterhuis, H. (1995). De moralisering van de apparaten. Socialisme en Democratie, 52(1), 3–12.Google Scholar
  2. Barad, K. (1996). Meeting the universe halfway: Realism and social constructivism without contradiction. In L. Nelson & J. Nelson (Eds.), Feminism, science, and the philosophy of science (pp. 161–194). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs, 28(3), 801–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borgman, A. (1984). Technology and the character of contemporary life. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bracha, O. (2006). The ideology of authorship revisited. Available at SSRN: Accessed April 2007.
  6. Brey, P. (1999). The ethics of representation and action in virtual reality. Ethics and Information Technology, 1(1), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brey, P. (2004). Ethical aspects of face recognition systems in public places. Journal of Information Communication and Ethics in Society, 2(2), 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of “sex”. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Davidson, D. (1980). Essays on actions and events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Flanagan, M., Howe, D., & Nissenbaum, H. (2008). Values in design: Theory and practice. In J. van den Hoven & J. Weckert (Eds.), Moral philosophy and information technology (pp. 322–353). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). New York: Pantheon Books. Google Scholar
  12. Foucault, M. (1977). What is an author? (D. F. Bouchard & S. Simon, Trans.). In Language, counter-memory, practice (pp. 124–127). Ithaca/New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Foucault, M. (1994). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Friedman, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (1996). Bias in computer systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 14(3), 330–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H., Jr., & Borning, A. (2006). Value sensitive design and information systems. In P. Zhang & D. Galletta (Eds.), Human-computer interaction in management information systems: Foundations (pp. 348–372). Armonk/London: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  16. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  17. Heather, J. (2010). Turnitoff: Identifying and fixing a hole in current plagiarism detection software. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(6), 647–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heidegger, M. (1927/1962). Being and time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  19. Heidegger, M. (1971). Poetry, language and thought. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  20. Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology and other essays. New York: Harper Torchbooks.Google Scholar
  21. Heim, M. (1999). Electric language. New York: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hesse, C. (2002). The rise of intellectual property, 700 B.C.—A.D. 2000: An idea in the balance. Daedalus, 131(2), 26–46.Google Scholar
  23. Howard, R. M. (1993). A plagiarism pentimento. Journal of Teaching Writing, 11(2), 233–245.Google Scholar
  24. Howard, R. M. (1995). Plagiarisms, authorships, and the academic death penalty. College English, 57(1), 788–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ihde, D. (1991). Instrumental realism: The interface between philosophy of science and philosophy of technology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Introna, L. D. (2007). Maintaining the reversibility of foldings: Making the ethics (politics) of information technology visible. Ethics and Information Technology, 9(1), 11–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Introna, L. D. (2009). Ethics and the speaking of things. Theory Culture and Society, 26(4), 398–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Introna, L. D., & Nissenbaum, H. (2000). The internet as a democratic medium: Why the politics of search engines matters. The Information Society, 16(3), 169–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Introna, L. D., & Whittaker, L. (2006). Power, cash and convenience: Translations in the political site of the ATM. The Information Society, 22(5), 325–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Introna, L. D., & Wood, D. (2004). Picturing algorithmic surveillance: The politics of facial recognition systems. Surveillance and Society, 2(2/3), 177–198.Google Scholar
  31. Johnson, D. (2006). Computer systems: Moral entities but not moral agents. Ethics and Information Technology, 8(4), 195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lathrop, A. (2000). Student cheating and plagiarism in the internet era: A wake-up call. Englewood: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  33. Latour, B. (1991). Technology is society made durable. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 103–131). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope. Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Latour, B. (2002). Morality and technology: The end of the means. Theory Culture and Society, 19(5 & 6), 247–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Latour, B. (2003). The promise of constructivism. In D. Ihde & E. Selinger (Eds.), Chasing technoscience: Matrix for materiality (pp. 27–46). Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1997). Completely different worlds: EAP and the writing experiences of ESL students in university courses. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 39–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lynch, J. (2002). The perfectly acceptable practice of literary theft: Plagiarism, copyright, and the eighteenth century. Colonial Williamsburg: The Journal of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 24(4), 51–54.Google Scholar
  40. Norman, D. A. (1988). The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  41. Pecorari, D. (2003). Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic second-language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(4), 317–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Roig, M. (2001). Plagiarism and paraphrasing criteria of college and university professors. Ethics and Behavior, 11(3), 307–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rouse, J. (2004). Barad’s feminist naturalism. Hypatia, 19(1), 142–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rouse, J. (2007). Social practices and normativity. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 37(1), 46–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Saltmarsh, S. (2004). Graduating tactics: Theorizing plagiarism as consumptive practice. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 28(4), 445–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Saltmarsh, S. (2005). ‘White pages’ in the academy: Plagiarism, consumption and racist rationalities. International Journal of Educational Integrity, 1(1).
  47. Schleimer, S., Wilkerson, D., & Aiken, A. (2003, June). Winnowing: Local algorithms for document fingerprinting. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data (pp. 76–85).Google Scholar
  48. Shi, L. (2004). Textual borrowing in second-language writing. Written Communication, 21(2), 171–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Verbeek, P. P. (2005). What things do – Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Verbeek, P. P. (2006). Materializing morality – Design ethics and technological mediation. Science Technology and Human Values, 31(3), 361–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vojak, C. (2006). What market culture teaches students about ethical behaviour. Ethics and Education, 1(2), 177–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Winner, L. (1980). Do artefacts have politics. Daedalus, 109, 121–136.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Organisation, Work and TechnologyLancaster UniversityLancasterUK

Personalised recommendations