Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Relationality and Heterogeneity: Transitive Methodology in Practice Theory and Actor-Network Theory

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Methodological Reflections on Practice Oriented Theories

Abstract

The article addresses the complex relationship between practice theory and actor-network theory (ANT). It closely examines the similarities and differences between the two and asks how the ANT perspective can be beneficial for practice theory. Drawing on Pierre Bourdieu, Anthony Giddens and Theodore Schatzki’s work, this study briefly identifies the theoretical and methodological standpoint of practice theory. It then turns to Bruno Latour’s ANT, discussing his methodological approach towards the social. Next, it identifies the differences between the two approaches, offering a critique of ANT from the perspective of practice theory. In the conclusion, the contribution identifies the potential of ANT approaches for practice theory at the methodological level. It argues that the methodological principles of ANT can integrate with practice theory to form what I call a ‘transitive methodology’. This analytical perspective does not locate subjectivity and agency at a single spot. Instead, it situates them in a heterogeneous network of practices and materialities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    I have developed the following argument in detail in Schäfer (2013).

  2. 2.

    The notion of translation was predominantly developed by Callon (1991, 1994), another proponent of ANT.

  3. 3.

    Here, praxeological methodology is close to and can draw on pragmatist positions. For a more comprehensive comparison and overview of the discussion, see Schäfer (2012).

  4. 4.

    For similar proposals, see Law (2004), Clarke (2005).

References

  • Akrich, M., & Latour, B. (1992). A summary of a convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society. Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 259–264). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bongaerts, G. (2007). Soziale Praxis und Verhalten – Überlegungen zum Practice Turn in Social Theory. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 36(4), 246–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction. A social critique of the judgement of taste. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 132–161). London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. (1994). Four models for the dynamics of science. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 29–63). London/Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, A. E. (2005). Situational analysis. Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. London/Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derrida, J. (1982). Margins of philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derrida, J. (1988). Limited Inc. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garnham, N., & Williams, R. (1980). Pierre Bourdieu and the sociology of culture: An introduction. Media, Culture and Society, 2(3), 209–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution Of Society. Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillebrandt, F. (2009). Praxistheorie. In G. Kneer & M. Schroer (Eds.), Handbuch Soziologische Theorie (pp. 368–394). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • ICOMOS. (1964). International charter for the conservation and restoration of monuments and sites (The Venice Charter 1964). Venice: ICOMOS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, R. (2002). Pierre Bourdieu. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lash, S. (1993). Pierre Bourdieu: Cultural economy and social change. In C. Calhoun, E. LiPuma, & M. Postone (Eds.), Bourdieu: Critical perspectives (pp. 193–211). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1992a). One more turn after the social turn. Easing science studies into the non-modern world. In Ernan M. (Ed.), The social dimensions of science (pp. 272–294). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1992b). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In W. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society. Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 225–258). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2004). How to talk about the body? The normative dimension of science studies. Body & Society, 10(2–3), 205–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, J. (2004). After method. Mess in social science research. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, G. E. (1995). Ethnography in/of the world system: the emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 95–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices. A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 245–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schäfer, H. (2012). Kreativität und Gewohnheit. Ein Vergleich zwischen Praxistheorie und Pragmatismus. In Udo Göttlich & Ronald Kurt (Eds.), Kreativität und Improvisation. Soziologische Positionen (pp. 17–43). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schäfer, H. (2013). Die Instabilität der Praxis. Reproduktion und Transformation des Sozialen in der Praxistheorie. Weilerswist: Velbrück.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schatzki, T. (2001). Practice theory. In Ibid., Karin Knorr-Cetina, Eike v. Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 1–14). London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schatzki, T. (2002). The site of the social. A philosophical account of the constitution of social life and change. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State Univ. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schatzki, T. (2010). The timespace of human activity. On performance, society, and history as indeterminate teleological events. Lanham: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schinkel, W. (2007). Sociological discourse of the relational: The cases of Bourdieu & Latour. The Sociological Review, 44(4), 707–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, R. (2012). Soziologie der Praktiken. Konzeptionelle Studien und empirische Analysen. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shove, E., & Pantzar, M. (2007). Recruitment and reproduction: The careers and carriers of digital photography and floorball. Human Affairs, 17(2), 154–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012). The dynamics of social practice. Everyday life and how it changes. London: SAGE.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European University Viadrina, Frankfurt (Oder), Germany

    Hilmar Schäfer

Authors
  1. Hilmar Schäfer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hilmar Schäfer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Institute of Advanced Studies (IHS), Vienna, Australia

    Michael Jonas

  2. Department of Sociology, Institute of Advanced Studies (IHS), Vienna, Austria

    Beate Littig

  3. Department of Sociology, Institute for Advanced Studies (IHS), Vienna, Austria

    Angela Wroblewski

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schäfer, H. (2017). Relationality and Heterogeneity: Transitive Methodology in Practice Theory and Actor-Network Theory. In: Jonas, M., Littig, B., Wroblewski, A. (eds) Methodological Reflections on Practice Oriented Theories. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52897-7_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52897-7_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-52895-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-52897-7

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation