Latour and Semiotics: The Doctrine of Signs as a Part and Criticism of ANT
Vol.17,No.2(2020)
Actor-Network Theory in Czech Social Sciences and Humanities
The study’s focus is to identify the conceptual conditions of Latourian ANT as conditions that can be formulated as a specific theory of sign (so-called “material-semiotics”). Therefore, the main aim of the paper is to analyse selected semiotic aspects of the Actor-Network Theory (ANT), namely Latour’s definition of an “actor” as an “actant” and his notion of the “semiotic fabrication” of agency. The interpretation strategy of this essay is a critical comparison of different understandings of the theory of the sign, namely (Saussurean) semiology, (Greimasian) semiotics and (Peircean) semeiotic. Interpretations of these semiotic paradigms comprise the main part of the text along with the evaluation of the Kohn-Latour debate, which can be understood as a more specific development of the Peircean semeiotic. The study points out the controversial aspects of Latour’s acceptance of certain semiotic concepts and their subsequent transposition into the ANT area.
Latour; Peirce; Greimas; Kohn; Semiotics; Agency
ABLALI, Driss. 2001. „Hjelmslev et Greimas: deux sémiotiques universelles différentes.“ Linx 44: 39–53. https://doi.org/10.4000/linx.1031
AKRICH, Madelaine a Bruno LATOUR. 2006. „Zusammenfassung einer zweckmäßigen Terminologie für die Semiotik menschlicher und nichtmenschlicher Konstellationen.“ Pp.
399–406 in Andrea BELLIGER (ed.). ANThology. Ein einführendes Handbuch zur Akteur-Netzwerk Theorie. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.
ARCHER, Margaret S. 1995. Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511557675
BACHE, Carl. 2010. „Hjelmslev's Glossematics: A Source of Inspiration to Systemic Functional Linguistics?“ Journal of Pragmatics 42(9): 2562–2578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.03.005
BAINS, Paul. 2006. The Primacy of Semiosis: An Ontology of Relations. Toronto, Buffalo, London: University of Toronto Press. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442682139
BEETZ, Johannes. 2013. Latour with Greimas Actor-Network Theory and Semiotics. Cit. 14. 5. 2020 (https://www.academia.edu/11233971/Latour_with_Greimas_-_Actor-Network_Theory_and_Semiotics).
BEETZ, Johannes. 2016. Materiality and Subject in Marxism, (Post-)Structuralism, and Material Semiotics. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59837-0
BOURDIEU, Pierre. 1998. Teorie jednání. Praha: Karolinum.
BRANDT, Per A. 2007. „On Consciousness and Semiosis.“ Cognitive Semiotics 1: 46–64. https://doi.org/10.3726/81600_46
BROŽ, Luděk a Tereza STÖCKELOVÁ. 2015. „Přísliby a úskalí symetrie: sociální vědy v zemi za zrcadlem.“ Cargo 1-2: 5-33.
CLARKE, Simon. 1981. The Foundations of Structuralism. Sussex: The Harvester Press.
DEACON, Terrence. 1997. The Symbolic Species. The Co-evolution of Language and the Brain. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
DEELY, John N. 2001. Four Ages of Understanding: The First Postmodern Survey of Philosophy from Ancient Times to the Turn of the Twenty-First Century. Toronto: Toronto University Press. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442675032
DEELY, John N. 2006. „On ‚Semiotics‘ as Naming the Doctrine of Signs.“ Semiotica 158(4): 75–139. https://doi.org/10.1515/SEM.2006.001
DEELY, John N. 2009. Pure Objective Reality. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781934078099
DEELY, John. N. 2010. Semiotic Animal: A Postmodern Definition of „Human Being“ Transcending Patriarchy and Feminism. South Bend: St. Augustine Press.
DESCOMBES, Vincent. 1995. Stejné a jiné. Praha: OIKOYMENH.
DORFMAN, Eugène. 1969. The Narreme in the Medieval Romance Epic: An Introduction to Narrative Structures. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442653887
DUCROT, Oswald a Tzvetan TODOROV. 1972. Dictionnaire encyclopédique des sciences du langage. Paris: Seuil.
EAGLETON, Terry. 2010. Úvod do literární teorie. Praha: Albatros.
ECO, Umberto. 1984. Semiotics and Philosophy of Language. London: MacMillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-17338-9
ENGLER, Rudolf. 2004. „The Making of the Cours de linguistique générale.“ Pp. 47–58 in Carol SANDERS (ed.). Cambridge Companion to Saussure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL052180051X.004
FILIPEC, Josef. 1969. „K francouzskému Greimasovu pokusu o strukturní sémantiku.“ Slovo a slovesnost 30(4): 423–428.
GAGARIN, Michael. 2002. Antiphon the Athenian. Austin: University of Texas Press.
GREIMAS, Julien A. 1966. Sémantique structuale. Paris: PUF.
GREIMAS, Julien A. 1971. „Narrative Grammar: Units and Levels.“ Modern Language Notes 86: 793–807. https://doi.org/10.2307/2907443
GREIMAS, Julien A. a Joseph COURTÉS. 1982. Semiotics and Language: An Analytical Dictionary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
GREIMAS, Julien A. 1983. Structural Semantics: An Attempt at a Method. Lincoln & London: University of Nebraska Press.
GREIMAS, Julien A. 1987. On Meaning. Selected Writings in Semiotic Theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
GVOŽDIAK, Vít. 2014a. Základy sémiotiky 1. Olomouc: Nakladatelství Univerzity Palackého.
GVOŽDIAK, Vít. 2014b. Základy sémiotiky 2. Olomouc: Nakladatelství Univerzity Palackého.
GVOŽDIAK, Vít. 2019. „Arbitrariness and Rationality.“ Sign System Studies (v tisku).
GREGORCZYK, Anna. 1989. „Reconstruction of Myth in the Semantics of A. J. Greimas.“ Pp. 49–67 in Jerzy KMITA a Krystyna ZAMIARA (eds.). Visions of Culture and the Models of Cultural Sciences. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
HERBERT, Louis. 2007. Dispositifs pour l'analyse des textes et des images. Limoges: Presses de l'Université de Limoges.
HANKE, Miroslav, Martina KASTNEROVÁ, Martin ŠVANTNER a Marie VĚTROVCOVÁ.
2015. Stopování sémiotiky. Červený Kostelec: Pavel Mervart.
HARTMANN, John. 2010. „Review of Graham Harman, Prince of Networks: Bruno Latour and Metaphysics.“ Kinesis 36(2): 65–70.
HOSTAKER, Roar. 2005. „Latour – Semiotic and Science Studies.“ Science Studies 18(2): 5–25. https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.55177
HJELMSLEV, Louis. 2016 (1943). O Základech teorie jazyka. Praha: Academia.
CHARVÁT, Martin. 2016. Gilles Deleuze. Asignifikantní sémiotika. Praha: Togga.
CHARVÁT, Martin a Michal KARĽA. 2018. „Gilles Deleuzeʼs Theory of Sign and Its Reflection of Peircean Semiotics.“ Pp. 134–51 in Vít GVOŽDIAK a Martin ŠVANTNER (eds.). How to Make Our Signs Clear: C. S. Peirce and Semiotics. Leiden: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004347786_011
KELLY, John D. 2014. „Introduction: The Ontological Turn in French Philosophical Anthropology.“ Hau: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 4(1): 259–269. https://doi.org/10.14318/hau4.1.011
KOBES, Tomáš. 2015. „Když se lidé mění ve lvy: Problém překladu.“ Teorie Vědy 3: 303–323.
KOHN, Eduardo. 2013. How Forests Think: Toward an Anthropology Beyond Human. Berkley, CA: University of California. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520956865
KONOPÁSEK, Zdeněk. 2015. „Symetrie je často stranická: rozhovor se Zdeňkem Konopáskem (Luděk Brož, Tereza Stöckelová).“ Cargo 1-2: 117–132.
LATOUR, Bruno a Madelaine AKRICH. 1992. „A Convenient Vocabulary for the Semiotics of Human and Nonhuman Assemblies.“ Pp. 259–264 in Wiebe E. BIJKER a John LAW (eds.). Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
LATOUR, Bruno a Steve WOOLGAR. 1979. Laboratory Life. The Contruction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
LATOUR, Bruno. 1993. We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
LATOUR, Bruno. 1996. „On Actor-Network Theory: A Few Clarifications.“ Soziale Welt 47(4): 369–381.
LATOUR, Bruno. 1996b. „On Interobjectivity.“ Mind, Culture, and Activity 3(4): 228–244. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca0304_2
LATOUR, Bruno. 1999. Pandora's Hope. Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
LATOUR, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Clarendon: Oxford University Press.
LATOUR, Bruno. 2008. „Poznání a vizualizace aneb jak myslet očima a rukama.“ Teorie vědy 30(2): 90.
LATOUR, Bruno a Courtney WEISS. 2009. „Where Constant Experiments Have Been Provided. A Conversation with Bruno Latour.“ Cit. 21. dubna 2020 (https://wittenbrink.net/lostandfound/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Arch-Literary-Journal-_-Bruno-Latour.pdf).
LATOUR, Bruno. 2014. „On selves, forms and forces.“ HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 4(2): 261–266. https://doi.org/10.14318/hau4.2.014
LATOUR, Bruno. 2014b. „How Better to Register the Agency of Things (Tanner One -semiotic).“ Cit. 21. dubna 2020 (http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/137-YALE-TANNER.pdf).
LAW, John. 2009. „Actor Network Theory and Material Semiotics.“ Pp. 141–158 in Bryan S. TURNER (ed.). The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444304992.ch7
LENOIR, Timothy. 1994. „Was That Last Turn a Right Turn? The Semiotic Turn and A. J. Greimas.“ Configurations 2: 119–136. https://doi.org/10.1353/con.1994.0014
LOTMAN, Jurij M. 1991. Universe of the Mind. A Semiotic Theory of Culture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
LOTMAN, Mihhail. 2003. „Peirce, Saussure and the Foundations of Semiotics.“ Sun Yat-sen Journal of Humanities 16: 77–78.
McGEE, Kyle. 2014. Bruno Latour: The Normativity of Networks. London: Routledge.
MEIER-OESER, Stephen. 1997. Die Spur des Zeichens. Das Zeichen und seine Funktion in der Philosophie de Mittlealters und frühen Neuzeit. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110803150
MURPHY, James B. 1991. „Nature, Custom, and Stipulation in the Semiotic of John Poinsot.“ Semiotica 83(1/2): 33–68. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1991.83.1-2.33
PAPILLOUD, Christian. 2018. „Bruno Latour and Relational Sociology.“ Pp. 183–197 in François DÉPELTAU (ed.). The Palgrave Handbook of Relational Sociology. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66005-9_9
PEIRCE, Charles S., Charles HARTSHORNE, Paul WEISS a Arthur W. BURKS. 1931–1958. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
(CP číslo svazku: paragraf)
PETTIT, Phillip. 1977. The Concept of Structuralism: A Critical Analysis. Berkley: University of California Press.
SALINAS, Francisco J. 2016. „Bruno Latour’s Pragmatic Realism: An Ontological Inquiry.“ Global Discourse 6(1–2): 8–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/23269995.2014.992597
SAUSSURE de, Ferdinand. 2007 (1916). Kurs obecné lingvistiky. Praha: Academia. (CLG)
SCHINKEL, William a Jacques TACQ. 2004. „The Saussurean Influence in Pierre Bourdieu’s Relational Sociology.“ International Sociology 19(1): 51–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580904040920
SCHLEIFER, Ronald. 1988. A. J. Greimas and the Nature of Meaning: Linguistics, Semiotics and Discourse Theory. London: Croom Helm.
SHORT, Thomas L. 2007. Peirce’s Theory of Signs. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511498350
ŠVANTNER, Martin. 2014. „O jedné bouři v čajovém hrnku: Ch. S. Peirce, U. Eco a sémiotická metafyzika objektů.“ Filozofia 69(1): 63−76.
ŠVANTNER, Martin. 2017. „Nepochopená setkání: sémiotika a sociální věda o médiích.“ Sociální studia 2: 99–122. https://doi.org/10.5817/SOC2017-2-99
ŠVANTNER, Martin a Karolína ŠEDIVCOVÁ. 2019. „Číst v relacích: dekonstrukce, sémiologie, sémeiotika a ironie dějin teorie znaku.“ Pp. 19−51 in Martin ŠVANTNER, Michal KARĽA a Karolína ŠEDIVCOVÁ (eds.). Sémiotické marginálie: Mezi epistemologií, estetikou
a politikou. Praha: Togga.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright © 2020 Martin Švantner