Material Turn in History: Actor-Network Theory and Material as Historical Agency
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The recent turn in the humanities and social sciences has taken place in a capitalist, materially advanced epoch. We can no longer refuse the material power that influences us. This results in a revision to the ontology of things and objects. One of the most influential yet debatable theories in this material turn is the actor-network theory. The actor-network theory argues that agency is distributed across the network of human and nonhuman actors indiscriminately. Moreover, the actor-network theory argues against the division between society and nature, agency and structure, human and nonhuman. This paper looks at the material turn and its seepage into historical studies. It reviews the actor-network theory focusing on the issue of agency, particularly on how agency can be viewed if we apply the theory as the lens through which to analyze historical phenomena. This paper argues that applying the actor-network theory as an analytical lens in historical studies would enable a more meticulous analysis. Moreover, it would allow history to interconnect with other disciplines in a period of shifting trends in academia.
Downloads
Article Details
References
จักรกริช สังขมณี. (2559). ความไม่(เคย)เป็นสมัยใหม่ของศาสตร์-อศาสตร์: อวัตถุวิสัยอมนุษยนิยม และเครือข่าย-ผู้กระทำของบรูโน ลาตูร์. ใน จันทนี เจริญศรี (บรรณาธิการ). ศาสตร์ อศาสตร์: เข้ามา ข้างนอกออกไปข้างใน (น. 142-171). นนทบุรี: พารา กราฟ.
จันทนี เจริญศรี. (2559). ศาสตร์ อศาสตร์: เข้ามาข้างนอก ออกไปข้างใน. ใน จันทนี เจริญศรี (บรรณาธิการ). ศาสตร์ อศาสตร์: เข้ามา ข้างนอกออกไปข้างใน (น. 18-41). นนทบุรี: พารา กราฟ.
เชษฐา พวงหัตถ์. (2549). วิวาทะ Structure - Agency และการหาทางออกให้กับปัญหาทวิลักษณ์นิยม: Marxism versus Foucault. วารสารสังคมศาสตร์, 37(1-2), 128-187.
ชญาน์ทัต ศุภชลาศัย. (2560). สลาวอย ชิเชค VS เกรแฮม ฮาแมน: วิวาทะปรัชญาร่วมสมัย. วารสารสังคมศาสตร์, 47(2), 149-176.
โสรัจจ์ หงศ์ลดารมภ์. (2560). ก็องแต็งเมยาซูกับปัญหาเรื่องความชั่วร้าย. Retrieved July 27 2019, from https://philoflanguage.wordpress.com/tag/สัจนิยม/
Bennette, J. (2015). Systems and Things: On Vital Materialism and Object-Oriented Philosophy. In G. Richard (Ed.). The Nonhuman Turn (pp. 223-240). Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
Blackburn, S. (2005). The Oxford dictionary of philosophy. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press.
Bowker, G. (2007). Actor-Network Theory. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. doi:10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosa009
Colley, L. M. (2015). Taking the stairs” to break the ceiling: understanding students’ conceptions of the intersections of historical agency, gender equity, and action (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Kentucky, Kentucky.
Crawford, C. S. (2005). Actor network theory. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social theory (Vol. 1, pp. 1-3). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Duncan, S. (2019). Thomas Hobbes. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 ed.). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/hobbes
Elder-Vass, D. (2008). Searching for realism, structure and agency in Actor Network Theory. British Journal of Sociology, 59(3), 455-473.
Ewing, A. (1984). “The Indian Civil Service 1919-1924: Service Discontent and the Response in London and in Delhi”. Modern Asian Studies, 18(1), 33-53.
Fisher, S. (2014). Pierre Gassendi. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 ed.). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/gassendi/
Fulbrook, M. (2002). Historical theory. London, New York: Routledge.
Fuller, S. (2007). Actor-Network Theory, Actants. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. doi:10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosa009
Frow, J. (2010). Matter and materialism: A brief pre-history of the present. In T. Bennett & P. Joyce (Eds.). Material Powers: Cultural studies, history and the material turn (pp. 25-37). London, New York: Routledge.
Joyce, P., & Bennett, T. (2010). Material powers: introduction. In T. Bennett & P. Joyce (Eds.). Material Powers: Cultural studies, history and the material turn (pp. 1-21). London, New York: Routledge.
Joyce, P. (2010). Filing the Raj: Political technologies of the Imperial British state. In T. Bennett & P. Joyce (Eds.). Material Powers: Cultural studies, history and the material turn (pp. 102-123). London, New York: Routledge.
Latour, B. (2002). Gabriel Tarde and the end of the social. In P. Joyce (Ed.). The Social in Question: New bearings in history and social sciences (pp. 117-132). London, New York: Routledge.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Lettow, S. (2017). Turning the turn: New materialism, historical materialism and critical theory. Thesis Elven, 140(1), 106-121.
Marx, K. (1963). The eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. New York: International Publishers.
Mukerji, C. (2010). The unintended state. In T. Bennett & P. Joyce (Eds.). Material Powers: Cultural studies, history and the material turn (pp. 81-101). London, New York: Routledge.
Sayes, E. (2014). Actor-Network Theory and methodology: Just what does it mean to say that nonhumans have agency?. Social Studies of Science, 44(1), 134-149.
Schulze, M. (2014). Things are Changing: Museums and the Material Turn. Museological Review, 18, 43-52.
Suwannakij, S., & Ivarsson, S. (2019). Inscribing Siam: The state of documentary and spatial practices. Modern Asian Studies, 1-35. doi:10.1017/S0026749X18000112
Skirry, J. (n.d.). René Descartes (1596-1650). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from www.iep.utm.edu/descarte/
Trentmann, F. (2009). Materiality in the Future of History: Things, Practices, and Politics. Journal of British Studies, 48(2), 283-307.