This Article Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Gad, C. Articles by Jensen, C. B. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

On the Consequences of Post-ANT

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: cgad{at}hum.au.dk.

	Abstract

Since the 1980s the concept of ANT has remained unsettled. ANT has continuously been critiqued and hailed, ridiculed and praised. It is still an open question whether ANT should be considered a theory or a method or whether ANT is better understood as entailing the dissolution of such modern "genres". In this paper the authors engage with some important reflections by John Law and Bruno Latour in order to analyze what it means to "do ANT," and (even worse), doing so after "doing ANT on ANT." In particular the authors examine two post-ANT case studies by Annemarie Mol and Marilyn Strathern and outline the notions of complexity, multiplicity, and fractality. The purpose is to illustrate the analytical consequences of thinking with post-ANT. The analysis offers insights into how it is possible to "go beyond ANT," without leaving it entirely behind.

First published on February 23, 2009
Science, Technology & Human Values 2009, doi:10.1177/0162243908329567


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?