A Beleza da In-Definição de Sociedade em Bruno Latour

Abre espaço para o desarranjo social, a desorganização, o caos social e a auto-organização emergente.

“In the alternative view, ’social’ is not some glue that could fix everything including what the other flues cannot fix; it is what is glued together by many other type of connectors.(…) it’s perfectly acceptable to designate by the same word a trail of associations between heterogeneous elements.(5)

A sociologia seria um estudo de associações e dos tipos de conexões e pelo fato de englobar elementos heterogêneos, fonte de inovações, estudo das inovações, contradições, um estudo de um movimento.(6)

Na definição de grupo social através daqueles que falam sobre a existencia do grupo, dizendo quem são eles, o que eles devem ser, o que eles têm sido. “Groups are not silent things, but rather the provisional product of a constant uproar made by the millions of contradictory voices about what is a group and who pertains to what” (31)

O tipo de grupo social vai se redefinindo em suas tarefas, por isso é importante não categorizar o contexto social ou o grupo social. os atores é que vão mostrando ações e caminhos.(32)

A definição do grupo se dá pelos limites e contradições que estabelece quanto ao que não pertence ao grupo.

Grupos sociais são movimentos que tendem a desaparecer e se formar novamente. Não são fixos. (32)

DEfinição de grupo social performativa, que vem pelo trabalho, por isso é instável e utiliza ferramentas. (34-35)

Ação social: “Action should remain a surprise, a mediation, an event.Baseado numa incerteza (45)

” An ‘actor’ in the hyphenated expression actor-network is not the source of an action but the moving target of a vast array of entities swarming toward it.(…) To use the word ‘actor’ means that it’s never clear who and what is acting when we act since an actor on stage is never alone in acting” (46).

“By definition, action is dislocated. Action is borrowed, distribuited, suggested, influenced, dominated, betrayed, translated.” (46)

A ação como Agenciamentos, ação de atores-mediadores-concatenados e o comportamento coletivo com sua origem na influência dessa rede de relacionamentos.(59)

Ação dislocal – deslocamento em (François Cooren, 2001) The Organizing Property of Communication

Gabriel Tarde –

Sedutor – Conversador

Influência social

Bruno Latour em Redes Sociais

The Spirit of Social Networks

Some day…a idéia de redes sociais em Bruno Latour (2007) vem de Gabriel Tarde (1889) e explica a conectividade da ação humana através de sua potencial e infinita capacidade de influenciar, em grande escala, a realidade social a partir de um único movimento singular.

 

 

“Everything, including what is now diffused among all cultured minds and taught even in the primary school, began as the secret of some single mind, whence a little flame, faint and flickering, sent forth its rays, at first only within a narrow compass, and even there encoutering many obstructions, but growing brighter as it spread further, it at length became a brilliant illumination. Now, if it seems plainly evident that science was thus constructed, it is no less true that the constuction of every dogma, legal code, government, or economic régime was effected in the same same maner (…)” (Latour, 2007:15).

 

 

Latour, redefine as redes sociais como movimentos, espaços e preenchimentos que podem ser emergentes ou provocados, que se manifestam desde o início dos tempos.

 

 

 

“Então, rede social é uma expressão utilizada para verificar o grau de energia, de movimento, e especificar o quanto nossa descrição é capaz de capturar disso. Trata-se de um conceito, não algo lá fora. É uma ferramenta para ajudar a descrever algo, não o que está sendo descrito. (…) uma rede social não é o que está representado no texto, mas quais leituras do texto podemos tirar do revezamento dos atores como mediadores destas ações.” (LATOUR, 2007:131).

 

 

Desse modo, diante dos avanços tecnológico, o aspecto mais importante a ser considerado é que, seja on ou off-line, atualmente precisamos compreender o complexo aspecto humano das redes, ou seja, mais que sistemas,redes são pessoas que anseiam por conversar, se apresentar, compartilhar conhecimentos tácitos, pensamentos críticos, conhecimentos científicos.

 

 

Change My World – World of Art as an Actor-Network

‘The world of art is then neither a field nor a system but an actor-network, and the comentary its mediator’(Albertsen & Diken:2004).

That’s the possibilities of an emergent power that come’s through the world through artwork.

This idea is reinforced for the collective beliefs. They give some kind of magician power for the artwork, ‘a social universe of beliefs included everyone engaged in art: artists, art historians. politicians, gallery-owners, theachers, parents, etc.’(Bourdieu, 1980:221).

The crativity flows up because of a learning region made by the collective tacit kownledge when we stay together in some pourposes. It’s our day-a-day life, our work, our conversations.

‘It’s no dististincion between the analysis of works of art as works of art and as work in social networks.’ As Luhmann (1995) ‘The perception of an artwork, too, is based on an observation of connections of form. (…) The work only emerges as an artwork through a ‘recursive networking with other works of art and with(…)verbal communication about art’

“It is always the same! I am always surprise that people decline to recognize this truth: Everything is social! (Bordieu, 1992:110)

ALBERTSEN, Niels; DIKEN; Bülent.(2004)Artwork’s Network: field, system or mediators? IN: Theory, Culture & Society. London: SAGE. Vol. 21 (3): 35-58.

Reassembling the Social An Actor-Network-Theory – Bruno Latour

In the book Reassemblig the Social – An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, Bruno Latour (2005)describe a different forms for the sociologys approach.

Both of then occured in the last century. In the first approach, “the social sciences have disseminated their definition of society as effectively as utility companies deliver electricity and telephone services.”It was a defined field of knowledge.

The second “(…)claims that there is nothing specific to social order; that there is no social dimension of any sort, no ’social context’, no distinct domain of reallity to which the label ’social’ or ’society’ could be attributed (…)and that ’society’, far from being the context in which everything is framed, should rather be construed as one of the many connecting elements circulating inside tiny conduits.”(Latour, 2005: 4, 5).

Considering the social question a nineteenth innovation, the Latour proposes is a kind of reassemble whethers approaches criticizing the awkward term Actor-Network-Theory calling this better like ’sociology of translation’, actant-rhyzome ontology’, ’sociology of innovation’.

But this nwe approach have some thing important according the author, it culd be seen in a specific situation:

‘But in situations where innovations proliferate, where group boundaries are uncertain, when the range of entities to be taken into account fluctuates, the sociology of the social is no longer able to trace actor’s new associations. At this point, the last thing to do would be to limit in advance the shape, size, heterogeneity, and a combination of associations. The duties of the social scientist mutate accordingly: it is no longer enough to limit actors to the role of informers offering cases of some well-known types. You have to grant then back the ability to make up their own theories of what the social is made of. Your task is no longer to impose some order, to limit of the range of acceptable entities, to teach actors what they are, or to add some reflexivity to their blind practice. Using a slogan from ANT, you have ‘to follow the actors themselves’, that is try to catch up with their often wild informations in order to learn from then what the collective existence has become in their hands, which methods they have elaborated to make it fit together, which accounts could best define the new associations that they have been forced to stablish.’(Latour,2005:11-12).

LATOUR,Bruno.(2005)Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory.New York: Oxford University Press.