Equivalence chains and mobilisation of allies

Mobilising allies consists in making entities that were not mobile, mobile. By a appointing a spokesperson and by setting up a cascade of intermediations and equivalences, a range of different entities are displaced and replaced by a spokesperson. This spokesperson can be chosen by those on whose behalf they will be speaking {this is the case of sea fishermen delegates in Callon's study of scallops (1986)), or be built by an actor attempting to mobilise a population (e.g. the researchers who build a representative sample of scallops). It is interesting to include in the analysis the various operators and operations that transform the multitude of entities mobilised into a handful of spokespersons able to shift this multitude.

Innovators and organisers work, not directly with populations of customers, users or employees, but on the representatives, statistics, accounts or spokespersons. Innovation is therefore built by mobilising a range of intermediary spokespersons (samples, representation), who are selected and questioned. What they say is recorded, compiled and compared in design offices.

By selecting a spokesperson, e.g. an entity to speak instead of and on behalf of the others, the number of contact persons with whom action is necessary is lowered. If a loyal spokesperson can be found instead and in place of the multitude, the situation is much easier to control. A multitude can be mobilised by a series of displacements, simplifications and associations that transform the multitude into a given point or black box ("punctualisation").

The translation operation consists in converting the multitude (events or members of a population) into a point. Displacing this point hence displaces the multitude. The notion of translation chain describes the series of displacements and equivalence matches needed to produce a statement or an object. Through the translation relations, the statements refer to other statements, to objects or human beings that they summarise and condense and to which they provide access. Innovation therefore summarises and displaces a whole series of texts and objects, but aiso humans (researchers, technicians, competitors, financiers, customers, legislators, etc.).

Through problematisation, intéressement and enrolment, individual actors create asymmetries and structure a space that they attempt to keep hold of. To do this, the actor enrols elements with more sustainable relations in order to consolidate small provisional asymmetries. Actors who are able to set up alliances, either willingly or not, with many other elements become macro-actors. However, there is always the possibility that such mobilised allies may escape, just as the elements behind a given reasoning may fall apart, social habits change and machines break down. The actor attempts to keep them in check by making the asymmetries irreversible.

Actor-network

Innovation and organisation work produces heterogeneous combinations in the form of technical devices, knowledge incorporated in individuals or organisations. New worlds are built: socio-technical networks, hybrids, etc. When the networks act like an actor, Callon refers to them as actor-networks.

In some cases, the translation postulates new entities or actors (a new user profile with redefined skills), and attempts to bring them to life. The list of these new actors is likely to change constantly.

Through the translation operation, relationships and actants are redefined. The actants do not therefore come from nothing; they are themselves progressively built networks. Studying an actant is all about studying its construction. Its meaning comes from the associations created and its identity depends on translation operations. As networks change, so do identities. No actor is unchanging (whether the actor is a pressure

group, social class, individual, basic particle, universal gravity or libido). The identity of entities depends on the structural weight of the network. The meaning of a statement, its strength and its ability to convince, for example, depend on the chain of translations and the reference created by the network. The power to convince, just like the efficiency or robustness of a technology, the legitimacy of an argument or the social acceptability of a new technology, depends on the morphology of the networks and on the robustness of the translations making them up.

Netnuork robustness depends on the alignment and intertwining of the translations created both inside and outside of the laboratory. By following these translations, the observer goes beyond the laboratory, as a place, in order to study the length, composition and robustness of the network. Leaving the laboratory to follow the network strings is like moving from one place to another. However, the investigation never moves from a local level to a global level. It always remains within and travels through the network, which may be of variable size, but never leaves it.

The translation can also be consolidated by being included in texts or material devices, incorporated in individuals or fixed by a new institution. The network creates irréversibilité (interdependence and complementarities, collective learning) and stabilisation. The chain and overlapping of translations draws a socio-technical path that gradually reduces the margins for manoeuvre of the actants concerned. When a translation is a success, it takes on the form of a constrictive network for the entities present. Whereas, with problematisation, individual actors would put forward hypotheses about the identity of other actors, their relations and their objectives – making up their own unified and self-sufficient actor-world at the end of the translation process, a network of links imposes requirements on these various actors thus constituting an actor-network.

The lengthening and extension of networks involves a range of various actors. It involves the building of equivalence chains and the mobilisation of allies who progressively get smaller in number and are put into boxes, contained in statements, devices and institutions. Hence, the network becomes "punctualised" and a new actant is born. If the network ensures its own upkeep, the multitude acts as a single body. Generally speaking, actor-networks tend to turn into black boxes, from the outsider's viewpoint, insofar as they enclose a maximum number of links within their walls. The actor-network strives to set up its own balance of internai and external relations and gives the impression that it has come into being for a single purpose.

Network punctualisation does not imply internal homogenisation. The network remains heterogeneous. A number of elements make it possible to maintain this diversity. Intermediary objects make it possible for heterogeneous actants and disjointed networks to coexist and connect up. Border, intermediary and mediating objects can act as a starting point for various translations.

As robust as they may be, the translations and networks are nevertheless test pieces, never completely guaranteed. They at times fall apart: spokespersons are denounced; actors go back to their first relationships; instruments fall to pieces; theories prove to be incoherent. Networks and spokespersons can always be called into question. The actants may resist the definition imposed on them and act differently. New translations can turn actors away from the obligatory points of passage required of them. Relationships can be undone and networks become dislocated and non-performable. When this happens, the description of reality (social and natural) starts to fluctuate, as is the case of certain innovative projects: a good technician may move on to a better paid job, a bolt may come loose, a customer change its strategy and social movements may call into question the overflow of innovation. In the account of the Aramis underground (Latour, 1992), when the network becomes non-performable, actor descriptions are no longer superimposed. Controversies arise, calling into question, refuting and scorning the representation provided by the spokespersons. Reversibility is possible and the actor-network structure is still capable of changing.

Furthermore, the building of networks can be limited by other networks of rules (Dodier, 1995), by objections or technical devices. These restrict the scope of acceptable translations (for example, the mechanisms used to appoint spokespersons or set up a representative sample), the dissemination spaces (where statements, instruments and competencies are circulated), or the sharing of rights (copyright, confidentiality rules). Moreover, the study of science and technology must also take into account the procedures for assessing and setting up commissions and the conditions in which these procedures are applied. These rules influence the definition of those who are mobilised and those who are allowed to speak and on whose behalf.

Date: 2016-03-03; view: 779