Is ANT an actor in its own ontology? This question summarises a number of issues that will be comprehensively investigated in this article. ANT will be analysed ‘reflexively’, that is, considering it as an actant of the ontology that it reclaims as a theory. The analysis of the concept of ‘description’ and the observation of the relational effects that ANT exerts and that are exerted on it reveal its asymmetric singularity in relation to the other actors. Therefore, we will argue whether ANT should actually be considered a ‘standing refutation’ of itself. The analysis of the concept of sociological relativity and its comparison with physical relativity reveal a possible reason for this self-contradictory behaviour, which will be the basis of our assumption concerning the emergence of a new type of action. Finally, a brief reinterpretation of ANT will be proposed, in the light of the newly introduced concepts of ontologisation and metaphysical action: it seems that this apparent contradiction can be ‘reabsorbed’ within the theory itself. Latour’s philosophical production will be broken down based on the applicability of the analysis.
AkrichM. (1992a). Sémiotique et sociologie des techniques: jusqu’où pousser le parallèle? [Semiotic and Sociology of Technology: how far push the parallelism?] InCes Réseaux que la raison ignore: Centre de Sociologie de l’Innovation (pp. 24–30). L’Harmattan,.
2.
AkrichM. (1992b). The de-scription of technical objects. In BijkerW. E. and LawJ. (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society (pp. 205–224). MIT Press.
3.
AmsterdamskaO. (1990). Surely you are joking Monsieur Latour!Science, Technology and Human Values, 15(4), 495–504.
4.
BloorD. (1976). Knowledge and social imagery. Chicago University Press.
5.
CallonM. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In LawJ (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 196–223). Routledge.
6.
CallonM. (1991). Techno-economic network and irreversibility. In LawJ. (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essay on power, technology and domination (pp. 132–161). Routledge.
7.
CallonM. (2006). What does it mean to say that economics is performative? (Working Paper Series 5: pp. 1–58). Centre de Sociologie de l’Innovation.
8.
CallonM. (2009). Elaborating the notion of performativity. Le Libellio d’Aegis, 5(1), 18–29.
9.
CollinsH. M., & YearleyS. (1992). Epistemological chicken. In PickeringA. (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 301–326). Chicago University Press.
10.
EinsteinA. (1905). Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper [On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies]. Annalen der Physic, 17(4), 891–921.
11.
EinsteinA. (1920). Relativity: The special and the general theory. Methuen.
12.
EinsteinA. (1949). Autobiographical notes. In SchlippP. A. (Ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist (pp. 3–95). The Library of Living Philosopher.
13.
GoodmanN. (1978). Ways of worldmaking. Hackett Publishing Company.
14.
HarmanG. (2009). Prince of network: Bruno Latour and metaphysics. re. press.
15.
Knorr-CetinaK. (1985). Germ warfare. Social Studies of Science, 15(3), 577–585.
16.
LakatosI. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programmes. Cambridge University Press.
17.
LatourB. (1993). The Pasteurization of France followed by Irreductions (trans. SheridanA.). Harvard University Press.
18.
LatourB. (1986). Visualization and cognition: Thinking with eyes and hands. Knowledge and Society, 6(1), 1–40.
19.
LatourB. (1987). Science in action. How to follow scientist and engineers through society. Harvard University Press.
20.
LatourB. (1988). A relativistic account of Einstein’s relativity. Social Studies of Science, 18(1), 3–44.
21.
LatourB. (1993). We Have Never Been Modern (trans. PorterC.). Harvard University Press.
22.
LatourB. (1992). Where are the missing masses, sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In BijkerW. E. and LawJ. (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society (pp. 225–259). MIT Press,.
23.
LatourB. (1996). Petite réflexion sur le culte moderne des dieux faitiches[On the modern cult of factish gods]. Parigi: Les Empecheurs de penser en rond.
24.
LatourB. (1999a). Pandora’s hope. Essays on the reality of science studies. Harvard University Press.
25.
LatourB. (1999b). Politiques de la nature. Comment faire entrer les sciences en démocratie?[Politics of nature: how to bring the scienceinto democracy] La Découverte & Syros.
26.
LatourB. (2002). La Fabrique du droit. La Découverte.
27.
LatourB. (2005). Reassembling the social. An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.
28.
LatourB. (2006). A textbook case rivisited. Knowledge as mode of existence. In HackettE., AmsterdamskaO., LynchM., and WacjmanJ. (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 83–112). MIT Press.
29.
LatourB. (2010). Networks, societies, spheres: Reflections of an actor—network theorist. Keynote speech for the International Seminar on Network Theory: Network Multidimensionality in the Digital Age. Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.
30.
LatourB. (2012). Enquête sur les modes d’existence[An inquiry into modes of existence: an anthropology of the moderns]. La Decouverte.
31.
LatourB., & CallonM. (1992). Don’t throw the baby out with the bath school. A replay to Collins and Yearely. In PickeringA. (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 343–368). Chicago University Press.
32.
LatourB., & StangersI. (2009). Le sphinx de l’oeuvre. Introduction to Souriau E. [The Sphinx of the Work. An Introduction to Souriau E.]Les différentes modes d’existence. Suivi de ‘l’Oeuvre à faire’. Puf.
33.
LatourB., & WoolgarS. (1979). Laboratory life. The construction of scientific facts. SAGE.
34.
LawJ. (1997). Traduction/trahison: Notes on ANT. Oslo,TMV Working Paper, (106): 1–26.
35.
LawJ. (1999). After ANT: Complexity, naming and topology. In LawJ. and HassardJ. (Eds.), Actor network theory and after (pp. 1–14). Blackwell Publishers.
36.
LawJ. (2009). Actor network theory and material semiotic. In BryanS. (Ed.), The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory (pp. 141–158). Blackwell.
37.
LorentzH. A. (1886). De l’influence du mouvement de la terre sur les phénomènes lumineux [The effect of the moving Earth on transient lominous events]. Vers. Kon. Akad. Wetensch. Amsterdam, 2, 103–176.
38.
LorentzH. A. (1892a). The Relative Motion of Earth and the Ether. Vers. Kon. Akad. Wetensch. Amsterdam, 1, 74–78.
39.
LorentzH. A. (1892b). La théorie électromagnétique de Maxwell et son application aux corps mouvants [Maxwell’s Electromagnetic Theory and its implementation to the moving bodies]. Archives néerlandaises des sciences exactes at naturelles, 25, 363–552.
40.
LorentzH. A. (1899). Théorie semplifiée des phénomènes électriques et optiques dans des corps en mouvement [Simplified theory of electrical and optical phenomena applied to moving bodies]. Vers. Kon. Akad. Wetensch. Amsterdam, 7, 507–530.
41.
MattozziA. (Ed.). (2006). Il senso degli oggetti tecnici [The meaning of technology’s objects]. Meltemi.
42.
MolA. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Duke University Press.
43.
PasteurL. (1858). Mémoire sur la fermentation appellée lactique. Annales de Chiemie et Physique, 5(3), 404–418.
44.
SchafferS. (1991). The Eighteenth Brumaire of Bruno Latour. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 22(1), 174–192.
45.
ShapinS. (1988). Following scientists around. Social Studies of Science, 18(3), 533–550.
46.
WoolgarS. (Ed.). (1988). Knowledge and reflexivity: New frontiers in the sociology of knowledge. SAGE Publications.
47.
ZaharE. (1989). Einstein’s revolution. A study in Heuristic. Open Court.
