Combining Luhmann and Actor-Network Theory to see Farm Enterprises as Self-organizing Systems

From a rural, sociological point of view no social theories have so far been able to grasp the ontological complexity and special character of a farm enterprise as an entity in a really satisfying way. The contention of this paper is that a combination of Luhmann’s theory of social systems and the actor-network theory (ANT) of Latour, Callon, and Law offers a new and radical framework for understanding a farm as a self-organizing, heterogeneous system. Luhmann’s theory offers an approach to understand a farm as a self-organizing system (operating in meaning) that must produce and reproduce itself through demarcation from the surrounding world by selection of meaning. The meaning of the system is expressed through the goals, values, and logic of the farming processes. This theory is, however, less useful when studying the heterogeneous character of a farm as a mixture of biology, sociology, technology, and economy. ANT offers an approach to focus on the heterogeneous network of interactions of human and non-human actors, such as knowledge, technology, money, farmland, animals, plants, etc., and how these interactions depend on both the quality of the actors and the network context of interaction. But the theory is weak when it comes to explaining the self-organizing character of a farm enterprise. Using Peirce’s general semiotics as a platform, the two theories in combination open a new and radical framework for multidisciplinary studies of farm enterprises that may serve as a platform for communication between the different disciplines and approaches

Combining Luhmann and Actor-Network Theory to see Farm Enterprises as Self-organizing Systems

From a rural, sociological point of view no social theories have so far been able to grasp the ontological complexity and special character of a farm enterprise as an entity in a really satisfying way. The contention of this paper is that a combination of Luhmann’s theory of social systems and actor-network theory (ANT) of Latour, Callon, and Law offers a new and radical framework for understanding a farm as a self-organizing, heterogeneous system. Luhmann’s theory offers an approach to understand a farm as a self-organizing system (operating in meaning) that must produce and reproduce itself through demarcation from the surrounding world by selection of meaning. The meaning of the system is expressed through the goals, values, and the logic of the farming processes. His theory, however, is less useful when studying the heterogeneous character of a farm as a mixture of biology, sociology, technology, and economy. ANT offers an approach to focus on the heterogeneous network of interactions of human and non-human actors such as knowledge, technology, money, farmland, animals, plants, etc., and as to how these interactions depend on both the quality of the actors and the network context of interaction, but the theory is weak when it comes to explaining the self-organizing character of a farm enterprise

Toward an analytical and methodological understanding of actor-network theory

Actor-Network theory (ANT) is well developed within social studies of science and technology. The last two decades have seen an increasing awareness and interest in ANT within the social sciences and it has increasingly been invoked to theorise the role of ‘nonhumans’ in social life.  In this respect the conceptual repertoire of ANT has been increasingly drawn upon to examine the relational dimensions between artefacts and people. Despite this the use of ANT as an analytical and/or methodological approach occupies a peripheral within social science research.  In part, the reticence towards ANT may be explained by its lack of theoretical unity. Analytically and methodologically the application of ANT and thought which is closely associated with the approach is considerably varied. ANT informed research often differs quite considerably in terms of methodological approach and style of analyses. This is further complicated by the disparate emphases of ANT proponents and the proliferation of different versions of ANT. Thus, there is no generic way to ‘apply’ actor-network theory and it lacks methodological prescription. This article intends to articulate the analytical and methodological possibilities of ANT. For those who are encountering ANT for the first time or for whom ANT has been regarded as a somewhat left field and inaccessible theory obscured by its own vocabularies and heterogeneity this article may provide a useful conceptual map through which the key elements of ANT can be navigated