Traduction / Trahison: Notes on ANT

Résumé 0

What would it be to "speak for" a theory or a tradition in Science, Technology and Society? What would it be to 'represent' that theory? To offer an account? An authoritative account of its character, its development, its strengths and its weaknesses? Sometimes I am faced with this question. I am asked to speak for actor network theory. To tell about it. To offer a verdict. When this happens I feel uncomfortable. For the request poses a problem. The problem of what it is to be a "faithful representative". And in particular with what it might mean to "represent" a theory that talks of representation in terms of translation. Which seeks to undermine the very idea that there might be such a thing as fidelity. Faithful translation. Which stresses that all representation also betrays its object. Perhaps there is no good answer. Or perhaps, there are many. But here is one possibility. That one might represent actor network theory by performing it rather than summarising it. By exploring a small number of case studies rather than seeking to uncover its "fundamental rules". By telling of examples that are both faithful and unfaithful. By stressing that traduction is also trahison.