Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 27 items :

  • "Relational Ontologies" x
Clear All
Cartographic Explorations with Indigenous Peoples in Africa

Table of Contents Acknowledgments | 7 Introduction | 9 1 Mapping the Terrain | 19 Technology Beyond Determinism | 19 The Technological is Political | 25 Technology and the Body: An Asymmetrical Relation | 38 2 Locating the Technological with/in Rhizomatic Networks | 57 The Mode of Existence of Technical Objects | 59 Technical Mediation as Processes of Mutual Mobilization | 67 Power and Agency in Heterogeneous Networks | 71 Relational Ontology and the Question of the Political | 80 The Absent Present Body | 92 3 Re

, forgoing what occurs in the in‑between (Cresswell 2006). Finally, the field has systematically framed out the researcher’s own transnational movements, and their impact in their research (Knowles 2000). Mobility studies, eminently, is a “transdisciplinary field”, which “brings together […] sociology (inequality, power, hierarchies) […] geography (territory, borders, scale) and […] anthropology and media studies (discourses, representations, schemas), while inflecting each with a relational ontology of the co‑constitution of subjects, spaces and meanings.” (Sheller

norm is a governing principle of behaviour; that is to say, it is a witness-able tendency for people to do things a certain way (Merton 1942). Norms are not necessarily stable: they do flux and mutate, transfer and disappear. Nor are norms external to socio-technical rela- tions, but are co-constructed in the mode of distributed cognition in a processual- relational ontology. However, sometimes norms stabilise for long periods of time. This research engages in an understanding of distributed cognition. It treats tech- nological norms as learned behaviours

Relational Database. Relation still consists of one of the core philosophical questions today; furthermore it emerges from a pure metaphysical concept to a concrete and material concept. In fact, Barad is critical of Russell’s notion of relation, since she announced that: “I present a relational ontology that rejects the metaphysics of relata, of “words” and “things” (Barad 2003: 812). However Barad is a science scholar, but not a technology scholar, and this is the limit of her thinking when she reproaches the linguistic turn and overlooks that even language is

-kausalen Erklärungsmuster grundsätzlich entzieht. Steht die Frage nach der Hervorbringung der im- provisierten Bewegung im Raum, lässt sie sich nicht als Folge einer be- stimmten Ursache fassen, sondern muss in komplexeren Netzwerken ge- dacht werden. Für die Improvisationspraxis, die Beschreibung und für die theoretische Annäherung gilt gleichermaßen: »They [improvisational performances] require the complex interplay of a relational ontology of systemic couplings and interactions« (Barrios Solano 2006: 288). Unter dem Vorzeichen einer relationalen Ontologie soll für die Ent

in Geste

arises from, depends on, and consists of information. Latour (1993) has proposed a relational ontology in which whatever is, is because of the associations it has entered into with other actants in order to build an actor-network. The ontological status of relations is expressed by Latour in the principle of “irreduction.” Irreduction means that “nothing is, by itself, either reducible or irreducible to anything else” (158). In other words, being is relational, that is, everything is a mediating mediator. Whatever might have happened in the evolution of Homo

on what will be accepted as a socially binding and organizationally constitutive story. Networking, sensemaking, staging, and narrative performance move seamlessly from individual to collective actors. This is not a scale of freedom and constraint. At every point along the way, there is both freedom and constraint. No actor is completely free or completely constrained. This is what the principle of “irreduction,” at the basis of ANT’s relational ontology means. The concepts of localizing and globalizing are useful for understanding how small interactions are

substantivalism in explanations and interpretations of social phenomena and is most directly connected to the work of Harrison White and Introduction 13 proposing a constructivist relational ontology of the social. Although ANT can also be understood as a constructivist relational ontology of social reality, it is fundamentally different from relational sociology. ANT has its basis in ethnography and science and technology studies and proposes a methodological symmetry between humans and non-humans. This clearly distinguishes ANT from relational sociology.11 The actor

activity. It is tempting to speculate that the specific mode of being of interfaces could be called “information.” As Norbert Wiener (1948) provocatively stated, information is information and neither matter nor energy. This definition says more about what information is not, than what it is. The ontological status of information has also been discussed by Floridi (2004), who suggests that information might be thought of as “a special relation or interface between the world and its intelligent inhabitants” (574). Latour (1993) has proposed a relational ontology