行动者网络理论（ANT）

【作者】 郭明哲；

【导师】 朱宝荣；

【作者基本信息】 复旦大学 ， 科学技术哲学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 布鲁诺·拉图尔(Bruno Latour,1947-)是当代法国科学知识社会学家、社会建构论者、爱丁堡学派早期核心人物和巴黎学派领军人物。其开创的“实验室研究”,直接促成了科学知识社会学继“社会学转向”之后的又一次转向——“人类学转向”;他在实验室研究基础上构建出的“行动者网络理论”(actor-network-theory,英文缩写ANT),标志着科学研究中与爱丁堡学派分庭抗衡的新学派——巴黎学派的诞生。此学派将实验室实践与更大范围的技术-政治磋商联系起来,认为科学实践与其社会背景是在同一过程中产生,并不具有因果关系,它们相互建构、共同演进,从一个侧面说明当代科学研究(science studies)的实践转向的重大趋势。本文围绕拉图尔的“行动者网络理论”,力求对其科学哲学思想做出全面探讨。主要通过对布鲁诺·拉图尔本人关于行动者网络理论的专著和论文进行翻译、梳理,以把握行动者网络理论的基本内涵;并在行动者网络理论的指导下研究其科学建构,同时运用对比、逻辑分析等方法,尝试对拉图尔的行动者网络理论进行深入辨析。拉图尔的学术思想与其研究经历密切相关,受多方面理论背景的浸染。他从知识社会学、科学社会学和科学知识社会学等学术流派中汲取营养,同时反对传统科学哲学对科学权威地位的辩护,批判科学社会学的默顿模式,不满布鲁尔(David Bloor)等人的强纲领对科学知识的对称解释,强调把知识社会学的原理推进到包括自然科学在内的全部知识领域;拉图尔延续了法国科学哲学传统,同时借鉴人类学、社会学和符号学的分析方法,研究实验室、追随科学家和工程师、使用“网络”这一隐喻,在卡龙(M.Callon)和劳(J.Law)的理论基础上,构建出巴黎学派的行动者网络理论。关于拉图尔和布鲁尔之间关于强纲领的论战,其核心是布鲁尔强纲领的对称性原则与拉图尔的普遍对称性原则之间的争论,二人理论的本质不同在于坚持还是消解主体-客体模式,由于所持不同的形而上学标准导致了两种不同的相对主义,而争论双方陷入了相同的哲学困境;关于以拉图尔为代表的后科学知识社会学(后SSK)与柯林斯(Harry Collins)和耶尔莱(Steven Yearley)为代表的科学知识社会学(SSK)之争,集中体现了社会建构内部间在本体论、认识论、科学观上的分歧,分别表现为:社会实在论与自然—社会混合本体论的对立、规范主义进路与描述主义进路的对立、表征科学观与实践科学观之间的对立。拉图尔行动者网络理论的核心概念如行动者、网络和代理等需要追溯并澄清,其构建过程需要细致分析;ANT的理论样态展现为普遍对称性原则、行动者网络、转译社会学和经验假说;ANT的理论依据是:区分社会的社会学和联系的社会学,关于群体、行动、客体、事实的性质以及如何书写文本的问题等方面存在五个不确定;ANT的界定难题在于,是否授予非人(non-humans)以行动者的角色、如何进行科学解释、致力于“重塑”社会还是坚持分化和解构;拉图尔行动者网络理论的实践本体论意义因此凸显:一种以实践建构取代社会建构的理论。拉图尔的实践转向不但给SSK带来了新的活力,也启发了80年代以来相对沉闷的科学哲学。以福柯知识考古学的历史本体论学说为参照,可以追索拉图尔的实践本体论如何成为学术上激进、实践上具批判力的思考基础。拉图尔行动者网络的理论贡献在于,它消解了传统的主客体模式,回到混沌、权力与实践的本体论哲学,打破了自然-社会的传统二分法,从整体论上重构科学与社会关系,坚持知识是权力的产物,走向科学实践的考察。拉图尔行动者网络理论在研究视角、研究方法、研究对象、关系思维和过程思维等几个方面均具有启示意义,然而也存在不少问题。本文既是对拉图尔思想的尝试性探索,又是介绍当代国外知名学者学术思想的一项基础性工作。对拉图尔的哲学思想进行全面的研究,有助于促进国内有关拉图尔研究方面的进展,同时对我国科学哲学和科学社会学的研究具有重要的理论意义和学术价值,有助于我们更好地把握国外科学哲学思想最近几十年的发展;拉图尔的哲学思想带有强烈的改良社会的意涵,或许能为中国现代化建设的决策制定提供有益的参考。更多还原

【Abstract】 Bruno Latour (1947- ) is a sociologist of scientific knowledge, social constructivist, one of the early core member of "Edinburgh School", and leading figure of "Paris School" who lives in contemporary France. The "Laboratory Studies" which he initiated has directly led to "The Anthropological Turn" of sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK for short), another turn following "the Sociological Turn". The "Actor-Network Theory"(ANT for short) which he built on the foundation of laboratory studies signified the naissance of "Paris School", a new school that was to rival "Edinburgh School" in science studies. Associating the laboratory practice with the techno-political consultation of wider scope, this school indicated that scientific practice and the corresponding social background come into being in the same process, without any consequence; besides, they construct each other and evolve together. This elaboration indicates from one side the grand tendency of the contemporary science studies, the turn of practice.This dissertation focuses on the "Actor-Network Theory" of Latour and aims at providing a general portrait of his philosophical ideas of science. The author tries to gripe the gist of the "Actor-Network Theory", chiefly by translating and scrutinizing Bruno Latour’s own monographs and theses. The author also attempts to examine the scientific construction of the "Actor-Network Theory" within the framework of the theory itself, as well as striving to make a thorough anatomy of the theory by means of comparison, logical analysis, etc.The intellectual ideas of Latour are closely related to his experiences of study. That is to say, his thought was influenced by various intellectual backgrounds. He was nurtured by various academic branches such as sociology of knowledge, sociology of science, sociology of scientific knowledge, etc. Meanwhile, he argued against authority of science, which was defended by traditional philosophy of science. He criticized the Merton Mode in sociology of science and he made some critical remarks on the asymmetrical explanation by Strong Program of Bloor and others. He insisted that the principles of sociology of knowledge should be extended to all areas of knowledge including natural science. Inheriting the tradition of French philosophy of science, as well as incorporating the analytical methods of anthropology, sociology and semiology, Latour researched laboratories, followed scientists and engineers, and finally built the "Actor-Network Theory" of "Paris School" on the theoretical foundation laid by M. Callon and J. Law, utilizing the "Network" as metaphor.The core of the debate between Latour and Bloor on the Strong Program was the confrontation of Bloor’s symmetry principle of Strong Program and Latour’s second symmetry principle. The essential disagreement between their theories was whether to insist the subject-object schema, or to discard it. Each of them adopted his own criterion of metaphysics and the different criteria resulted in two different kinds of relativisms. Both sides fell into the same philosophical dilemma. The debate between the post-SSK represented by Latour and the SSK represented by Collins and Yearley intensively revealed their disagreement in interior social construction, manifested by the opposition between social realism and ontology of nature-society mixture, between the normative method and descriptive method, between signified view of science and practical view of science, respectively.It is necessary to trace and clarify the core concepts of Latour’s "Actor-Network Theory" such as "actor", "network", "agent", etc. Scrutinizing their respective constructing processes is also indispensable for this research. The form of ANT features the general symmetry principle, Actor-Network, sociology of translation and experiential hypothesis. The theories that provide foundation for ANT are the division between sociology of the social and sociology of associations and the uncertainties of multitude, action, object, nature of fact and how to write down. The defining difficulty for ANT lies in the dilemmas that whether non-humans are to be granted as actors, which direction the explanation of science is going in, whether a study aims at reassembling the social or still insists on dispersion and deconstruction. Hence the significance of Latour’s practical ontology unfolds, as a theory of practical construction instead of social construction. The practical turn of Latour not only vitalized SSK, but also illuminated the relatively bleak prospect of philosophy of science.Resorting to the ontology of Michael Foucault’s archeology of knowledge, we can found out how Latour’s practical ontology, radical in academics and critical in practice, has become a basis of thinking. The theoretical contribution of Latour’s "Actor-Network Theory" lies in the fact that it dispels the traditional subject-object schema and returns to the ontological philosophy of chaos, power and practice, it breaks the traditional dichotomy of nature and society and reconstruct the relationship between science and society, it holds that knowledge is product of power and put forward practical examination of science. Latour’s "Actor-Network Theory" is illuminating in its vision, method, and object for study, as well as its reasoning of association and reasoning of process. Nevertheless, there exist some problems.This dissertation is intended to serve both as a tentative exploration of Latour’s thought and as an example of basic work for introducing the intellectual thought of well-known foreign scholars. Hopefully, the extensive research of Latour’s philosophical thought can help to boost the correlative researches on Latour in China, as well as to let us understand better the development of philosophy of science in foreign countries in last several decades. The research has both theoretical significance and academic value. Latour’s philosophical thought contain strong indication of improving the society, which may serve as instructive reference for decision-making in China’s modernization.更多还原