Objects as actors

I have been re-reading Latour’s Re-assembling the social – an extended discussion of actor-network theory (ANT) and have been thinking much more about the role of objects. According to Latour, human relations are only ever weak ties, made stronger and made ‘social’ by the non-human objects which are often associated with these human interactions. More than symbolic, and more than being carriers of meaning, objects are the actors where sociality – in its dynamic, transformative, motion-full – action takes place. In my life, objects have always had a lot of significance – but more as symbols than as the dynamic link itself. For Latour, objects provide a durability to sociality that humans cannot and he argues this persuasively, even though I have intuitively rejected this view.

Durability literally means a hardness, a resistance to change, and the concept also suggests the idea of structure (to me). So, how do objects ‘work’ as social actors? Parent-child, lovers, friends, or colleagues. ANT tells us to dis-assemble these relationships, focussing much more on the action and movement that the objects play. I look at my kids and understand that all the clutter of toys, furniture, clothes, equipment, living paraphernalia are actors in our family stories. Both my kids had favoured blankets – which I used to soothe them, which in fact, did soothe them as babies. The computers, television, dvd and music collections in our house. All of these ‘objects’ have in some ways enacted bonds, connections, events, moments, sustaining our relationship. An obvious question is would we not have these bonds without these objects? Well, yes, in a biological way, but no, also in a social way. And even at that biological level, we are connected by birth, by objects, people, medical professionals, hospitals, etc., to get us into the world together. These objects play large roles (i.e., are major actors) in the drama of our lives together.

Ok, so let’s take the relationship of lovers. As I was thinking about this kind of social tie and objects, a large grin spread across my face. Think of all of the movies or television shows you’ve seen where a partner is fighting with the other (often the woman fighting with her man) and the “stuff” begins to be thrown out windows onto the street or doorstep –I see all kinds of ordinary and special clothes, shoes, sports equipment, keys, photos, etc. in a pile. Are the objects themselves ‘just’ the signs or symbols of the relationship? No, in a way, these objects make the relationship alive and durable across time. If we take the objects away, that’s when we are on more precarious ground – because what keeps lovers together in a social relationship afterall?

In a couple of my relationships that have ended, I have also instinctively packaged up the objects because they ‘speak’ too loudly still of the relationship – in better or worse moments. They remind, they act, they re-tell, they keep alive, relationships which I as the human actor, was moving to end. I have a very large box of correspondence from those closest to me over the years – in a box in the basement. The fact that these objects are still here, speaks to their potency as traces of durability of the social. Well, maybe this is too obvious, you could say. It is and it isn’t. When we analyse any social interactions, I don’ t think we pay enough attention to how the objects ‘act’. I’m not quite ready to insist that objects are independent actors in my life, but I can see how they make my relationships ‘happen’ (or not) so often.

Where I’m left now is wondering – in some post-sci-fi world where there are NO OBJECTS around us – where we are only our human selves, what happens? Does Star Trek have an episode about this vision in the future? Even Adam and Eve had a garden and an apple!