ANTi-Human : The Ethical Blindspot
ANTi-Human : The Ethical Blindspot
No Thumbnail Available
Files
There are no files associated with this item.
Date
2017
Authors
Editors
Journal ISSN
Electronic ISSN
ISBN
Bibliographical data
Publisher
Series
DOI (citable link)
International patent number
Link to the license
oops
EU project number
Project
Open Access publication
Collections
Title in another language
Publication type
Contribution to a collection
Publication status
Published
Published in
Applying the Actor-Network Theory in Media Studies / Spöhrer, Markus; Ochsner, Beate (ed.). - Hershey, PA : IGI Global, 2017. - pp. 266-276. - ISBN 978-1-5225-0616-4
Abstract
In his writings on the gunman, Bruno Latour (1994) paraphrases the anti-human ideology of the National Rifle Association of the USA. Amongst a long list of stances one can find nonsense such as: “One is born a good citizen or a criminal. Period.” I will not suggest that Latour is an advocate in favor of the NRA's strange cause or in favor of their ideology. Nevertheless, will I use this example to point out the biggest flaw in the so called Actor-Network Theory – or at least Latour's version of ANT: The absolute ignorance to ethical doubts towards that specific approach of describing our world and what ONE calls society. I will bring forth this argument using not much more than this one example, this absolute negation of ethical philosophy and humane thought. I will therefore use a very fundamentalist approach to ethics, as it was developed by Emanuel Levinas (1988). Within this framework it will become obvious why ANT may be a good tool to describe technical processes within a society, but will always fail to explain the human side of things.
Summary in another language
Subject (DDC)
300 Social Sciences, Sociology
Keywords
Conference
Review
undefined / . - undefined, undefined. - (undefined; undefined)
Cite This
ISO 690
SCHREIBER, Michel, 2017. ANTi-Human : The Ethical Blindspot. In: SPÖHRER, Markus, ed., Beate OCHSNER, ed.. Applying the Actor-Network Theory in Media Studies. Hershey, PA:IGI Global, pp. 266-276. ISBN 978-1-5225-0616-4. Available under: doi: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0616-4.ch016BibTex
@incollection{Schreiber2017ANTiH-39369, year={2017}, doi={10.4018/978-1-5225-0616-4.ch016}, title={ANTi-Human : The Ethical Blindspot}, isbn={978-1-5225-0616-4}, publisher={IGI Global}, address={Hershey, PA}, booktitle={Applying the Actor-Network Theory in Media Studies}, pages={266--276}, editor={Spöhrer, Markus and Ochsner, Beate}, author={Schreiber, Michel} }
RDF
<rdf:RDF xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/" xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#" xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/" xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/39369"> <dc:contributor>Schreiber, Michel</dc:contributor> <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/38"/> <dc:language>eng</dc:language> <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2017-06-23T13:49:38Z</dcterms:available> <dcterms:issued>2017</dcterms:issued> <dc:creator>Schreiber, Michel</dc:creator> <dcterms:title>ANTi-Human : The Ethical Blindspot</dcterms:title> <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">In his writings on the gunman, Bruno Latour (1994) paraphrases the anti-human ideology of the National Rifle Association of the USA. Amongst a long list of stances one can find nonsense such as: “One is born a good citizen or a criminal. Period.” I will not suggest that Latour is an advocate in favor of the NRA's strange cause or in favor of their ideology. Nevertheless, will I use this example to point out the biggest flaw in the so called Actor-Network Theory – or at least Latour's version of ANT: The absolute ignorance to ethical doubts towards that specific approach of describing our world and what ONE calls society. I will bring forth this argument using not much more than this one example, this absolute negation of ethical philosophy and humane thought. I will therefore use a very fundamentalist approach to ethics, as it was developed by Emanuel Levinas (1988). Within this framework it will become obvious why ANT may be a good tool to describe technical processes within a society, but will always fail to explain the human side of things.</dcterms:abstract> <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2017-06-23T13:49:38Z</dc:date> <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/> <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/38"/> <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/> <bibo:uri rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/39369"/> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF>
Internal note
xmlui.Submission.submit.DescribeStep.inputForms.label.kops_note_fromSubmitter
Examination date of dissertation
Method of financing
Comment on publication
Alliance license
Corresponding Authors der Uni Konstanz vorhanden
International Co-Authors
Bibliography of Konstanz
Yes