Massey, Ingold and Latour, Essay Example

How does knowledge of the social mobility of power affect the way we see place?

Social mobility has brought uncertainty about what we mean and understand by place and how people relate to them. The notion of a place has changed. A place is no longer a seamless coherent identity. It is now recognized that people have different, thus the same point can be made in relation to place.

What are some of the anxieties and hopes about the space-time compression that accompanies new technology?

While querying about time space comparison, important question of what are its causes arise.  Some of the common interpretation is the availability of capital. For instance, the result of the massive availability of capital is the current increasing internalization. Different communities from different part of the world are occupying space that was once occupied by a particular community.  Other complexity arising from space-time comparison is include people living in Rio, but knows global football very well and has in fact produced some of the best players.  Additionally the time space comparison is said to increase insecurity.

What is the key difference Ingold sees between “occupying” and “inhabiting”? How does this connect to his idea of place?

According to Ingold, while occupation is real, habitation is linear. That is to say, it takes people not across the land surface but along the path that lead from place to place. Therefore, from the point of view of inhabitant not everywhere is a space. It is the entire network of trails along which people carry on their lives. While on the trail, one is always somewhere, going to somewhere else.

Who, according to Latour, is more affective at disciplining behaviors: humans, or non-humans? What happens when these are not enough?

Latour believes that both human and non-human would have the same result in disciplining human behaviors. According to him, both human and nonhuman are not so reliable; they have their advantage and disadvantages. According Latour a combination of human and non-human devices should be used to discipline wrong human behaviors. He calls this a sociological.

Latour argue artifacts have morality.  This means that the roles that technological artifacts play on human affairs are not morally neutral. They can steer moral behavior in humans as well as enforce morality by making human behave well. Additionally artifacts have ability to influence moral outcome. Bruno argues that moral behaviors are not only enforced by human but by artifacts as well. Thus artifact are a part of the “missing masses” that make moral  fabric of the society.

How does the concept of “anthropomorphism” fit into Latour’s Actor-Network theory? What do both do to challenge the human/non-human divide?

On one hand, anthropomorphism means which has human or that which gives a human shape. On the other hand, actor-network theory is an approach to social theory that treats object as part of social networks.  Anthropomorphism fits in actor-network theory due to the existence of both human and non-human elements.