The possible differences between semiotic mediation and Latour's
actor-network theory I think might be of particular interest to several of us
interested in mediated action,
particularly the challenge to Latour's work posed by Winch.
For instance, there are many different kinds of _actants_ to use Latour's
term, that mediate human action, ranging
from language to participant framework to the
affordances of particular activity setting. And
Latour certainly maintains a complex view of
mediation, with the notion that goals are "translated"
through the use of particular tools (that is,
transformed so that the agent cannot predict
the consequences of a tool's use in action),
that action undergoes "detours" through mediation,
and that there may be "reversable blackboxing"
or "delegation" through mediation. (All of
these terms appear in an excellent paper
entitled "On Technical Mediation: Philosophy,
Sociology, Geneology" from the journal _Common Knowledge_,_3_, 1994, pp.
29-64).
I haven't read enough of Latour, though, to know
whether he draws a distinction between semiotic
and technical mediation, but I think this would
be important to explore, particularly since the
distinction _and_ relationship between the two
is drawn out in Vygotsky's work in how
people like Jim Wertsch have interpreted his
notion of "cultural tools".
What do others think?
Bill Penuel
__________________________
PreventionInventions
PO Box 40692
Nashville TN 37204-0692