自律性と社会構成性
ブルーノ•ラトゥールといえば、アクターネットワークの提唱者のように言われるが提唱者は彼ではない。しかし彼のそこまでの思索は必然的にACNへ繋がる。それは彼のテクノロジーへの問いにある。テクノロジーは自律的なものか社会構成的(社会が作る他律的なものか)という問いで彼はどちらでもあると言う立場をとる。テクノロジーを、建築と置き換えると建築もさ自律的であり社会構成的という私の意見と一致する。
博士論文でO君は篠原一男作家論を書いたがこれは自律的側面からの分析である。副査からは時代との関係性を問われるが時代が篠原建築を作り上げた側面はもちろんある。いや自律的に見える篠原一男は社会が作ったと言ってもいい。しかし恐らくこの篠原一男の社会構成的側面はそれだけで博士論文一本分の内容となるだろう。もちろんこうした二分論を前提としない、アクターネットワーク的分析は原理としてはあるのだろうが今のところ具体的な方法論が思い浮かばない。
Bruno Latour is said to be an actor network advocate, but he is not. However, his thoughts inevitably lead to ACN. It is a question of his technology. He takes the position that he is both in the question of whether technology is autonomous or social constructive (whether it is a heterogeneous thing created by society). Replacing technology with architecture is in agreement with my opinion that architecture is also autonomous and social constructive.
In his doctoral dissertation, Mr. O wrote about Kazuo Shinohara, which is an analysis from an autonomous perspective. Although the relations with the times are questioned by the sub-inspectors, there are of course aspects that created the Shinohara architecture. No, Kazuo Shinohara, who looks autonomous, can be said to have been created by society. However, it is likely that Kazuo Shinohara’s social constructive aspects will be the contents of another doctoral dissertation. Of course, there is an actor-network analysis that does not assume such dichotomy, but as of now, I cannot think of a concrete methodology.