“Rethinking: Actor-Network Theory And Colonialism In The 21st Century’s Digital Opportunities”

1. Introduction

Throughout our article, we will discuss Actor-Network Theory (ANT), which we will abbreviate as ANT, and the importance of this theory in the developing modern era, its effects, its relationship with other institutions and structures, and colonialism. In addition, the issue of colonialism will be addressed in more depth, and whether colonialism continues in the digital age and whether data constitutes a commodity for colonialism in the digital age will be discussed in detail.

Keywords: Actor-Network Theory, Data, Colonialism, Digital Age

I. Actor-Network Theory and its universe

Actor-Network Theory (ANT) is a theory that offers an extremely unusual and striking perspective, and it argues that the world is not driven only by people and institutions, that any entity (object, system, data, virus, project) can be an actor in that sense, that all actors produce a network together and that the modern age is experienced through this network (Latour, 2005).

Its main difference from traditional sociology is that it clearly states that there are actors, active entities or objects or platform or technology, other than people and institutions. According to this theory, a virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic is as effective on social life as a state institution or administrative organization that sets and implements rules. The fact that I mention bacteria/viruses twice in this section should not make you think that I am only making a biological or genetic assessment. Because, a new social media platform, a newly invented object, or a newly invented object are considered actors in context of ANT. It is precisely at this point that the concepts of actor and network will come to mind, what they include and what they exclude, and we will directly express this in the following sections of our article.

1. The concepts of actor and network

In this section of our article, we will discuss the elements covered by the concepts of actor and network. Within the scope of ANT, we will analyze what the concepts of actor and network “indicate”. First, I would like to briefly convey the structural analysis of the theory in question. According to this theory, there are two basic components: One of them is the actor and the other is the network. An actor is an entity that can interact, directly or indirectly affect our life, and eventually create an effect. The network is a field of reality where interactions between actors occur and direct or indirect connections exist (Latour, 2005).

At this point, I will try to explain our argument by exemplifying ANT through a case from the past years. Considering the situations that explain ANT, we talked about how many things that create an effect can be actors. In this regard, it is quite reasonable to say that an invisible virus can also be considered an actor. Because this virus creates an interaction between actors and can also be considered as having a serious impact on our social life. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the virus in question has directly affected many of our decisions regarding our behaviors and social plans in society. This reality makes it reasonable to consider even a virus as an actor within the scope of ANT.

On the other hand, although it does not have a deep-rooted history, newly emerging social media platforms have also become more effective “teachers” than educational institutions. For example, it has been discussed in various scientific studies that the social media platform called “TikTok”, which children have acquired an addictive use habit, has a more effective role in child development than schools. We view the relationship between social media platforms such as TikTok and Facebook, as well as the relationship between schools, as a network.

All the examples that can be increased prove with scientific outputs that actors can be non-human beings and that these actors establish networks that produce various results. If we need to clarify the argument, within the scope of ANT -excluding the exceptions- we see the entities that affect our lives as actors, and the relationships that actors establish among themselves as a network. Thus, we make sense of the life we ​​live and the world we exist in on the axis of ANT.

2. Why is ANT considered important in academic context?

Firstly, it is very convenient to say that this theory is original because it offers radical changes against the traditional sociology’s understanding of evaluating society based on people and institutions. First of all, it does not see social phenomena as a constant, but rather as a constantly developing, transforming and most importantly integrating process. It is possible to claim that ANT destroyed conventional sociology’s dialect based on human and instutions. At this point, Latour managed to clarify the phenomenon by using the term “reassembling” in his work (Latour, 2005).

In addition, within the scope of the theory, a perspective compatible with the digital age is offered, despite the backwardness of the class-based society readings that Marx frequently mentioned. On the other hand, this theory evaluates power as a natural result of the relations between actors rather than a commodity or constant.

3. The power in international “networks”

ANT argues that, contrary to traditional sociology, power is not something ordinary, fixed, frozen; rather, it is the governance of newtorks between actors. In this sense, an actor can compete with a state in a way. The theory reveals a very striking point for me: Power is a result of relations.

Sure, this section can be filled with serious academic discussions, but due to the size of the paper, I will prefer to explain the subject with examples: Think of a platform like Twitter, a platform with millions of members, constantly followed and where people obtain all official and private news… Official public data, appointments, official holidays and administrative decisions are announced on this platform. Thus, thanks to millions of followers and accessibility, the state authority can easily share its current decisions and practices with its citizens. Over time, this situation makes individuals and institutions dependent on the platform in question. State officials are given special account badges by the platform. The security of the shared information is increased. After a while, this platform turns into an official announcement/publication platform.

When you think specifically about Twitter, this platform belongs to a private company. It is not an official/government institution. It does not have a position in the public hierarchy. Despite its foreign origin (USA), it acts with the obligation to act impartially.

As discussed extensively in ANT, unpleasantness, conflicts and discussions may occur between the actors. For example, in the conventional sense, heads of state can engage in verbal spats with each other. This situation can also occur on Twitter, which has become a central communication platform in the digital age.

In a perspective where you consider technical and technological possibilities, a media company can bind a head of state by suspending his account. It can thwart an investigation by storing the data of people who insult the head of state. Or it can directly affect the elections and indirectly affect the future of a country by presenting a presidential candidate in a different way (like Cambridge Analytica).

The theory is of course subject to criticism at this point. Because some authors state that structural inequalities such as class conflict cannot be evaluated within the scope of ANT, and that this situation will cause ANT to lose its ability to evaluate the past. On the other hand, some authors state that a technology company cannot be equated with states with deep-rooted histories and traditions of 100 years and 100 million people. The main criticism is the micro perspective presented within the scope of ANT and the lack of a hierarchical qualification among the actors.

When all these examples are considered together, it is possible to argue that class or capital-based evaluations are extremely outdated in the 21st century. ANT says that a global media company that has gained sufficient power and authority should be taken seriously and evaluated as an actor in international relations, just like a state legal entity. So, it can be said that ANT has complex arguments for extremely contemporary, consistent and up-to-date evaluations in terms of power and international balances.

As I stated above, Twitter has developed a concept that will not tire millions of people and will make them addicted, and has transformed this network into a power. The fact that it was purchased by the richest person in the world can be considered as the most obvious proof of this. In this context, it should be evaluated that power does not necessarily cover a single type of power, and that power can be in the hands of different actors (Facebook, Instagram) in different media.

Just as ANT conveyed, power has gained value as a result of deep and strong relationships in the modern age in the context of networks. Because millions of people have become addicted to social media companies. Social media companies have thus gained incredible economic power and social influence.

This was the main reason why we mentioned the Twitter example above. The argument is clear that people and states that can be considered actors have become addicted to social media tools that can be considered another actor or network. The era has completely changed. While the most valuable commodity was seen as oil 100 years ago, today the most valuable commodity is seen as data. The great wars of the 21st century have also begun to be fought for data.

4. Can data be considered an actor for ANT?

According to ANT, data does not represent fixed facts, it is a product of a network of data relations. It is produced by actors. In simpler terms, it can be stated that data is an output. The use of data, its processing, and the subject of data becoming actors by making actors dependent on data can be the subject of a much more comprehensive independent article.

For example, the biometric data in Mr. Ceyhan’s analysis (Ceyhan, 2008) is not used only for security purposes. There can be countless actors (law enforcement, flight data, intelligence sources, private companies) that can be associated with this data in a sense. ANT evaluates this situation as follows: Data emerges as a requirement of the complex, intricate, multifaceted, deep relationships of the actors that can be associated with the data.

5. Is digital colonialism possible?

Colonialism, in its broadest perspective when looking at workers imported from South America from the exploited parts of Africa, is the process of historically dominant powers dominating other geographies in various ways, colonizing their resources, the workforce and labor of nations, and assimilating their culture. Digital colonialism, in today’s terms, is the use of IT technologies for the purposes of exploitation, capital and domination. Although Latour, from his own perspective, introduces the concept of colonial knowledge networks, it will not be discussed in this context in order to preserve the size of our article.

It should be carefully evaluated that: The world has changed, data and digital resources have become much more valuable than land and even oil.

At this point, Couldry and Mejias referred to this situation and began to evaluate the phenomenon of data colonialism (Couldry & Mejias, 2019). Now, not only lands but also digital tools, social media platforms and user data have begun to be exploited. Sure, as throughout history, dominant powers want to exploit and dominate weak nations. Today, the most suitable method for this is to carry out this exploitation through digital means. Because, according to my argument, today, data is rapidly becoming much more valuable than oil. Therefore, it is not surprising that the dominant powers, who tried to seize the most valuable object, oil, centuries ago, are now trying to seize the most valuable object, data.

According to the idea explained by Couldry and Mejias, data colonialism is experienced moment by moment. Data obtained from the interactions of actors within the network by dominant powers is transformed into capital. In this context, data and data colonialism is another issue that should be carefully considered in terms of ANT.

II. Conclusion

Throughout my article, within the scope of the 2000-word assignment, I have briefly explained what Actor-Network Theory is, that every entity that can interact according to ANT can be defined as an actor in sociology, that the dependency relationship that actors establish among themselves creates a network, that our social life continues on the axis of this actor-network relationship, that this evaluation offers a revolutionary contemporaneity compared to the traditional human or only institutional perspective of sociology, that ANT’s importance in the digital age, which cannot be explained with outdated approaches such as class conflicts, that data is decisive in the power relations between the parties, that the exploitation of data is also a form of colonialism, and that digital colonialism has thus come into being.

References

Ceyhan, A. (2008). Technologization of security: Management of uncertainty and risk in the age of biometric surveillance. Surveillance & Society, 5(2), 102–123.

Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism. Stanford University Press.

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.