Research - Bruno Latour - reassembling the social

DEFINING THE TERM SOCIAL/SOCIETY

"What is society? What does the word social mean? Why are some activities said to have  social dimension? How can one demonstrate the presence of 'social factors' at work? When is the study of society, or other social aggregates, a good study? How can the path of a society be altered? To answer these questions, two widely different approaches have been taken. Only one of them has become common sense - the other is the object of the present work"

        The first is to posit the existence of a specific phenomenon variously called 'society', 'social order', 'social practice' etc. "once this domain had been defined, no matter how vaguely, it can be used to shed light on specifically social phenomena - the social can explain the social and provide a certain type of explanation for what other domains can not" (other domains such as politics, economics etc). This explanation is purely based on how the term is defined and through the dilution of its intended meaning from the greek origin can be loosely affiliated to a number of situtions. Therefore ones views on society can only really used on the basis you understand their definition of the yet even with this understanding it makes comparisons between views difficult.

         "the other approach... claims that there is nothing specific to social order; that there is no social dimension of any sort, no social context, no distinct domain of reality to which the label 'social' or 'society' could be attributed" Therefore through the absence of the ability to define and agree on an appropriate definition this non physical phenomena does not exist. "'science of society'... should rather be constructed as one of the many connecting elements circulating inside tiny conduits"  

"'social' is not some glue that could fix everything including what other glues cannot fix; it is what is glued together by many other connectors". Therefore society is not what bonds people together, it is the result of alternate factors that create the bonds. 

---

 

"when social scientists add the adjective 'social' to some phenomenon they designate a stable state of affairs"

Do all societies and communities have to be 'stable'? Is the fact that collections of people branded a 'community' or a 'society' the result of positive, controlled and stable attributes? Are societies formed as a result of unstable times such as war and disease? If so, is the necessity for what people percieve as a society created? And, is a supposed 'society' or 'community' the result of a physical / non-physical need or simply an individuals perception that through mutual compliance they become individually more affluent?   

---

"Sociology means the 'science of the social' two drawbacks, namely the word social and the word science!" This is the result of how we now assign meanings to both of these terms that only vaguely resemble what was intended by the founder os social sciences. Both science and society have modernized, changed and developed, separately thus making the intended relationship between the terms weak.

The term 'social' on its own can break down "since it now designates two entirely different things: First, a movement during a process of assembling; and second, a specific type of ingredient that is supposed to differ from other materials."  

Therefore it firstly refers to a situation (social) that through the process of itself leads towards assembly (society/community). Secondly it is used as a term to differentiate and create a subcatgory of a subject (social-politics/ social-psychology etc).