Some thoughts on actor-network theory and object oriented ontology. Actor-network theory is Bruno Latour's concept -- and it has nothing to do with stage actors. Latour is a sociologist. His project is to create a new(ish) analytical method that assumes all objects, animals, and humans (animate and inanimate) are equal actants in the network of social relations. There are a number of intersections here with object oriented ontology (Graham Harman, esp. ) -- although Harman is a philosopher, not social scientists. Jane Bennett is another main player. A group of medievalists -- mostly from English departments -- have become very interested in Harman and Bennet and have published widely: JJ Cohen, Eileen Joy, Karl Steel, etc.

I don't find the philosophical material very useful for my own work. Harman plays around with Aristotle -- so it is interesting to medievalists (premodern matter and transformability). However, it's a highly conceptual ontology of the universe and so it may be difficult to find practical uses in historiography. Latour, on the other hand, presents a dynamic method for analysis. His ideas are meant to be transhistorical, in a sense, which is both good and bad. He's not a Marxist, and so that doesn't present a hurdle when looking at medieval subjects. A network of social objects and actants that includes humans and objects is very attractive to me and I think has great potential for medieval performance and ritual.

All of these people are coming out of phenomenology and Heidegger, but its more radical in that it proposes study of affects and relations beyond human senses and awarenesses. The best introduction to Latour is Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2007.