S.TRUEMAN PhD THESIS 2016

262

and identities depending on context, systems and position which shape the heterogeneous elements and groups of the network (see Chapter 9) (Callon & Law, 1997). 8.2.4 Networks As explained previously, actor-network theory does not limit itself to human individual actors, but includes non-human, non-individual entities, actants, theories and philosophies (Latour, 1999). Arising out of the numeracy and differing types of actors which can be part of a network they are not one or two dimensional but instead consist of nodes that have as many dimensions as they have connections … modern societies cannot be described without recognising them as having a fibrous, thread-like, wiry, stringy, ropy, capillary character that is never captured by the notions of levels, layers, territories, spheres, categories, structure, systems. (Latour, 1999, p. 3) The strength of the network does not come from concentration, purity and unity, but from dissemination, diffusion, heterogeneity and the careful braiding of weak relationships. Hence while some relationships will be weak or tenuous, they gain strength by being woven into stronger ties and relationships; this resembles Foucault’s analysis of micro-powers (Latour, 1999). 8.2.5 Commonalities of networks According to actor-network theory, there are some themes common to all networks, irrespective of the nature of the network. This section discusses some of those commonalities.