S.TRUEMAN PhD THESIS 2016

296

Echoing Foucault’s understanding of power as a ‘perpetual battle’ (1975, p. 35), actor-network theorists (Latour, 1986; Law, 1991) have stressed that power (both ‘power over’ and ‘power to’) is analysed not—or not only—as a possession or capacity but rather as relational, dependent upon and limited by the ability to persuade or coerce others. Horowitz (2012) wrote that ‘Power lies in networks, and thus is contingent upon the successful—albeit often short-lived—enrolment of (at least some) others’ (p. 809). Hence, power does not come from an actor somehow possessing it, but rather from being able to enrol, enlist and convince other actors to allow the initial actor to represent them (Castree, The final phase is ‘mobilisation’ (Callon, 1986a). This maintains commitment of the assembled actors to the problematised goal and ensures the continued critical and central position of the obligatory passage point. Of critical importance is maintaining legitimacy by the controlling actor (Rhodes, 2009). The crucial question here is: ‘Will the masses ... follow their representatives?’ (Callon, 1986a, p. 214). The remote nurse has to ensure that all of the gathered actors, continue to act as one innovated actor-network. The heterogeneous engineer (remote nurses) does this by endearing in the other actors a feeling of obligation to remain faithful to the controller’s objectives (Blackburn, 2002), and even assume the right to represent those mobilised (Callon, 1986a). The controlling actor is not always successful, and in these circumstances a process of dissidence, rather than a successful translation, occurs (Callon, 1986a). An example is a remote general nurse telephoning a psychiatrist with the belief that a mental health patient should be aero-evacuated out of a community and the psychiatrist not agreeing and not 2002; Murdoch, 1995). 8.2.14.4 Mobilisation