Picking apart exactly what he sees wrong with the modern state of sociology, Bruno Latour gives what he considers to be a basic, though still feeling comprehensive, introduction to actor-network theory. Animated by what Latour sees as sociology's reliances on a pre-assembled social sphere, Latour argues that if we assume such a sphere we have already lost the project of sociology. Rather he emphasizes what he terms a sociology of associations, or a picking apart of the manners in which things (this is an important aspect) interact with one another.Broadening the scope of sociology beyond the strictly human, Latour ensures us that any proper understanding of human interactions requires an incorporation of non-human actors. He sees all associations as being mediated by and flowing through things, and thus a sociology that ignores such actors can always fail at its task to construct the social. Rather, any society (being an understanding of a pre-formed social sphere) will always resist unpacking and understanding. It is by looking not at the smooth flows, but rather at the locations of controversy, that make clear to us what the story of interactions is saying.
Because locations of controversy are the driver of history Latour has a, perhaps very alternative, view of realities. For him it is not difference and instability that requires explanation, but rather stability and continuity that is need of a sociology so that we may understand how different entities have come to be associated with one another. Latour would have us believe that all things are, themselves, actor-networks, and that they are thus an agglomeration of different entities. There is no apparent reason, at the outset, why any two (or three or four) entities ought to become associated with one another. Rather, it is through work and effort that articulations between such entities occur and it is within the scope of such relationships that a choice is made amongst their multiple handles to associate with one another. Two entities cannot but engage in controversy (otherwise they have no meaningful difference and are not worthy subjects of sociology) because they themselves are actor-networks, each with their own host of realities. It is by articulating with one another that they become associated and a veneer of stability of relationships can take form. Latour would have us believe that too much of the "sociology of the social" assumes such relationships and therefore cannot have anything meaningful to say about the social sphere. A pre-formed society preceding sociological inquiry can never grant unique insight into what is occurring in the world. If we assume society we cannot have a sociology; Latour takes this seeming paradox and gives it legs.
