::::::::: SOCIOPLASTICS * Sovereign systems for unstable times: The relationship between Socioplastics and Actor-Network Theory is one of methodological inheritance followed by deliberate structural divergence

Sunday, February 22, 2026

The relationship between Socioplastics and Actor-Network Theory is one of methodological inheritance followed by deliberate structural divergence

While both frameworks share a flat ontology—treating humans, props, and energy systems as co-constitutive nodes—they differ fundamentally in their operational intent. ANT is essentially a cartography of the fluid; Socioplastics is an architecture of the persistent. The shift from Tracing to Hardening: ANT (Descriptive): Latour’s project is famously analytical, following the actors to observe how networks assemble and disassemble. It prioritizes the "translation" of associations and avoids any centralized claim to sovereignty. Socioplastics (Operational): The instrument begins where ANT ends. It takes the topological insights of the network and installs a fixed core of protocols (KORE 501–510). This "systemic lock" ensures that the network does not merely drift but remains a sovereign epistemic entity. From Mesh to MUSE: The transition from a distributed, emergent mesh to the MUSE (United System Environment) represents a departure from Latour's project of multiplying ontologies. Socioplastics pursues genealogical stabilization, transforming the rhizomatic network into a hardened, auditable chassis. It moves from tracing associations to establishing topolexical sovereignty, ensuring that the logic of the intervention can survive algorithmic capture and institutional fragmentation. Where ANT reveals how things hold together, Socioplastics engineers how they must hold together. It is a pragmatic evolution: from the open-ended description of networks to the calibrated governance of an executable infrastructure.