A recent paper by Rebecca Sheehan and Jacqueline Vadjunec (Oklahoma State University) in Social and
Cultural Geography (Volume 13, December 2012, pages 915-936 you will need an account to
access the journal online) on communities in Oklahoma’s ‘No Man’s Land’ is a
very good demonstration of how actor network theory can be used to analyse how communities
are constructed and, importantly, how they behave under stress. Sheehan and
Vadjunec note how residents work together on tasks such as branding in the spring,
collecting necessities in towns that could be 30-150 miles away and travelling to
hospital when a ranching or farming accident happens. This neighbourly behaviour and the relations it is based on underlies what they describe as a robust actor network of relations.
I was wondering if you could go further than this and
suggest that the actor network is actually antifragile? The authors point out two
examples that may back up this idea that the actor network actually gains
strength from adversity. Medical expenses for individuals in the community were
often covered by fundraisers or anonymous donations that were also made to
cover funeral expenses. Likewise, these adverse events produced responses of
kindness that ranged from phone calls of sympathy and understanding to
practical help of meals and contributions to ranch work. In one case the death
of a farmer at harvest time resulted in the unplanned, spontaneous reaction of
several farmers turning up with their combines within 36 hours of his death to
help the widow to collect the harvest.
Adverse, or what seem to be adverse events, activate
relations in the actor network that produce behaviour that help individuals and
seem to strengthen the sense of community and the actor network as a whole. It is only by
the enactment of these relations in times of adversity however that this strengthening
can occur.
If this argument is accepted then a whole battery of
other issues arise that only the detailed analysis of actor networks in
particular locations can answer. These actor networks need to be studied before
during and after adverse events to analyse which relations are activated, how and
if there is any pattern to these relations. Events are the only means by which relations
can be identified and their role in strengthening the actor network understood.
Similarly, it is through such detailed analysis that we can begin to map out the
limits to such antifragile behaviour. The strengthening behaviour in this case
seems to be an organic outgrowth from the underlying relations that define and
bind the community. Eroding these relations will erode the ability of the community
to define itself and to strengthen itself in the face of adverse events. Understanding
the type of adverse events such actor networks can cope with, absorb the impacts
of and gain strength from is also an important aspect that requires further
research. Communities may be antifragile in the face of certain adverse events
but be extremely fragile should the nature of the adverse event change. In the
case of this community, if the adverse event is a general failure of all
harvests then the capacity to respond and help other members of the network dissipates.
If the encroachment of ‘new’ people into the area happens then this again may
weaken the underlying relations that aid community definition, eroding the capacity
to activate relations in crisis events and so gain strength from the community-based
respond to a crisis event. Starting to map the contours of what an antifragile
actor network looks like and the limits of antifragile behaviour could be an interesting
area of research.
