Some theories, such as systems theory (Luhmann 1984), are used to think about the social as a sphere autonomous from actors; others ascribe the status of actor to both human beings and things (Latour 1996); while still others, like structuralism, dissolve the notion of the actor altogether. Most anthropological studies, however, acknowledge the existence of actors in a rather “conventional” way (cf. Giddens 1987), conceiving them as embedded in a variety of social relations and as producers and transformers of social patterns (rational choice approaches, Godelier 1984; de Bruijn et al. 2007).

Yet, despite these theoretical disputes as to how we might conceive the “actor,” and despite the central status of the notion in anthropology, anthropologists are rarely explicit about their own notion of the actor. Although studying actors from the standpoint of their actions and interactions, anthropology rarely reflects on its own assumptions about what makes up the actor; in fact, it is often far from clear that authors even conceive of the actor in similar ways. In some studies the actor appears as a bearer of social roles (Beck 1991), in others he is virtually deprived of his ability to create a distance between himself and his social roles (Bourdieu 1979), while in yet others he is driven by subconscious desires and experiences (Crapanzano 1980). It might be asked, therefore, what ideas and definitions of actors exist in anthropology and what might be the relationship between these different ideas of actors. Moreover, different subdisciplines within anthropology look at actors and their various features from different angles. While in religious anthropology different states of consciousness play a role (Shostak 1981), and in family studies emotions come to the fore, neither of these seem to be of tremendous interest in the anthropology of work – instead focus is often laid on the actor as bearer of rational decisions. But again, it seems far from clear that such restrictions are very useful, since emotions play a decisive role in the competent execution of technical tasks.

It is the aim of this workshop to bring together and compare the varying notions of “actor” that prevail in the anthropological field, and it hopes to broaden our ideas about actors, their capacities, limitations and characteristics. In so doing, the workshop seeks to define convergences and divergences between differing notions of the actor, to find complementarities and contradictions, and to identify theoretical problems in conceptualizing the actor. Moreover, it hopes to sensitize anthropologists to aspects that they might be oblivious to in their present work and enable them to benefit from a more encompassing notion of the actor.

Travel expenses (economy class) and costs incurred during the stay in Berlin will be covered.

Application procedure:
Please send the following documents in English:
1. A brief statement of up to 750 words about your contribution to the conference
2. Names and addresses

Application deadline: 10 July 2010
Candidates will be informed in July whether they have been accepted. Participants will be asked to submit the full paper (between 2000 and 5000 words) in English by the end of August so that it might be distributed to the other participants. At the workshop, participants will briefly present their main theses, and then most of the time will be given over to discussion of the ideas presented.