Through some understandings or stories about "Actor Network, " the author points us to the central problems he raised in his main argument
1) The first story is regarding Actor-network theory perceived as a ruthless application of semiotics. According to the author, "It tells that entities take their form and acquire their attributes as a result of their relations with other entities. In this scheme of things entities have no inherent qualities" so because of this ' essentialist' play of meanings are percieved from a dualistic viewpoints as " 'Truth and false' ,Large and small, Agency and structure. Human and non-human. Before and after. Knowledge and power. Context an content. Materiality and sociality. Activity and passivity." which is negated through the so-called 'Actor-network theory
2) The second understanding is about 'performativity'. It is rather different from the semiotic approach where the 'relations' are placed or 'located'. This approach is regarding the 'performance' about all aspects of ' relations. So the consequences are unpredictable.
3) The third is regarding the 'naming of the theory . According to author, " The term started in French as 'acteur reseau'. Translated into 'actor-network', " and it became so popular that it even engulfed the other essential aspects such as the above mentioned and concepts of 'translation, ' enrolment' or 'traduction' or 'translation got displaced. Like a monster, it became and reduced itself into a set of theories or theorem.
