On July 6, 2024, the fourth Meeting for Theories Group was held at the Humanity Center for Anthropocenic Actors and Agency, Nagoya University.
Yasuko Nakamura visualized changes in topics within Freud’s texts using a structural topic model. Focusing in particular on “Traum” (dream), which emerges as a central topic in the middle period, and “Witz” (wit), which becomes central in the later period, he introduced Freud’s theory of humor.
During the Q&A session, discussion addressed how qualitative research should be positioned in relation to quantitative research in studies that examine an author’s intellectual development. The significance of quantitative research as a means to confirm the validity of research was reaffirmed.
Wanwan Zheng introduced an attempt to introduce word familiarity as an indicator for estimating vocabulary difficulty. Unlike word frequency, word familiarity is a subjective indicator dependent on the user’s actual experience. It is expected to estimate vocabulary difficulty with higher accuracy compared to using frequency alone.
During the Q&A session, the following topics were raised: how the indicator of familiarity functions when comparing the difficulty of dialects and synonyms, and how the age of a word relates to its difficulty and familiarity.
Reiji Suzuki reported on an attempt to treat language evolutionarily through a linguistic ecological game. In this game, agents equipped with language compete, and using a language model, the winner replaces the weaker agent based on specific parameters, further mutating words with a lower probability. Subsequently, he raised questions about the potential for text mining applications of this ecological game.
During the Q&A session, it was pointed out that the emergence of advanced AI agents could prompt a reconsideration of the concept of humanity, drawing examples such as psychological research using generative models as subjects instead of humans achieving some success at the mass level. The potential application of language models to psychological research was then discussed.
Toru Ohira focused on the observation that simply introducing delayed coupling between two equations while maintaining the same values produces significantly larger oscillations compared to when the two equations are independent, and reported on an attempt to describe rhythms and structures generated by group interactions using delay differential equations.
During the Q&A session, the originality of the research was emphasized: while conventional models without delay could only describe phenomena that continue to amplify and diverge infinitely, delay differential equations are controllable models that can generate very large oscillations from weak signals.
Shinhaeng Kim examined Michel Callon’s work, which developed Actor-Network Theory (ANT) from a perspective different from Latour’s, including economic aspects in the development of technological innovation. Based on Callon’s proposal of the Techno-Economic Network (TEN) concept—where actors, including mediating objects, constitute networks through various forms of translation—Professor Kim explored the applicability of ANT.
During the Q&A session, discussion focused on the issue of human decentering. Topics included the merits and demerits of whether human evaluation can be excluded from the translation process in ANT-based descriptions, and the question of whether non-human actors could become the primary agents of information output (text production) in the present day.
Tetsuki Tamura examined Latour’s argument distinguishing between “political bodies” and “collectives, reconsidering concepts of politics and democracy based on ANT. He also discussed the democratic and non-democratic aspects of artificial intelligence, exploring how to suppress the latter while utilizing the former.
During the Q&A session, topics such as what democratic political participation is from perspectives of equality, diversity, and neutrality were raised, using examples like the selection of representatives through random lottery and the political participation of AI agents.
Shu Hirata reported on attempts to apply Latour’s ANT to urban studies. Drawing on Neil Brenner’s critical examination of ANT’s role not as a replacement for traditional sociology but as a complement, he explored the effectiveness of ANT through its articulation with political economy and its ontological limitations.
During the Q&A session, differences in perspective between Brenner’s position and the ANT position were pointed out, and the validity of Brenner’s critique was examined. Discussions also addressed whether ANT can examine equality not only among humans but also among actors including non-human entities, and how to interpret the qualitative differences in equality in such cases.
(Authorship: Ayane Hayanagi,2nd-year Master’s student, Graduate School of Humanities, Osaka University)