Difficulty: Advanced | Prerequisites: Part 1 (modernism, postmodernism, grand narratives) and Part 2 (Foucault, Rose, Agamben).
Big picture: This final section shifts focus from human subjects to the links and objects that constitute networks. DeLanda's assemblage theory and Latour's actor-network theory both argue that the world organises itself through emergent, dynamic connections among humans and non-human objects alike. The paper then brings the entire theoretical arc into the composition classroom: if knowledge is produced through networks, and authorship is an effect of intertextuality rather than individual genius, then writing pedagogy must reckon with networked, collaborative, multi-modal production.
DeLanda and Latour argue that networks (assemblages) are emergent, dynamic, and composed of both human and non-human actors. What matters is the pattern of links between parts, not the parts themselves. This has direct consequences for composition: the "death of the author" means writing is a product of intertextual networks, not individual genius, so pedagogy should embrace collaborative, networked, multi-modal production rather than the lone-author model inherited from modernism.
Assemblage
DeLanda's term for a network whose parts are autonomous and connected through relations of exteriority. Assemblages are emergent, meaning their properties arise from the interactions of parts and cannot be predicted from the parts alone. DeLanda draws on Deleuze.
Think of it as a temporary, shifting arrangement where independent pieces plug together and produce something none of them could on their own.
Relations of interiority
A model DeLanda rejects, in which the component parts of a whole are constituted by their relations to other parts. This produces "organic totalities" and a false notion of a "seamless web."
In simple terms, the idea that each piece only exists because of its place in the whole, like an organ that cannot survive outside its body.
Relations of exteriority
DeLanda's preferred model (from Deleuze). Parts are autonomous and can be "plugged into" different networks for different outcomes. The properties of the parts can never fully explain the relations that constitute the whole.
Think of it as Lego bricks: each brick works independently and can be snapped into many different structures.
Territorialise / deterritorialise
Processes that stabilise or destabilise an assemblage. A part that territorialises strengthens the network's identity; a part that deterritorialises forces it to change or transforms it into a different assemblage. Both can happen simultaneously within the same assemblage.
In simple terms, some forces hold a network together; others pull it apart or reshape it.
Coding / decoding
Coding (performed by genes, words, rules) further stabilises an assemblage's identity. Decoding does the opposite, allowing for further expression of personal convictions and styles. Both are recurrent processes.
Think of coding as writing the rulebook that keeps the group on the same page, and decoding as individuals rewriting parts of it.
Actor-network theory (ANT)
Latour's framework in which "action" is distributed among both human and non-human entities within localised networks. Anything that modifies a state of affairs by making a difference is an actor (or actant). The focus is on how associations form and dissolve.
In simple terms, it is the idea that objects, technologies, and environments shape what happens just as much as people do.
Actant
Latour's term for any entity, human or non-human, that modifies a state of affairs by making a difference. If something has no figuration yet but still makes a difference, it is an actant.
Think of it as anything that does something in a network, whether it is a person, a speed bump, or a piece of software.
Intertextuality
The condition in which all utterances and texts are woven into a wider network of interrelated texts with references to each other. The speaker or writer is also woven into this fabric. No text originates from a single source.
In simple terms, everything you write is made of pieces of everything you have ever read, heard, or been part of.
Death of the author
The idea (Foucault, Barthes, and others) that the singular, autonomous author as origin of a text is a fiction. Authorship is a product of dialogue, circulation, and intertextuality, not individual genius.
Think of it as: no one writes alone. Every text is assembled from the network of texts and conversations that came before it.
DeLanda argues that social ontology should not rely on any single metaphor. The contemporary world is too complex for that. His theory of assemblages offers "a sense of the irreducible social complexity characterizing the contemporary world."
He rejects "organic totalities" built on relations of interiority (where parts are defined by their place in the whole). This produces a false "seamless web."
Instead, DeLanda (drawing on Deleuze) proposes relations of exteriority: parts are autonomous and can be plugged into different networks for different outcomes. The properties of parts can never fully explain the relations constituting the whole.
Assemblages have two axes:
Material vs. expressive roles: parts can play material roles (the physical content of a discussion) or expressive roles (bodily cues, tone). The expressive role cannot be reduced to language and symbols alone.
Territorialisation vs. deterritorialisation: processes that stabilise or destabilise the assemblage. Both can occur simultaneously within the same assemblage.
Coding and decoding are further variables. Coding (by genes, words, institutional rules) stabilises identity; decoding allows personal expression and style. Both are recurrent.
Assemblages account for nonlinear results: outcomes are not predictable from the properties of individual parts.
An assemblage can affect its parts retroactively: the whole reshapes its components.
The key insight: study the pattern of recurring links and the properties of those links, not the attributes of individual persons in the network.
DeLanda is interested in possibilities, not essences: "the capacities of an assemblage are not given, that is, they are merely possible when not exercised."
Latour argues that objects, taken as issues, "bind all of us in ways that map out a public space profoundly different from what is usually recognized under the label of 'the political.'"
We do not assemble because we agree or are socially compatible. We are brought together by divisive matters of concern into provisional, makeshift (dis)agreements.
In Reassembling the Social, Latour describes associations as "concatenations of mediators." Action is not under the full control of consciousness; it is "a node, a knot, and a conglomerate of many surprising sets of agencies."
Action runs haphazardly among humans and objects in contemporary localised networks.
Any thing that modifies a state of affairs by making a difference is an actor or actant. This includes non-human entities.
DeLanda and Latour converge: both challenge any social ontological theory that is not emergent. "Being" in the world is best described in the rise and fall of action, in the links as they are in the processes of linking.
Foucault confirms that criticism and philosophy noted the "disappearance, or death, of the author" some time ago, but the consequences have not been fully examined.
Ijessling traces three historical senses of authorship:
Modernist sense: the author as subject is the autonomous, irreducible origin and master of monological speech. The romantic individual genius.
Dialogical sense: subjectivities arise from being spoken to and speaking to others. Authorship is a product of dialogue; locating a singular source is difficult or impossible.
Intertextual sense (postmodern): intertextuality "conceives all that one says as a fabric woven into a much wider network of interrelated texts." The author and their words are "carried along by the network of words in circulation." Authors do not "own" words; they are products of the larger circulation of narratives.
Literary output is "not the work of an author, but a web of meanings." It results from a network of previous arguments and opens unlimited possibilities for new arguments and texts.
The same networked logic that defines our ontological sense of being also defines how texts are produced and circulate: "the network itself is the site of both production and circulation" (Hardt and Negri).
If ontological understanding shapes how knowledge is created and circulated through texts, then composition instructors must reckon with the networked nature of writing.
Ede and Lunsford observe that everyone agrees writing is inherently social, yet pedagogy still relies on individualistic praxis and encourages independent authors producing "original, honest and truthful" works.
Theory and practice are misaligned. Writing now involves a multitude of modalities beyond print.
The paper's conclusion: we are not just teaching students how to "write." We are teaching them how to work consciously within networks and gain some control over whether they are included or excluded in a power-filled postmodern world.
In a world of homo sacri and "camps," being a good writer has consequences that go well beyond the classroom.
Students often think actor-network theory means humans and objects are "equal." Latour's point is that both can be actants, that both make a difference, not that they are equivalent in every sense.
DeLanda's "assemblage" is frequently treated as a synonym for "group" or "collection." It is more specific: assemblages are defined by relations of exteriority, emergent properties, and processes of territorialisation/deterritorialisation.
The "death of the author" does not mean individual writers are irrelevant. It means that authorship is better understood as an effect of networked, intertextual circulation than as the act of a solitary genius.
Students sometimes assume the paper is arguing against teaching writing. The argument is the opposite: it says writing instruction matters more than ever, but the pedagogy needs to match the networked reality of how knowledge is actually produced.
⚠️ Be able to explain DeLanda's distinction between relations of interiority and relations of exteriority, and why it matters for understanding networks.
⚠️ Know what an "actant" is in Latour's framework and be able to give an example of a non-human actant.
⚠️ Understand the three senses of authorship (modernist, dialogical, intertextual) and how they map onto the paper's modernism-to-postmodernism arc.
⚠️ The paper's final argument, that composition pedagogy must align with networked ontology, is the payoff of the entire essay. Be ready to explain the connection between social ontology and writing instruction.
True or false: DeLanda argues that the properties of an assemblage's parts fully explain the relations constituting the whole. (False: relations of exteriority mean the parts can never fully explain the whole.)
Fill in the blank: In Latour's framework, any entity that modifies a state of affairs by making a difference is called an __________ or __________. (actor; actant)
True or false: Intertextuality means that an author originates a text independently. (False: the author and their words are carried along by the network of words in circulation.)
Fill in the blank: DeLanda describes the two axes of an assemblage as material/expressive roles and / processes. (territorialisation; deterritorialisation)
True or false: The paper argues that composition pedagogy should continue to emphasise the lone, autonomous author. (False: it argues pedagogy must embrace networked, collaborative production.)
Q: What is DeLanda's key objection to theories of social ontology based on "organic totalities"?
A: DeLanda argues that organic totalities are built on relations of interiority, where parts are constituted by their relations to other parts and fitted to predetermined wholes. This produces a false notion of a "seamless web" and cannot account for the irreducible complexity of the contemporary world. His alternative, assemblage theory (based on relations of exteriority), allows parts to be autonomous, pluggable, and productive of emergent, nonlinear outcomes.
Q: How does Latour's concept of the "actant" challenge traditional humanist assumptions about agency?
A: Traditional humanism reserves agency for conscious human subjects. Latour defines an actant as anything, human or non-human, that modifies a state of affairs by making a difference. A speed bump, a software algorithm, or a virus can be an actant. This broadens the ontological picture and insists that social theory account for objects as veritable actors within networks.
Q: Trace the three historical senses of authorship outlined by Ijessling and explain how the third connects to the paper's argument about networks.
A: The first (modernist) sense treats the author as autonomous genius and irreducible origin. The second (dialogical) sense recognises that subjectivity arises from conversation, making it difficult to locate a singular source. The third (intertextual/postmodern) sense holds that all utterance is woven into a wider network of texts; the author is carried along by the circulation of words and is a product of that network, not its origin. This third sense directly supports the paper's argument: if texts are produced through networks, then composition pedagogy must teach students to work within and across networks rather than as solitary authors.
Q: What is the paper's central claim about why composition instructors should care about postmodern social ontology?
A: The paper argues that ontological understanding directly shapes how knowledge is created and circulated through texts. Because contemporary reality is constituted by emergent, networked power relations (as Foucault, Rose, Agamben, DeLanda, and Latour variously describe), teaching students to write is also teaching them how to navigate these networks. Being included or excluded from power-filled networks has real consequences, so writing pedagogy must move beyond the lone-author model to embrace collaborative, multi-modal, network-aware practice.
This material completes the arc begun in Part 1 (the collapse of grand narratives) and continued in Part 2 (power flowing through disciplinary and control networks). DeLanda and Latour provide the ontological framework (assemblages, actor-networks) that makes the "death of the author" and intertextuality intelligible as more than literary theory: they are descriptions of how the social world itself works. The composition pedagogy argument connects to broader debates in rhetoric and writing studies about collaborative authorship, genre theory, multi-modal composition, and digital writing.
Related Terms / Search Tags: assemblage theory, DeLanda, Deleuze, relations of exteriority, relations of interiority, territorialisation, deterritorialisation, coding, decoding, actor-network theory, ANT, Latour, actant, intertextuality, death of the author, Foucault, Ijessling, Ede and Lunsford, collaborative authorship, networked writing, composition pedagogy, multi-modal composition, ENGL 626, rhetoric, postmodernism, social ontology, emergent networks