{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022589052997393572, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.3646408839779, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Organizational de-structuring? Latour’s potential contribution to the critical realist – pragmatist dispute

ABSTRACT This article explores a key difference that Elder-Vass has identified between critical realism and pragmatism: their divergent views on the viability of the concept of social structure. Noting that this is also a point of dispute between critical realists and Actor-Network Theorists, I try to contribute to the debate about social structure by focusing on the question of whether organizations are structures, drawing on the views of a pragmatist-leaning ANT - Bruno Latour - to evaluate those of a critical realist - Dave Elder-Vass. I suggest that Latour's arguments can be used to identify two challenges for Elder-Vass's approach, questioning both whether an organization has a singular structural form and whether organizations have determinable powers and impacts. I then consider whether Latour's approach is vulnerable to critical realist arguments that perspectives which deny the existence of social structure cannot account for long-term stabilities, fail to connect different cases, and are individualistic in character.