1. médialab a place | un lieu

2. The vindication of Tarde Tarde/Durkheim 1904 debate replayed in Paris

3. 3 Texte “Now, as intimate, as harmonious as a social group may be, never will we see spurting forth ex abrupto amidst surprised associates a collective self, real and not simply metaphorical, a marvelous result, of which they would be the conditions. There is probably always one associate who represents and personifies the entire group or a small number of associates (ministers in a state) who, each with a particular aspect, individualize it within themselves, no less entirely. But this chief or these chiefs are always also members of the group, born from their father and mother and not from their subjects or those who are collectively administered.” Monadologie et sociologie, p. 68.

4. Panopticon or oligopticon?

5. The ‘flat’ society argument individual with interaction plus context « Flat » model: « big » means connected

6. A new experience of navigation

7. 7

10. The new experience of search From a clickable dot To a full C.V. or profile

11. 11 The more you individualize the more you collect an extended network

12. Academic Paul-André R.. Academic Dominqiue B. Academic Hervé C.

13. 13 And it is fully reversible since every item is individualized by its network

14. The Key notion of profile What it is —its substance— is entirely (at least tentatively) defined by the (almost) complete list of its attributes. Any given entity A is said to “like” B, C, D, n., to “dislike” E, F, G, n., to have been at places P1, P2, P3, n, to have lived through the events E1, E2, E3, n, to provide the documents D1, D2, D3, n and so on. Thus an entity is entirely defined by the open-ended lists in the databases.

15. The relative novelty of profiles 1: an actor is its network C.V. de X: Is born in city C Has the diploma D Has been professor in the university U Has written the paper P Has participated in the event E etc.

16. The relative novelty of profiles 2: a network is its actors What is the city C? – Where is born A, B, n, X, Y, n What is the diploma D worth? – Given to H, I, N, X, Y, Z, n… How good is the university U? —M, O, P, X, n have been professors there What is the paper P? — It has been cited by U, V, X, n How to define the event E? —has participated in the event C, D, E, X, n

17. A new experience of navigating on screen through datasets The very possibility of moving from elements to aggregates and back to different elements and different aggregates make the two end points of social theory (the individual and the whole) lose their privilege

18. Discontinuity Two way navigation Macro Micro Micro?? Macro??

19. 19 3 positions to take into account One level Standpoint 1-LS Tarde et ANT Two level Standpoint 2 L-S Macro to micro Micro to macro, meso One level Standpoint 1,5 LS STS et ANT 19

20. We do not claim that digitally available profiles are so complete and so quickly accessible that they have entirely dissolved the two levels, but that they have already redistributed them enough to reveal that those levels are not the only obvious and natural way to handle the navigation through datasets about entities taken severally.

21. No real difference between individualist and holistic viewpoints In both cases there is a dispatcher that plays the same function – the only difference is in timing: in individualistic models the dispatcher succeeds the interactions; in holistic models, it precedes them; but both are 2-LS

22. The idea of a dispatcher From simple interactions to complex emergent structures: a) a first level of individual of atomic individuals—; b) a few rules of interaction as simple as possible, c) a second level, that of aggregation, which has generated enough new properties to deserve to be called a “structure” “The whole is more than the sum of its parts”.

23. 23 Against the fantomatic presence of a dispatcher... That remains present in all 2-LS models either before or after 23

24. 24... the notion of monad T “What is society? From my point of view, we could define it as reciprocal possession, in extremely varied forms, of all by everyone”, Monadologie et Sociologie, p. 85

25. The very notion of “interaction” is a consequence of limited information on the profiles defining the individuals. If you increase the amount of information the notion of interaction becomes disposable. The alternative is the notion of monad. A monad is not a part of a whole, but a point of view on all the other entities taken severally and not as a totality.

26. 26

27. 27

28. Monadological principles may apply to all entities Every time inquirers have succeeded, through clever research strategy, to trace individualizing profiles of agents —baboons, bacteria, ants, wasps, scientific papers, social networks, corporations, to take a few examples that have provided striking results— the weight of the 2-LS has diminished considerably.

29. 29 A different definition of modeling Solution 2-LS Start from atomic agents endowed with as few properties as possible Let them interact with as few rules as possible Check wheter some robust emergent order ensues Solution 1-LS Start from as complex profiles as possible Let them overlap Find a way to navigate through overlapping monads 29

30. 30 http://medialab.sciences-po.fr/publications/monads/video

31. The mystery of the corporate body Two definitions of structure: -what lasts in time although only virtually through the real but passing agents (2-LS) -what lasts in time through what passing agents pass to other agents through inheritance

32. 32

33. 33

34. Redefining the Tardian notion of « imitation » Overlapping monads are defined by the repetition of attributes that are different in each profile, hence producing « imitative rays » There is no difference between individuals, groups, institutions, etc. except the spread in time and space of attributes

35. 35 ‘’‘The Whole is Always Smaller Than Its Parts’ A Digital Test of Gabriel Tarde’s Monads Bruno Latour*, Pablo Jensen¥, Tommaso Venturini*, Sébastian Grauwin¥ and Dominique Boullier British Journal of Sociology (in press)* 35