limited to the birth of the building with an emphasis on the architect’s own intentions.
The central role of the architect is explained through the theoretical framework of work
research. Latour is interested in technological and scientific systems, the development
of which depends on innovation. In Latour’s terms, the inventor or scientist is the
innovator of a project. When a building is analysed as a technological system, the role
of the innovator falls on the architect. In the light of the present study, allocating the
innovator’s role to the architect seems natural and self-evident, although this might
not be the case for other projects at other times. However, Latour does not see the
innovator as a self-sufficient genius and he emphasises the importance of the collective.
Although the innovator of the network, who initiates the formation of the cluster, is in
a key position, success is primarily determined by the quality and quantity of the tools
of cognition rather than, for example, the superior mental abilities of the innovator.^63
However, what is original about this research is indeed the analysis between
different actors and the trials the architect underwent in the course of the projects,
in both the social and material context. The actor-network theory is interested
in the processes within which actants mutually build and modify their respective
operative situations and objectives. The mobilisation and persuasion of actants and
the translation of their motives so that their inclusion in the network becomes a
necessity is essential, according to the actor-network theory. Latour uses the term
translation for the conversion of other actants’ interests.^64
Another methodological principle of the actor-network theory is the principle of
generalised symmetry, which attributes equal footing to both human and non-human
actants, assigning the same explanatory weight to both. Latour aimed to erase the dis-
tinction between the subject and the object, or the society and the nature. He sees the
object as an active entity participating in a construct as well as with a serious pursuit to
investigate the significance of objects in human activity. The effect is not one-directional.^65
Finnish sociologist Reijo Miettinen has identified three problems in applying the
principle of generalised symmetry in innovation studies. Firstly, limiting a network of
entities to serve empirical analysis is difficult. Secondly, Miettinen argues, the theory
relies on a one-dimensional view of human activity.^66 Latour, however, treats his inno-
vator as a collective and not as a historical personage.^67 Thirdly, Latour’s assumption of
each actant’s ability to speak has also been considered problematic.^68
Notwithstanding the criticism presented by Miettinen and other scholars,
Latour’s theory has been considered a viable point of departure in this work. By
applying Latour’s approach, Aalto has been given a voice, a chance to “speak for
himself ” about where his interests lay in the design task of Paimio Sanatorium, which
63 Latour 1988; Ylikoski 2000, p. 303.
64 See e.g. Latour 1999 [1987], Chapter 3; Ylikoski 2000, p. 303.
65 Latour and Yaneva 2008, pp. 82–83 and 88.
66 Miettinen 1998, pp. 30–31.
67 Ylikoski 2000, p. 298.
68 Miettinen 1998, p. 31; Lehtonen 2000, p. 292.