The agency of penguins in the construction of scientific, tourism and political practices (actor-network theory of communication and media disposition)

The article is devoted to the analysis of Antarctica as a dynamically constructed ensemble of heterogeneous actors. The theoretical framework is based on a synthesis of Bruno Latour’s actor-network theory (ANT) and Michel Foucault’s analysis of dispositive. The aim of the study is to demonstrate how non-human actors using penguins as an example actively participate in shaping scientific knowledge, communication practices, tourist perceptions, and environmental management on the continent.

The paper introduces the concept of «Sub-Gaia» an understanding of Antarctica as a localized, «invented», and technologically mediated version of the planetary Gaia system, functioning as a global laboratory. It has been shown that the specific biological behavior of birds dictates the conditions, significantly limiting the presence of humans and revising the boundaries of available territories. This allows us to assert that the overall stability of the system depends not only on diplomacy but also on the complex symbiotic relationships that constantly arise from the interaction of people, technology, and wildlife. The methodology includes case studies, text analysis (scientific publications, international treaties), visual materials (photographs, satellite images), and in-depth interviews with an Antarctic researcher, biologist, and associate professor at RANEPA, Kirill Galustov. The results show that penguins, subconsciously through scientists, act as agents of agency (by disrupting human plans and models), adjust communication models (by transmitting «messages» through data and visual imagery), and «exercise power» (by imposing demands on legal and environmental systems).

The conclusion is that the «Sub-Gaia» concept is productive for observing the agency of actors, using penguins as an example, and that it is necessary to move from an anthropocentric model of «managing nature» to the paradigm of «managing together with nature» through communication. Moreover, the agency of non-human actors that engage in communication with social subsystems is recognized and incorporated into the decision-making process. Otherwise, all of this contributes to the transition to a hybrid model: «From managing nature to communicating with nature».

The practical significance of the work lies in the development of more sustainable and effective management models through communication for vulnerable ecosystems.

1. Agamben, D. (2012). What Is Modern? / Translated from Italian. Kyiv: Dukh і Litera. 78 p.

2. Anisimov, A.P. (2025). Protecting the Earth as a Unique Form of Life: A Philosophical and Legal Aspect // NOMOTHETIKA: Philosophy. Sociology. Law. Vol. 50, No. 2. Pp. 300-309.

3. Caborn J. (2007). On the Methodology of Dispositive Analysis // Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines. Vol. 1, No. 1, рр 115-123. (in Rus.).

4. Collins H.M., Yearley S. (1992). Epistemolog ical Chicken // Science as Practice and Culture / Ed. by A. Pickering. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, рр. 301-327. (in Rus.).

5. Foucault M. (1996). The Will to Truth: Beyond Knowledge, Power, and Sexuality. Works from Different Years / Translated from French. Moscow: Castal, 448 p.

6. Galustov K.A. (2025). Ice Desert Antarctica. Notes from the South Polar Expedition. St. Petersburg: IPC SZIU RANEPA. 54 p.

7. Galustov K.A., Zagumyonnyi D.G., Chupin I.I. et al. (2025). Inland Breeding by Adelie Penguins Pygoscelis adeliae at Schirmacher Oasis, East Antarctica // Polar Biology. Vol. 48, No. 99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-025-03421-6. (in Rus.).

8. Giese M. (1996). Effects of Human Activity on Adelie Penguin Pygoscelis adeliae Breeding Success // Biological Conservation. Vol. 75, No. 2, рр. 157-164. (in Rus.).

9. Latour, B. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory / Translated from English by I. Polonskaya; edited by S. Gavrilenko. Moscow: Publishing House of the Higher School of Economics, 2014. 382 p.

10. Law J. (1989). Technology and Heterogeneous Engineering: The Case of Portuguese Expansion // The Social Construction of Technological Systems / Ed. by W.E. Bijker, T.P. Hughes, T. Pinch. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, рр. 111-134. (in Rus.).

11. Law, J. (2015). After Method: Mess in Social Science / Translated from English; edited by S. Gavrilenko. Moscow: Gaidar Institute Publishing House, 352 p.

12. Lescroël A., Ballard G., Grémillet D., Authier M., Ainley D.G. (2014). Antarctic Climate Change: Extreme Events Disrupt Plastic Phenotypic Response in Ad é lie Penguins // PLoS ONE. Vol. 9, No. 1: e85291. P. 1-9. (in Rus.).

13. Markov A.V., Sosnovskaya A.M. (2025). Ontological policy of urban heritage: through the lens of hyperobjectivity and object-oriented ontology // Sociology of the City. No. 4. Pp. 5–19.

14. Penner R.V. (2025). Building collectives, worlds, interfaces: on the prospects of political ecology through the lens of Bruno Latour’s book “Politics of Nature.” “How to instill democracy in science” // Galactica Media: Journal of Media Studies. Vol. 7, No. 2. Pp. 209-219.

15. Privalova O.Yu. (2025). Innovative methods of actor-network theory (ANT) in design: redesign of the municipal newspaper “Gavansky Gorodok” // Bulletin of Pyatigorsk State University. No. 3. Pp. 55-59.

16. Rodger K., Moore S.A., Newsome D. (2009). Wildlife Tourism, Science and Actor Network Theory // Annals of Tourism Research. Vol. 36, No. 4, рр. 645-666.

17. Zhuravel V.P. (2020). The 200th anniversary of the discovery of Antarctica: a breakthrough in domestic scientific research is needed // Modern Europe. No. 7 (100). Pp. 207-217.