Despite decades of development, Actor‐Network Theory (ANT) continues to be characterized by a good deal of ambiguities and internal tensions. This situation has led to a suggestion that instead of one ANT it may be meaningful to speak of ‘the ANT multiple’. Following this line of reasoning, this article aims to create a map of the variety of positions riding under the ANT banner. Based on an in‐depth reading of ANT literature, seven different interpretations of ANT are identified and subjected to critical analysis; it also accommodates for the concerns of ANT proponents about the way ANT has been previously criticized. The results of the analysis serve to increase the reflexivity of both sides of the debate about their underlying assumptions, and provide suggestions how ANT could be employed, developed and criticized more productively in the future.