New materialisms pdf

Further Reading Bennett, J. Chen, M. Animacies: Biopolitics, racial mattering, and queer affect. DeLanda, M. London and New York: Continuum. Fox, N. J, and Alldred, P. London: Sage. Jackson, Z. Feminist Studies 39 9 Puar, J. The transversality of new materialism. Women: A Cultural Review , 21 2 , Questions How do the new materialisms differ from historical materialism? Human Nature. National Institutes of Health. New York Times News Service. Paul II. Van Buren.

White House. Diana Coole ; Diana Coole. Duke University Press. Publication date:. Bibliography Adkins. Email alerts Latest Books. Related Book Chapters Introducing Tangible Media. Whither Materialism?

Remember me on this computer. Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link. Need an account? Click here to sign up. Download Free PDF. A short summary of this paper. Download Download PDF. Translate PDF. IV 2 agosto-diciembre ; pp. I also provide a substantial bibliography to help the reader navigate the material turn as well as its various critiques from the perspectives of philo- sophical history, object-oriented ontology, social and ethico-political theory, deconstruc- tion, critical race studies, or other perspectives on materialist theory.

Discourse matters. Culture matters. There is an important sense in which the only thing that does not seem to matter anymore is matter. Why not choose an entirely other name? And if the link between the old name and the new name is not absolutely conventional, what is the necessity of that link? Derrida —, session 1, 4 Matter is all the rage again. Any respectable philosopher today begins by presenting themselves as a materialist.

This attention to matter is perceived as an unquestionably good thing; it is imbued with positive values: realism, groundedness and commitment to the world, against abstraction, ethereal- ness, idealism and ideological thinking. Is it just a matter of emphasis? But, were it the case, why do these differences in style matter so much? In this way, the predicate of ontological immanence seems to be one of the most common and unifying traits of current approaches to matter and ma- teriality, whether they present themselves as vitalist materialism, feminist materialism, decolonial materialism, materialism of the encounter, per- formative materialism, plastic materialism, posthumanist materialism, spec- ulative materialism, transcendental materialism, processual materialism, relational materialism, vibrant materialism, materialist ontologies, and so on and so forth.

In these various instances, matter is no longer conceived of as inert and passive;4 it is understood as active or agential, imbued with a certain force, 3 See for instance Dolphijn and van der Tuin , See also Rosi Braidotti in the same volume, p.

But Charles T. In sum, new material- ists are rediscovering a materiality that materializes, evincing imma- nent modes of self-transformation that compel us to think of causa- tion in far more complex terms; to recognize that phenomena are caught in a multitude of interlocking systems and forces and to con- sider anew the location and nature of capacities for agency.

That would certainly be true, to an extent, and not that shocking. See also Mercier b. First, there is nothing wrong with fashion per se. One must under- stand not only why each of these words showed itself to be insuffi- cient but also why the notion of structure continues to borrow some implicit signification from them and to be inhabited by them. Again, this would certainly be true to some extent.

But these exclusions can only function because they fail. These exclusions fail at least twice—first, because they produce gross caricatures of the past, homogenizing stereotypes that will inevitably be contested, nuanced, and reclaimed in their complexity and heterogeneity; and, second but this is a direct consequence of the first point , because these exclusions are themselves permeable to what they ex- clude, contaminated by what they attempt to exclude, which was never ho- mogeneous enough, and always heterogeneous from the outset, so that an impermeable exclusion or isolation was in fact impossible to start with.

As Charles T. See also Kamuf and Cross and Mangat And, each time unique, the question remains: What is happening today? Which is another way of asking: What fails to happen today? These questions or series of ques- tions were meant to inspire, to provoke, to orient or disorient potential con- tributors: 1.

Matter, ontology, and immanence: How and why are these notions so closely interrelated in the current turn to materialism? Is the thinking of matter necessarily indexed on a discourse on and of being? Are there non-ontological variations of matter and materiality? Life and matter: What are the connections between these two concepts?

Should materialism avoid, or on the contrary encourage, vitalism? How does materialism affect the questions of anima, of hu- man or posthuman life, of living presence? Can or should we avoid a certain mechanistic conception of matter? Is there a materiality spe- cific to nonlife, to the machinic, to death?

But the reason I became interested in materialism in the first case [ This late 20th—early 21st century move to ontology is not without problems, or costs at least: on the one hand, a kind of foun- dationalist problem who gets to say the Real?