New Materialism: Interviews & Cartographies

by Rick Dolphijn, Iris Van Der Tuin

This book is the first monograph on the theme of “new materialism,” an emerging trend in 21st century thought that has already left its mark in such fields as philosophy, cultural theory, feminism, science studies, and the arts. The first part of the book contains elaborate interviews with some of the most prominent new materialist scholars of today: Rosi Braidotti, Manuel DeLanda, Karen Barad, and Quentin Meillassoux. The second part situates the new materialist tradition in contemporary thought by singling out its transversal methodology, its position on sexual differing, and by developing the ethical and political consequences of new materialism.

Genres: Philosophy, Theory, Nonfiction, Politics, Sociology, Academic

198 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2012

Reviews

[Fleur · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting and nicely done. New materialism is a field I could see myself positioning in.

[Mentai · Rating 3 out of 5]

Braidotti's interview is most useful in situating the 'new' materialism in relation to other currents of thought. Hers is one of the few accounts of this philosophy that fleshes it out fairly in relation to other forms of feminism, without being narky and snide in the process. Braidotti has been around long enough to have seen various theoretical waves rise and fall so she provides many fascinating historical, geographical and contextual details about the emergence of 'new' materialism. Examples are that the movement emerged out of linguistic focused poststructuralism and that the issue of the material and the maternal in psychoanalyst accounts was an issue that Braidotti's generation oriented themselves around. She eventually found a focus on the 'intergenerational break' in the context of poststructural psychoanalysis overwhelming and so 'took shelter' in Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus.

Braidotti aligns herself with Canguilhem, Foucault and Deleuze, de-emphasising linguistic domain, but focusing on, "the concrete yet complex materiality of bodies immersed in social relations of power" (2013, p. 21). The three thinkers mentioned all have a relational matrix involving materiality and language too greater or lesser extents. I imagine this might be surprising for those who quickly adopt 'new materiality' for its anti-discursive stance. While the linguistic paradigm is here sidelined, the acknowledgment of social relations and the effects of power on bodies implies a network where the material is in relation to the social, to discourses, among bodies.

This then frames the outlining of Braidotti's embrace of the material, the transversal and the transformational as she goes on to discuss her theoretical standpoints. The interviewers highlight that Braidotti used the genealogical method in 2000 to arrive at the term, 'neo-material'. While both Marxist and poststructuralist notions of materiality are important to her, Braidotti's philosophy is largely informed by French feminist theories of sexual difference along with other materialist work. Her observation that feminist philosophy is working with, within and across two streams: post-humanism and post-anthropocentrism (2012) will also be of interest (and recognisable) to those currently reviewing literature in social and cultural theory.

[Jes · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a helpful and lucid little book. I think it is a great introduction to the major concerns and methods of new materialist thought, though it is really just a survey text and not a substitute for reading, say, Elizabeth Grosz. Even though there's significant overlap between affect theory and new materialism, the latter seems a lot more useful to me in that it foregrounds both the materiality of the body AND questions about how discursive practices shape bodies (and not just human bodies!). I also think that new materialism, as a vocabulary and methodological approach, addresses some of the "Boys' Club" issues that OOO has. One of the things this book does really well is setting up new materialism as a project that emerges out of the concerns of feminist theory, rather than pulling the "how can new materialism help feminism" thing that Sara Ahmed critiques. Also, oh my gosh, I have to read more Karen Barad now.

[Milo Galiano · Rating 3 out of 5]

No es el libro que me esperaba. Ineficiente e insuficiente. No deja pensar más allá de lo que se postula, además de ser un pastiche de teorías inconexas que supuestamente hablan de lo mismo, pero en absoluto comparten siquiera aspectos primarios en consonancia.

[Alex Romero · Rating 2 out of 5]

Sigo sin ver qué es exactamente lo nuevo que aporta esta corriente. Se definen así: "Not primarily interested in representation, signification, and disciplinarity, new materialism is fascinated by affect, force, and movement as it travels in all directions. It searches not for the objectivity of things in themselves but for an objectivity of actualization and realization. It searches for how matter comes into agential realism, how matter is materialized in it. It is interested in speeds and slownesses, in how the event unfolds according to the in between, according to intra-action. New materialism argues that we know nothing of the (social) body until we know what it can do. It agrees with studying the multiplicity of modes that travel natureculture as the perpetual flow it has always already been." ¿Exactamente qué de esto no está ya en Deleuze, por ejemplo? Le dan a todo un sentido "realista" o "materialista", pero si dices lo mismo ¿qué cambia?

[Avşar · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book kicks off with a very challenging first chapter with Braidotti, but after that, it becomes easier to grasp and appreciate. I especially liked the attempt to explain how the new materialism came into existence than its functions and aims. The emphasis on feminism felt too strong throughout the book but became clear and justified towards the end when the authors tell us that feminism is used almost as a case study for a deeper understanding of new materialism and how different disciplines can make use of it, though I'd be more relieved if they have had said it in the beginning.
Still got a feeling that Graham Harman, Levi Bryantand Timothy Mortonwould strongly disagree with some of the thoughts presented here.

[L. · Rating 2 out of 5]

Nothing interesting here, with the giant exception of Mr. DeLanda.