What do you think?
Rate this book
Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things
In Vibrant Matter the political theorist Jane Bennett, renowned for her work on nature, ethics, and affect, shifts her focus from the human experience of things to things themselves. Bennett argues that political theory needs to do a better job of recognizing the active participation of nonhuman forces in events. Toward that end, she theorizes a “vital materiality” that runs through and across bodies, both human and nonhuman. Bennett explores how political analyses of public events might change were we to acknowledge that agency always emerges as the effect of ad hoc configurations of human and nonhuman forces. She suggests that recognizing that agency is distributed this way, and is not solely the province of humans, might spur the cultivation of a more responsible, ecologically sound politics: a politics less devoted to blaming and condemning individuals than to discerning the web of forces affecting situations and events.
Bennett examines the political and theoretical implications of vital materialism through extended discussions of commonplace things and physical phenomena including stem cells, fish oils, electricity, metal, and trash. She reflects on the vital power of material formations such as landfills, which generate lively streams of chemicals, and omega-3 fatty acids, which can transform brain chemistry and mood. Along the way, she engages with the concepts and claims of Spinoza, Nietzsche, Thoreau, Darwin, Adorno, and Deleuze, disclosing a long history of thinking about vibrant matter in Western philosophy, including attempts by Kant, Bergson, and the embryologist Hans Driesch to name the “vital force” inherent in material forms. Bennett concludes by sketching the contours of a “green materialist” ecophilosophy.
Bennett examines the political and theoretical implications of vital materialism through extended discussions of commonplace things and physical phenomena including stem cells, fish oils, electricity, metal, and trash. She reflects on the vital power of material formations such as landfills, which generate lively streams of chemicals, and omega-3 fatty acids, which can transform brain chemistry and mood. Along the way, she engages with the concepts and claims of Spinoza, Nietzsche, Thoreau, Darwin, Adorno, and Deleuze, disclosing a long history of thinking about vibrant matter in Western philosophy, including attempts by Kant, Bergson, and the embryologist Hans Driesch to name the “vital force” inherent in material forms. Bennett concludes by sketching the contours of a “green materialist” ecophilosophy.
176 pages, Paperback
First published January 4, 2010
About the author
Jane Bennett
41 books50 followersJane Bennett is Professor of Political Theory and Chair of the Department of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University. She is the author of The Enchantment of Modern Life: Attachments, Crossings, and Ethics and Thoreau’s Nature: Ethics, Politics, and the Wild, and an editor of The Politics of Moralizing and In the Nature of Things: Language, Politics, and the Environment.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 99 reviews
November 7, 2011
Jane Bennett writes on "new" vitalism for 120 pages without mentioning indigenous epistemologies. By engaging extensively with western philosophy in outlining the history of vitalism she completely erases the ontological foundations of First Nations peoples who are and have been actively recognizing "intra-connections" (to borrow from Barad) between human & nonhuman in their philosophies and politics.
She encourage the reader to consider the possibility of non-hierarchical existence and "thing power" and addresses the possibilities this way of thinking may have for political projects on the Left, such as environmentalism and reproductive rights. Too bad she doesn't take time to decolonize her research - these ideas are not new (and Harman and Bryant weren't the first to have them either, nor Deleuze). I would love to see the OOO/Speculative Realism folks address their privilege as academics, on one hand, and their complicity in replicating Western/nonWestern oppositional binaries in philosophy (via cognitive imperialism of indigenous ontologies and genocidal tendencies through erasing indigenous epistemologies) on the other.
She encourage the reader to consider the possibility of non-hierarchical existence and "thing power" and addresses the possibilities this way of thinking may have for political projects on the Left, such as environmentalism and reproductive rights. Too bad she doesn't take time to decolonize her research - these ideas are not new (and Harman and Bryant weren't the first to have them either, nor Deleuze). I would love to see the OOO/Speculative Realism folks address their privilege as academics, on one hand, and their complicity in replicating Western/nonWestern oppositional binaries in philosophy (via cognitive imperialism of indigenous ontologies and genocidal tendencies through erasing indigenous epistemologies) on the other.
March 9, 2015
For the Deluzian dogmatist, this will be the perfect book. Bennett presents an act of sustained ignorance that 20th century physics and biology ever happened or exists and displays she has no grasp of 'enviromentalism' nor the earth-sciences this political movement partially arises from. The reviewers quoted on the back of book should be ashamed (but maybe they didnt read this book)... but perhaps one could read their acceptance as a sign of why the humanities is dying; it suffers from a lack of engagement with science and logic and critical thinking and is too inbred in poststructural thought and thinking and tradition.
Bennett is not clear what matter is nor how matter, objects and things are different, nor is she clear about what 'mechanics' means because she obviously doesn't have access to wikipedia. Or rather she appears to be using these terms in their 19th century connotation and dennotations and seems to forget that late Victorian concepts of vitalism have been eclipsed by break throughs in biology, genetics and chemistry. It is too bad the only scientific theory she engages with is Actor-Network Theory (bastardized for her purposes) and a few late 19th century scientists/philosophers such as Darwin and Driesch. But her drawing of a parallel between Driesch's entelechy and stem-cells is interesting, but grossly wrong (although I do wonder why DNA and RNA are not spoken of, nor the structuring of atoms into material reality).
Moreover, although I sympathize with her program of extending our inclusion of objects, animals and plants into our political considerations as well as her idea that we should pay attention to things as things more, I totally reject this book as worth anyone's time (except the first 3/4ths of the 7th chapter) because it is full of misinterpretation, spin, and a non consulting of contemporary science. A great example of this is her exclusion of how Nietzsche is all about human agency fir the sake of humans. Additionally her argument is inchorent and contradictory and at times non existent. Radical yes, but radical isnt enough because this book maybe just career filler for another professional thinker.
Lastly, and for me worst of all, there is no way her theory supports her moral of the theory; and in fact as she states on pg. 127 n. 36 she doesnt want to take her ideas to the logical extremes because if she did, no act of moral accountability would exist and thus one could, by her 'theory' blame everything (including the victim) of an act of rape and reduce the blame of the raper. Thus, in her act to empower environmentalism, she would have us both consult and blame the carbon creating the greenhouse effect which threatens life as it is now embodied on earth because the carbon is as much actant as we are. Moreover, in my opinion, her need for a quasi-mysticism of 'matter' and how 'matter' becomes form and a complex universe full of forms will not help us ecologically to estrange objects or change our self destructive trajectory.
I like how she wants to defamilarize the objects around us but feel she fails to find a way suitable to it.
Bennett is not clear what matter is nor how matter, objects and things are different, nor is she clear about what 'mechanics' means because she obviously doesn't have access to wikipedia. Or rather she appears to be using these terms in their 19th century connotation and dennotations and seems to forget that late Victorian concepts of vitalism have been eclipsed by break throughs in biology, genetics and chemistry. It is too bad the only scientific theory she engages with is Actor-Network Theory (bastardized for her purposes) and a few late 19th century scientists/philosophers such as Darwin and Driesch. But her drawing of a parallel between Driesch's entelechy and stem-cells is interesting, but grossly wrong (although I do wonder why DNA and RNA are not spoken of, nor the structuring of atoms into material reality).
Moreover, although I sympathize with her program of extending our inclusion of objects, animals and plants into our political considerations as well as her idea that we should pay attention to things as things more, I totally reject this book as worth anyone's time (except the first 3/4ths of the 7th chapter) because it is full of misinterpretation, spin, and a non consulting of contemporary science. A great example of this is her exclusion of how Nietzsche is all about human agency fir the sake of humans. Additionally her argument is inchorent and contradictory and at times non existent. Radical yes, but radical isnt enough because this book maybe just career filler for another professional thinker.
Lastly, and for me worst of all, there is no way her theory supports her moral of the theory; and in fact as she states on pg. 127 n. 36 she doesnt want to take her ideas to the logical extremes because if she did, no act of moral accountability would exist and thus one could, by her 'theory' blame everything (including the victim) of an act of rape and reduce the blame of the raper. Thus, in her act to empower environmentalism, she would have us both consult and blame the carbon creating the greenhouse effect which threatens life as it is now embodied on earth because the carbon is as much actant as we are. Moreover, in my opinion, her need for a quasi-mysticism of 'matter' and how 'matter' becomes form and a complex universe full of forms will not help us ecologically to estrange objects or change our self destructive trajectory.
I like how she wants to defamilarize the objects around us but feel she fails to find a way suitable to it.
July 31, 2012
Variations on object-oriented ontology are all the rage these days. Vibrant Matter lacks the verve and comprehensiveness of Hodder's Entangled or the clear specificity of Bogost's older Unit Operations, but it's a quick, clear, graceful tour of philosophy from Spinoza to modern environmentalism that makes a point, sketches its origins without tedium, and moves on.
Bennett is clear on distinguishing her work from ANT, and on its potential consequences as an alternative to hair-shirt environmentalism, which I found particularly intriguing. She addresses criticisms clearly, so for the first time I feel as if I have some grasp on the differences between object-oriented approaches and animism, poetry, anthropomorphism, and politicized make-believe.
Eminently readable, graceful, short and useful: you really can't ask for more from an academic monograph.
Bennett is clear on distinguishing her work from ANT, and on its potential consequences as an alternative to hair-shirt environmentalism, which I found particularly intriguing. She addresses criticisms clearly, so for the first time I feel as if I have some grasp on the differences between object-oriented approaches and animism, poetry, anthropomorphism, and politicized make-believe.
Eminently readable, graceful, short and useful: you really can't ask for more from an academic monograph.
December 2, 2021
2.5 stars. Somewhat interesting, but I'm not convinced. She doesn't engage at all with any indigenous scholarship on similar subjects; the book is very centered in Western thought and ideology with no acknowledgement that these were not the first thinkers to have these thoughts.
May 4, 2017
Thought-provoking without being quite urgent or angry enough to be really provocative. Like so many theory books, this begins promisingly, loses its mojo in the middle, then tentatively puts forth a sort of call to action at the end. Bennett reveals how tentative her own call is by invoking the tepid phrase "sustainability" to describe her eco-politics. Despite this lukewarm quality the book offers challenging approaches to matter that might be made into something sharper and more dangerous.
March 11, 2022
Not without its critiques, but still a good enough book for any hardened materialist or idealist looking to push their thinking further, whether or not you agree with Bennett's assertions.
March 2, 2024
Parte de una nueva conceptualización sobre la materia, no estaba segura de que el libro fuera a gustarme. Pero así ha sido. Creo que la combinación de referentes literarios -Thoreau,Whitman,Kafka- y filosóficos -Adorno, Foucault, D&G principalmente- es muy interesante y es llevada a cabo de manera excelente. También pienso que el materialismo vital requiere del interlocutor una voluntad de trascender los parámetros básicos de la lógica y razón europeas, y que en este sentido precisa de una sensibilidad en el corazón del lector que la filosofía clásica no trataba. Para mí, es un texto ciertamente bueno, y espero pronto poder leer su obra sobre la poesía de Walt Whitman. Entiendo, de todos modos, que podría haber hecho un mejor trabajo haciendo referencia a cosmologías indígenas que, bajo el paraguas antropológico de animismo y totemismo, tratan la materia como viva desde hace milenios.
January 10, 2011
Clear account of the conceptual components required for an active ("vibrant") materialism, though Bennett doesn't really add too much in this regard, and it occasionally lacks detail and argumentative force. Not sure how convinced I'd be if I wasn't already broadly on-board with the Deleuzian/DeLandian elements - and some parts felt very under-developed (eg. the use of Deleuze's indefinite "a life" from his final published essay). The chapter on the history of vitalism was the most detailed and effective so far as the ontology goes. As far as the politics... Something that definitely needs a much more detailed thinking through from this realist/anti-anthropocentric position, I think, but Bennett does a great job of pointing out possible avenues and heading off some of the more obvious politically-motivated criticisms of a "transhumanist" (or whatever you want to call it) thought. Made me want to read the "non-representational geography" works she references and of which I'm entirely ignorant.
February 12, 2012
Read all the chapters for the colloquium on friday. I am very excited by this book and think of it, frankly, as companion species to my own book Networked Reenactments, and helpful for thinking about the angle into my next book, Speaking with Things.
September 30, 2020
a lovely idea articulated in a lovely fashion. Bennett’s enchanted vision of a lively world is occasionally more utopian than pragmatic, but a utopia worth aspiring to.
October 2, 2023
This book genuinely felt like the stone that Sisyphus was rolling uphill and it flattened me. I rarely have to pull up a dictionary when reading theory because most scholars define their concepts well enough, but I feel like this is a great example of chronic thesaurus-itis. What is the point of publishing a book with the most inaccessible and gatekeepy language possible?
February 8, 2019
A beautifully written and well-argumented book about how we should view reality and ourselves within it.
March 12, 2021
Although not an easy read, Vibrant Matter is fairly short and packs quite a punch. Bennett's overall thesis is interesting, and was revolutionary at the time, at least in the white West: that nonhuman things are not passive objects, but rather that they act on humans in unpredictable ways, forming what she calls "assemblages" with us that influence us just as we influence them – and that this means we should redefine our notions of politics and ecology to reflect this more holistic perception of reality and make allowances for the initiative and agency of things.
Using examples like the Northeast blackout of 2003, stem cells, trash, metal, and more, Bennett builds on the work of Bruno Latour and others to point out that humans, although we like to think otherwise, are not so different from the things around us. We ourselves are an assemblage of living and nonliving things – bacteria, minerals, elements, cells – and we link to other living and nonliving things in assemblages whose agency often is indeterminate.
What struck me most is that while Vibrant Matter is not about religion per se, Bennett speaks in near-theological language about this, describing the human experience in ways that remind me of how biologists talk about evolution or Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson talk/ed about the cosmos. We are all part of a vast evolving cosmic landscape, she argues, and the notion that we at this moment are active and all other things are passive is a myth, a perceptual crutch we use to (mis)understand the world around us.
And of course, the religious implications are profound. Bennett explicitly rejects the notion of free will as it has come to be understood – that individual humans are the sole determiners of their destiny – and therefore rejects purely individualist notions of accountability. Her ideas tend to support universalist notions of eschatology, and not just universalist for humans, but a truly universal concept of the new heaven and new earth. They raise questions about the role of God in such a materialist construct, but I would argue no less than what were raised by Darwin, Mendel, Einstein, Hawking, etc.
That the cosmos is governed by natural laws, that we are all enmeshed in networks that both influence us and are influenced by us – this is in some ways not particularly new. But Bennett takes the step of describing "vital materiality" in a way that takes seriously the agency of the other parts of those networks, the things, alive and "not," that act on humans, whether we recognize it or not.
Using examples like the Northeast blackout of 2003, stem cells, trash, metal, and more, Bennett builds on the work of Bruno Latour and others to point out that humans, although we like to think otherwise, are not so different from the things around us. We ourselves are an assemblage of living and nonliving things – bacteria, minerals, elements, cells – and we link to other living and nonliving things in assemblages whose agency often is indeterminate.
What struck me most is that while Vibrant Matter is not about religion per se, Bennett speaks in near-theological language about this, describing the human experience in ways that remind me of how biologists talk about evolution or Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson talk/ed about the cosmos. We are all part of a vast evolving cosmic landscape, she argues, and the notion that we at this moment are active and all other things are passive is a myth, a perceptual crutch we use to (mis)understand the world around us.
And of course, the religious implications are profound. Bennett explicitly rejects the notion of free will as it has come to be understood – that individual humans are the sole determiners of their destiny – and therefore rejects purely individualist notions of accountability. Her ideas tend to support universalist notions of eschatology, and not just universalist for humans, but a truly universal concept of the new heaven and new earth. They raise questions about the role of God in such a materialist construct, but I would argue no less than what were raised by Darwin, Mendel, Einstein, Hawking, etc.
That the cosmos is governed by natural laws, that we are all enmeshed in networks that both influence us and are influenced by us – this is in some ways not particularly new. But Bennett takes the step of describing "vital materiality" in a way that takes seriously the agency of the other parts of those networks, the things, alive and "not," that act on humans, whether we recognize it or not.
April 16, 2021
Haben Gegenstände eine Wirkungsmacht, die uns Menschen beeinflussen kann? Wenn ich an einer roten Ampel stehen bleibe, wer ist es dann, der mein Stehenbleiben hervorruft? Bin ich es oder ist es das Rot der Ampel.
In ihrem Buch „Lebhafte Materie“ versucht Jane Bennett anhand verschiedener Gegenstände und Ereignisse die materielle Handlungsmacht oder Wirkmächtigkeit nicht menschlicher oder nicht-ganz-menschlicher Dinge zu beweisen. Bennett versteht Materialität als grundsätzlich lebendig. So kommt es auch, dass ihr erster Bezugspunkt ein scheinbar unbedeutender Haufen Müll ist. Doch durch den Haufen Müll wird Bennett an eine Konsum- und Wegwerfgesellschaft erinnert. Hat der Müll hier eine Ding-Kraft? Ist es nicht der Müll, der hier den Anstoß zum Denken gegeben hat oder ist das Unsinn? Die Leitfrage des Buches ist, wie sich politische Reaktionen auf gesellschaftliche Probleme verändern würden, wenn Vitalität (nicht menschlicher) Körper ernst nehmen würden.
Bennett argumentierte in ihrem Buch auf erstaunliche Art und Weise, dass von Dingen eine Handlungsmacht ausgeht. Handeln bedeutet aber nicht, Absichten zu haben, sondern Wirkungen zu erzielen. An Beispielen wie der Odradek-Figur aus Franz Kafkas Erzählung „Die Sorge des Hausvaters“ oder einem real existierenden Stromausfall in den USA zeigt sie, dass Dinge ein Gefüge bilden und Handlungen erzeugen.
„Lebhafte Materie“ ist ein politisch philosophischer Versuch, die Schranken zwischen stumpfer Materie und dynamisch Lebendigen aufzubrechen, um so ein anderes Bewusstsein für Menschen und Umwelt zu schaffen. Bennett schafft es, Theorie und Alltagsbeispiele zusammenzubringen, um so ein wirklich sehr gut lesbares Buch zu gestalten. Das englische Original ist zwar schon 2010 erschienen, doch ist die Thematik heute nicht aktueller denn je? Welche Handlungsmacht geht von einem Virus aus? „Lebhafte Materie“ ist allemal eine Lektüre wert, nicht nur unter dem Aspekt der Umwelt zu Liebe, sondern auch um vielleicht die Welt und ihre Dinge aus einer anderen Perspektive zu betrachten.
Eine klare Leseempfehlung
Note: 2
In ihrem Buch „Lebhafte Materie“ versucht Jane Bennett anhand verschiedener Gegenstände und Ereignisse die materielle Handlungsmacht oder Wirkmächtigkeit nicht menschlicher oder nicht-ganz-menschlicher Dinge zu beweisen. Bennett versteht Materialität als grundsätzlich lebendig. So kommt es auch, dass ihr erster Bezugspunkt ein scheinbar unbedeutender Haufen Müll ist. Doch durch den Haufen Müll wird Bennett an eine Konsum- und Wegwerfgesellschaft erinnert. Hat der Müll hier eine Ding-Kraft? Ist es nicht der Müll, der hier den Anstoß zum Denken gegeben hat oder ist das Unsinn? Die Leitfrage des Buches ist, wie sich politische Reaktionen auf gesellschaftliche Probleme verändern würden, wenn Vitalität (nicht menschlicher) Körper ernst nehmen würden.
Bennett argumentierte in ihrem Buch auf erstaunliche Art und Weise, dass von Dingen eine Handlungsmacht ausgeht. Handeln bedeutet aber nicht, Absichten zu haben, sondern Wirkungen zu erzielen. An Beispielen wie der Odradek-Figur aus Franz Kafkas Erzählung „Die Sorge des Hausvaters“ oder einem real existierenden Stromausfall in den USA zeigt sie, dass Dinge ein Gefüge bilden und Handlungen erzeugen.
„Lebhafte Materie“ ist ein politisch philosophischer Versuch, die Schranken zwischen stumpfer Materie und dynamisch Lebendigen aufzubrechen, um so ein anderes Bewusstsein für Menschen und Umwelt zu schaffen. Bennett schafft es, Theorie und Alltagsbeispiele zusammenzubringen, um so ein wirklich sehr gut lesbares Buch zu gestalten. Das englische Original ist zwar schon 2010 erschienen, doch ist die Thematik heute nicht aktueller denn je? Welche Handlungsmacht geht von einem Virus aus? „Lebhafte Materie“ ist allemal eine Lektüre wert, nicht nur unter dem Aspekt der Umwelt zu Liebe, sondern auch um vielleicht die Welt und ihre Dinge aus einer anderen Perspektive zu betrachten.
Eine klare Leseempfehlung
Note: 2
April 12, 2021
Jane Bennett is a contemporary political theorist, social theorist, and ecological philosopher. She Her book, Vibrant Matter (2010), is an evolution of a line of her previous works (most notably The Force of Things (2004) and In the Nature of Things: Language, Politics, and the Environment (1993)), in developing her theory of vital materialism, or thing-power materialism. Like her previous works, the text is laden with reference to and conversation with multiple other theorists across the fields of art, animism, materialism, humanism, and political ecology.
Vibrant Matter does a good job at making its ideas accessible without presupposing a scholarly reader through its clear statement of argument, frequent use of metaphor, and led-by-the-hand analysis of case studies to clarify its points, but some knowledge regarding existing theories of materialism greatly helps in processing its meandering discourse; the book takes its time to unpack and string out example after example in support of its main points or simply to name them, whose sheer quantity can sometimes distract the reader from the author’s central theses.
The book’s point is that humans and nonhuman things - all of them, from living to nonliving - are so interconnected, sharing the basic components of vibrant matter, that any practical solution to ecological and political issues must acknowledge their two-way influences. It is a criticism of the narcissistic anthropocentrism of materiality in political theory, presenting an alternative ‘vital materialism’ in opposition to ‘historical materialism’ and the dangerous (unsustainable) definition of nonliving matter as ‘objects’. It advocates for more attentive, responsible views on processes and events to a shared vibrant matter connecting all bodies, human or nonhuman, refuting the binary of living and nonliving matter, questioning the overemphasis of individual human responsibility in such processes and events in favor of acknowledgement of a broad assemblage of human-nonhuman actants.
Bennett lays the foundations of her vital materialism in the first couple chapters of the book, defining it and positioning it with respect to prevailing political and material theories. The middle two chapters further broaden the scope of her argument by framing the bodies of human food and the identity of metal in her comprehensive picture. The latter half of Bennett’s book delves into fuzzier, more cerebral questions that are typically considered to be moral in nature, such as the fundamental nature of life versus nonlife, as well as directly applying vital materialism to political ecology, addressing its viability and place in modern politics. Specific terminology she uses are thus: Bruno Latour’s actants is preferred over actors, useful in unshackling one’s perspective of humans acting on a passive environment, and presenting nonhuman, nonliving things as conative, driven bodies constantly brushing against, affecting, and reacting to humans in importance and efficacy. She also uses the concept of thing-power, avoiding the terms of subject on object, asserting that all bodies in their simple and complex assemblages (a shifting collection of relations between human-nonhuman actants that can be anything from a human being and its needs and related forces to the ecosystem of the public) have power to affect and take action; this conceptual and physical power gives them the moniker thing. The unifying component of all things is vibrant matter, the base unit of vital materialism that all matter, and all things composed of matter, are vibrant, active, cogent and driven.
In terms of concept, the book excellently captures the importance of narrative fomentation in political ecology discourse, attacking the anthropocentric, fault/causal narrative on all sides and explaining the efficacy of a non-anthropocentric, fluid process-based vibrant matter. Bennett goes into great detail the practical and conceptual powers of narrative and naming, in placing horizons on what human action and sympathy are capable of. The book suffers however, in the human aspect. Bennett spends a lot of time bringing into question the uniqueness of humans and human agencies in a vivid, active amalgamation of conative bodies, and while her concepts of expanding self and self-interest to beyond merely the human is useful and somewhat optimistic, she leans too far in that direction, casting a broad plethora of human relations over the history of capitalist violence in a non committal, almost detached stroke that undersells the enormity of capitalism’s effects on human and nonhuman matter alike. Yes, Vibrant Matter is comprehensive in bringing the nonhuman perspective to the table, but it underdevelops the varieties of human actants and agencies at play, engaging in primitive accumulation or the power of race and gender in economics and the exercise of violence.
As for argumentation itself, Bennett uses a variety of examples, from personal anecdote to broad-scale real-world events (i.e. the Northeast blackout of 2003) to short stories or children’s fables (Bennett 6, 52) to open up the reader’s conceptions of things in their truest sense, repeatedly breaking down the binary between matter and life, between subject and object, between self and other. To bolster her argument, she peppers her paper with metaphor to continually bring forth to the reader’s mind the manifold forces both prospecting, present, and past that shape even strange and conventionally-immaterial things such as language; “My speech, for example, depends on the graphite in my pencil, millions of persons, dead and alive, in my Indo-European language group, not to mention the electricity in my brain and laptop.” (Bennett 35).
Since Bennett’s argument is hinged on redefining one’s inherent paradigm of the nature of things and events, she spends a generous portion of her book walking through the theories, criticisms, and conceptual designs of materialist and existential philosophers throughout Western academia, as much as she does discussing her own theory. These include (but are not limited to) Immanuel Kant’s free will, Henry David Thoreau’s romanticism, Bruno Latour’s actants, or Guattari's "transversal" humans. This ultimately serves her book’s thesis, as defining her theory in relation to others both clarifies its identity but also anticipates and corrects or acknowledges criticisms and flaws in its structure. Some theorists she does not present for opposition, but instead to lean on, openly drawing quotes and concepts from several other material vitality theorists, most notably Baruch Spinoza's "affective" bodies and Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari's "assemblages". These sections do not reduce her argument’s merit as she simply borrows concepts from such theories without being subsumed by their own.
Bennett’s text Vibrant Matter makes a strong case for re-evaluating one’s perspective on events and processes as interactions among a broader, interconnected assemblage of actants beyond the anthropocentric view of typical conservation or ecological policy and action. In this respect, it is very effective, in spite of perhaps discounting the types of human-related actants and bodies that exist, if not independent from, certainly alongside a strictly material or physiological existence, such as the strength of narrative, imperialism, and racism in broadly determining human action. It accomplishes what it sets out to do: take the reader into Bennett’s vibrant world of interconnected matter, in which humans are just one conative piece alongside their vivid, active nonhuman, nonliving roommates, so that they might find new interest in a world of things called dull by human rhetoric.
Vibrant Matter does a good job at making its ideas accessible without presupposing a scholarly reader through its clear statement of argument, frequent use of metaphor, and led-by-the-hand analysis of case studies to clarify its points, but some knowledge regarding existing theories of materialism greatly helps in processing its meandering discourse; the book takes its time to unpack and string out example after example in support of its main points or simply to name them, whose sheer quantity can sometimes distract the reader from the author’s central theses.
The book’s point is that humans and nonhuman things - all of them, from living to nonliving - are so interconnected, sharing the basic components of vibrant matter, that any practical solution to ecological and political issues must acknowledge their two-way influences. It is a criticism of the narcissistic anthropocentrism of materiality in political theory, presenting an alternative ‘vital materialism’ in opposition to ‘historical materialism’ and the dangerous (unsustainable) definition of nonliving matter as ‘objects’. It advocates for more attentive, responsible views on processes and events to a shared vibrant matter connecting all bodies, human or nonhuman, refuting the binary of living and nonliving matter, questioning the overemphasis of individual human responsibility in such processes and events in favor of acknowledgement of a broad assemblage of human-nonhuman actants.
Bennett lays the foundations of her vital materialism in the first couple chapters of the book, defining it and positioning it with respect to prevailing political and material theories. The middle two chapters further broaden the scope of her argument by framing the bodies of human food and the identity of metal in her comprehensive picture. The latter half of Bennett’s book delves into fuzzier, more cerebral questions that are typically considered to be moral in nature, such as the fundamental nature of life versus nonlife, as well as directly applying vital materialism to political ecology, addressing its viability and place in modern politics. Specific terminology she uses are thus: Bruno Latour’s actants is preferred over actors, useful in unshackling one’s perspective of humans acting on a passive environment, and presenting nonhuman, nonliving things as conative, driven bodies constantly brushing against, affecting, and reacting to humans in importance and efficacy. She also uses the concept of thing-power, avoiding the terms of subject on object, asserting that all bodies in their simple and complex assemblages (a shifting collection of relations between human-nonhuman actants that can be anything from a human being and its needs and related forces to the ecosystem of the public) have power to affect and take action; this conceptual and physical power gives them the moniker thing. The unifying component of all things is vibrant matter, the base unit of vital materialism that all matter, and all things composed of matter, are vibrant, active, cogent and driven.
In terms of concept, the book excellently captures the importance of narrative fomentation in political ecology discourse, attacking the anthropocentric, fault/causal narrative on all sides and explaining the efficacy of a non-anthropocentric, fluid process-based vibrant matter. Bennett goes into great detail the practical and conceptual powers of narrative and naming, in placing horizons on what human action and sympathy are capable of. The book suffers however, in the human aspect. Bennett spends a lot of time bringing into question the uniqueness of humans and human agencies in a vivid, active amalgamation of conative bodies, and while her concepts of expanding self and self-interest to beyond merely the human is useful and somewhat optimistic, she leans too far in that direction, casting a broad plethora of human relations over the history of capitalist violence in a non committal, almost detached stroke that undersells the enormity of capitalism’s effects on human and nonhuman matter alike. Yes, Vibrant Matter is comprehensive in bringing the nonhuman perspective to the table, but it underdevelops the varieties of human actants and agencies at play, engaging in primitive accumulation or the power of race and gender in economics and the exercise of violence.
As for argumentation itself, Bennett uses a variety of examples, from personal anecdote to broad-scale real-world events (i.e. the Northeast blackout of 2003) to short stories or children’s fables (Bennett 6, 52) to open up the reader’s conceptions of things in their truest sense, repeatedly breaking down the binary between matter and life, between subject and object, between self and other. To bolster her argument, she peppers her paper with metaphor to continually bring forth to the reader’s mind the manifold forces both prospecting, present, and past that shape even strange and conventionally-immaterial things such as language; “My speech, for example, depends on the graphite in my pencil, millions of persons, dead and alive, in my Indo-European language group, not to mention the electricity in my brain and laptop.” (Bennett 35).
Since Bennett’s argument is hinged on redefining one’s inherent paradigm of the nature of things and events, she spends a generous portion of her book walking through the theories, criticisms, and conceptual designs of materialist and existential philosophers throughout Western academia, as much as she does discussing her own theory. These include (but are not limited to) Immanuel Kant’s free will, Henry David Thoreau’s romanticism, Bruno Latour’s actants, or Guattari's "transversal" humans. This ultimately serves her book’s thesis, as defining her theory in relation to others both clarifies its identity but also anticipates and corrects or acknowledges criticisms and flaws in its structure. Some theorists she does not present for opposition, but instead to lean on, openly drawing quotes and concepts from several other material vitality theorists, most notably Baruch Spinoza's "affective" bodies and Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari's "assemblages". These sections do not reduce her argument’s merit as she simply borrows concepts from such theories without being subsumed by their own.
Bennett’s text Vibrant Matter makes a strong case for re-evaluating one’s perspective on events and processes as interactions among a broader, interconnected assemblage of actants beyond the anthropocentric view of typical conservation or ecological policy and action. In this respect, it is very effective, in spite of perhaps discounting the types of human-related actants and bodies that exist, if not independent from, certainly alongside a strictly material or physiological existence, such as the strength of narrative, imperialism, and racism in broadly determining human action. It accomplishes what it sets out to do: take the reader into Bennett’s vibrant world of interconnected matter, in which humans are just one conative piece alongside their vivid, active nonhuman, nonliving roommates, so that they might find new interest in a world of things called dull by human rhetoric.
November 29, 2012
Bennett makes a great effort to defend her materialist position from a vitalist stance. Her way of presenting is great in that she uses a succesful example as a starting point, reading almost as a case study. Overall a great read. I found some of the chapters inconvincing to support her arguments. She defends for example that a vital materialist ontology can act as a “safety net” for inequalities produced by essentialist views simply by blaming heteronomy as responsible for much of the human suffering, and because “Kantian morality is the standard”. Being familiar with the works of DeLanda I was able to understand what she wants to defend, but for someone unfamiliar with this line of thought, I am not sure how convincing she would sound. The first chapter she has written in New Materialisms goes a lot further in defending some of her thoughts.
January 20, 2023
Love the opening up of thinking, especially in terms of moving away from the nature/culture imagined divide. But I’m surprised at how often she hedges. "Anthropomorphism can be useful" "self-interest is good for humans" "newfound attention to matter and its powers will not solve human oppression" etc.
April 7, 2024
A beautifully written seminal book of New Materialism drawing primarily on Western thought, particularly Spinoza and Bergson. Bennett's political goal is perhaps more ambitious than the theoretical goal: though it attributes ontological multiplicity to humans and nonhumans, Bennet’s aim is ultimately to expose the web of interconnections between actants (borrowing Latour's term). Disordering, ruptures, frictions, and turbulences are of necessity – if we tune into them we can move away from 'fatalistic passivity' and foster a more responsible, ethical engagement with the world. Her theory of political ecology is built upon democratic theory (Dewey, Ranciere), and so comparisons with the non-democratic world leave some space for elaboration.
For me, crucially, it lacked sustained engagement with the materialist critique of capitalism, did not fully address the concept of violence, and aside from the brief reference to the Chinese concept of 'shi' was entirely Western-centric (to the detriment of the argument).
For me, crucially, it lacked sustained engagement with the materialist critique of capitalism, did not fully address the concept of violence, and aside from the brief reference to the Chinese concept of 'shi' was entirely Western-centric (to the detriment of the argument).
July 24, 2022
Jane Bennett's 2010 Vibrant Matter presents a dense, careful argument for extending our sense of agency beyond ourselves and, perhaps, some animals, to the entire material world. For me her case is compelling, though sometimes I wished she were more specific about just how the non-animate world exercises its agency. She exploits Bruno Latour's Network Actor Theory as one of the bases of her argument; he's well worth reading in conjunction with Bennett, especially his more recent 2017 Facing Gaia.
Vibrant Matter isn't always an easy read, but it is well worth the time and careful attention it demands. Especially in the face of climate change, a revision of our relation to the material world is long overdue; we need to move beyond the Nature/Culture dichotomy (Latour's argument) and the Biblically based idea that we are masters of the Earth. It ain't so.
Vibrant Matter isn't always an easy read, but it is well worth the time and careful attention it demands. Especially in the face of climate change, a revision of our relation to the material world is long overdue; we need to move beyond the Nature/Culture dichotomy (Latour's argument) and the Biblically based idea that we are masters of the Earth. It ain't so.
September 18, 2016
Better ideas than execution, I think.
Vibrant Matter is a sequel of sorts to Jane Bennett's "The Enchantment of Modern Life." While that first book focused on the emotional response of people to the modern world around them--suggesting that there was a sense of awe, and that this affective reaction was a good thing, leading to a (potential) politics of generosity--here Bennett turns her eyes to the things themselves: the metal, machines, and microbes that make up the world around us. She says that these are more than things, that the have some degree of agency in our networked world.
All of which I agree with.
The book thus stands in a tradition limned by Jessica Riskin in "Restless Clock." This is a tradition that stands against both transcendental religion and reductionist science. In this case, scince and religion both have a vested interest in making matter into something passive, sculpted by other forces: which are either the human hand or the intervening God. This third tradition suggests that matter itself can, at times, be self-organizing, can have agency beyond the uses it it put by God or humans.
There are stronger and weaker forms of this argument, though Bennett does not really draw the line between them: Depending upon how committed one is to vitalism, one can see nature and matter as nearly purposive; or one can see that because the human and natural world have been so interwoven into assemblages that the world is beyond the complete control of humans--that things have effective agency, even if they do not have intentions.
Bennett's book is small and suggestive, like her earlier one. The early parts of the argument are differently structured, though, weighted heavily toward example, rather than the development of ideas. When she does come to these later on, the argument tends to be suggestive rather than clear.
I did not always like the earlier book--though, in that case as this one, I cheered on her overall project--but it had clarity on its side. That is not true here. First, the exact development of her argument is relatively obscure and piece-meal. Second, the language is overly-burdened with philosophical academic-ese. It is no surprise that the same thinkers appear in both books: Spinoza, Leibniz, Kafka, Deleuze. But her portrayal of their thinking is not as lucid, which serves to obscure her argument.
In the end, she seems to side on a relatively strong version of active matter, one which admits some kind of vital force in living things that allows for self-repair and self-organization. She reminds us of Bergson and tries to recuperate Driesch and Lamarck. But she resists the idea that their is teleology inherent in this idea: she wants Bergson's open-ended process, with matter groping somewhat blindly into the future; she wants Spinoza's monism, too, with all stuff ultimately made of the same material and so connected even as it is differentiated.
This leads to her ultimate point, which is that environmentalism is too limited, dependent upon the idea that humans are separate from nature, and thus need to protect nature. Rather, she is saying, the human and the natural are so interwoven that it is a fool's errand to try to separate them. Humans are not themselves selves--we are, too, radical assemblages.
Bennett invokes Foucault at a number of moments in the book. What I find interesting is that Foucault elucidated the coming into being of the notion of the human as a coherent unit--this was part of the birth of modern discourse. And here we are seeing the idea of the human start to dissolve. It's not the trans-humanism of the technology fetishists (sorry, John Burdett) with the human animal being overtaken by computers, but rather the growing idea that humans aren't a useful unit of analysis.
This was, I think, part of the lesson of Ed Yong's "I Contain Multitudes." It's there in "Waking, Dreaming, Being." All of these books are pushing toward the idea that humans are not unique--are not even human. It's a fascinating idea. I just wish it was better presented here.
Vibrant Matter is a sequel of sorts to Jane Bennett's "The Enchantment of Modern Life." While that first book focused on the emotional response of people to the modern world around them--suggesting that there was a sense of awe, and that this affective reaction was a good thing, leading to a (potential) politics of generosity--here Bennett turns her eyes to the things themselves: the metal, machines, and microbes that make up the world around us. She says that these are more than things, that the have some degree of agency in our networked world.
All of which I agree with.
The book thus stands in a tradition limned by Jessica Riskin in "Restless Clock." This is a tradition that stands against both transcendental religion and reductionist science. In this case, scince and religion both have a vested interest in making matter into something passive, sculpted by other forces: which are either the human hand or the intervening God. This third tradition suggests that matter itself can, at times, be self-organizing, can have agency beyond the uses it it put by God or humans.
There are stronger and weaker forms of this argument, though Bennett does not really draw the line between them: Depending upon how committed one is to vitalism, one can see nature and matter as nearly purposive; or one can see that because the human and natural world have been so interwoven into assemblages that the world is beyond the complete control of humans--that things have effective agency, even if they do not have intentions.
Bennett's book is small and suggestive, like her earlier one. The early parts of the argument are differently structured, though, weighted heavily toward example, rather than the development of ideas. When she does come to these later on, the argument tends to be suggestive rather than clear.
I did not always like the earlier book--though, in that case as this one, I cheered on her overall project--but it had clarity on its side. That is not true here. First, the exact development of her argument is relatively obscure and piece-meal. Second, the language is overly-burdened with philosophical academic-ese. It is no surprise that the same thinkers appear in both books: Spinoza, Leibniz, Kafka, Deleuze. But her portrayal of their thinking is not as lucid, which serves to obscure her argument.
In the end, she seems to side on a relatively strong version of active matter, one which admits some kind of vital force in living things that allows for self-repair and self-organization. She reminds us of Bergson and tries to recuperate Driesch and Lamarck. But she resists the idea that their is teleology inherent in this idea: she wants Bergson's open-ended process, with matter groping somewhat blindly into the future; she wants Spinoza's monism, too, with all stuff ultimately made of the same material and so connected even as it is differentiated.
This leads to her ultimate point, which is that environmentalism is too limited, dependent upon the idea that humans are separate from nature, and thus need to protect nature. Rather, she is saying, the human and the natural are so interwoven that it is a fool's errand to try to separate them. Humans are not themselves selves--we are, too, radical assemblages.
Bennett invokes Foucault at a number of moments in the book. What I find interesting is that Foucault elucidated the coming into being of the notion of the human as a coherent unit--this was part of the birth of modern discourse. And here we are seeing the idea of the human start to dissolve. It's not the trans-humanism of the technology fetishists (sorry, John Burdett) with the human animal being overtaken by computers, but rather the growing idea that humans aren't a useful unit of analysis.
This was, I think, part of the lesson of Ed Yong's "I Contain Multitudes." It's there in "Waking, Dreaming, Being." All of these books are pushing toward the idea that humans are not unique--are not even human. It's a fascinating idea. I just wish it was better presented here.
August 6, 2021
This book is alright. I wasn't totally convinced by some of the arguments (for example, the idea of a 'life of metal' explored in chapter four was pretty shaky and weak), but I agree with the overall thrust of the book: the idea that matter and material are not simply inert but have a kind of relational energetics to them, a capacity to act and be efficacious in social and political life.
Even still, I felt like there was some disjuncture between the examples and the argument. If the argument is that we need to become 'more attuned' to the vibrancy and livelihood of 'things,' to their role in the socius, then why spend so much time on the nitty gritty of physico-chemical matter? As someone who comes out of a Marxist tradition, I was hoping for more of an exploration of how materiality, in both its raw form (i.e. resources) and its cultured forms (i.e. technology, media, etc.), stands as an essential basis for political life. Instead, there is a lot of talk about being 'struck' by the vibrancy of material things. Look, I'm all for preserving a sense of wonder and enchantment, but the opening example of Bennett having an 'encounter' with some trash on the sidewalk just felt politically flaccid to me, and much of the book repeats this same kind of vibey, kumbaya, "we just need to see ourselves as part of a grander whole" kind of thing. If thats all you're looking for, this is great place to start, but if you want something with a little more political bite, this may be a bit lacking.
Of course, it's not as if the whole book resigns itself to this tree-hugging mentality. I thought the discussion of 'distributed agency' in chapter 2 was a great articulation of something I've been thinking about for a while. What's interesting about this idea is the way it thinks of materiality as a horizon of action, a kind of infrastructural basis for freedom and politics. It's a great idea, but it doesn't really get developed in depth. Nor is it taken to its logical conclusion, for the book ends with a call to be more conscious and aware of the vibrancy of matter rather than a call for actual experimental encounter and invention with such matter. In short, Bennett doesn't really escape the discursivity that wants to move beyond because ultimately she just wants us to change our conceptions of matter, the way we think about it. How are we to know that such a change in thinking is necessarily going to lead to a change in action? Isn't the assumption that change-of-ideas leads to change-of-behavior already undermining the efficacy of the material substrate of this action?
Overall not a bad book. Bennett is a good writer, and she does her due diligence as a scholar. But I can't help but feel like the arguments in favor of active materiality would have been more compelling if she focused more on the interplay between material conditions and human freedom and less on matter as wondrous and enchanted.
Even still, I felt like there was some disjuncture between the examples and the argument. If the argument is that we need to become 'more attuned' to the vibrancy and livelihood of 'things,' to their role in the socius, then why spend so much time on the nitty gritty of physico-chemical matter? As someone who comes out of a Marxist tradition, I was hoping for more of an exploration of how materiality, in both its raw form (i.e. resources) and its cultured forms (i.e. technology, media, etc.), stands as an essential basis for political life. Instead, there is a lot of talk about being 'struck' by the vibrancy of material things. Look, I'm all for preserving a sense of wonder and enchantment, but the opening example of Bennett having an 'encounter' with some trash on the sidewalk just felt politically flaccid to me, and much of the book repeats this same kind of vibey, kumbaya, "we just need to see ourselves as part of a grander whole" kind of thing. If thats all you're looking for, this is great place to start, but if you want something with a little more political bite, this may be a bit lacking.
Of course, it's not as if the whole book resigns itself to this tree-hugging mentality. I thought the discussion of 'distributed agency' in chapter 2 was a great articulation of something I've been thinking about for a while. What's interesting about this idea is the way it thinks of materiality as a horizon of action, a kind of infrastructural basis for freedom and politics. It's a great idea, but it doesn't really get developed in depth. Nor is it taken to its logical conclusion, for the book ends with a call to be more conscious and aware of the vibrancy of matter rather than a call for actual experimental encounter and invention with such matter. In short, Bennett doesn't really escape the discursivity that wants to move beyond because ultimately she just wants us to change our conceptions of matter, the way we think about it. How are we to know that such a change in thinking is necessarily going to lead to a change in action? Isn't the assumption that change-of-ideas leads to change-of-behavior already undermining the efficacy of the material substrate of this action?
Overall not a bad book. Bennett is a good writer, and she does her due diligence as a scholar. But I can't help but feel like the arguments in favor of active materiality would have been more compelling if she focused more on the interplay between material conditions and human freedom and less on matter as wondrous and enchanted.
September 27, 2022
i do respect the goal of it and obviously it's important to consider nonhuman things in issues of politics and rights and ethics blablabla
but the recent overemphasis in scholarship on the fact that matter matters is just kinda like...duh!! did all of yall nerds have your noses so far in books you became utterly disconnected with materials and matter and had to read a book to find out that matter vibrates? LITERALLY go touch grass and you will very quickly come to understand this, firsthand, without bennett's help. do you really need a book that starts with her description of some trash she saw on the street as if it's this major revelation and the first time in her life she's fully noticed trash that way and thus her eyes are opened and she's now enlightened? how have you made it this far into life and grad school that you haven't spent time picking around the ground for cool bits of trash/cool rocks and sticks etc and don't understand the political and frankly spiritual implications of that?
i think this book instigated a good deal of the turn toward the very obvious affirmation of things. things are obviously incredibly powerful! i am typing on a thing right now! it low-key rules me! so i am just not fully convinced that it's such a revelatory point to make that nonhuman things have agency. literally, duh!! but in any case, i conclude that its redeeming factor is that i reckon it has successfully convinced a few theory nerds to go outside and literally touch grass
but the recent overemphasis in scholarship on the fact that matter matters is just kinda like...duh!! did all of yall nerds have your noses so far in books you became utterly disconnected with materials and matter and had to read a book to find out that matter vibrates? LITERALLY go touch grass and you will very quickly come to understand this, firsthand, without bennett's help. do you really need a book that starts with her description of some trash she saw on the street as if it's this major revelation and the first time in her life she's fully noticed trash that way and thus her eyes are opened and she's now enlightened? how have you made it this far into life and grad school that you haven't spent time picking around the ground for cool bits of trash/cool rocks and sticks etc and don't understand the political and frankly spiritual implications of that?
i think this book instigated a good deal of the turn toward the very obvious affirmation of things. things are obviously incredibly powerful! i am typing on a thing right now! it low-key rules me! so i am just not fully convinced that it's such a revelatory point to make that nonhuman things have agency. literally, duh!! but in any case, i conclude that its redeeming factor is that i reckon it has successfully convinced a few theory nerds to go outside and literally touch grass
August 8, 2019
Largely unoriginal scholarship and ideas, purely an attempt to reconcile/articulate object oriented ontology and animistic metaphysics through an entirely Western philosophical tradition, i.e. dumb and useless as hell? Most of this just cites Deleuze and Guattari while extending the """unbelievable""" notion that living agents, aka not-human matter, are capable of something like intent and affect...
I NEVER want to meet anyone stuffy and close-minded enough to require this much theoretical justification to accept, let alone entertain that "things" have more agency than has been traditionally thought in Western philosophy. I imagine this is only revalatory to contemporary academics who stopped reading 35 years ago when they received their PhD.
Also: Bennett must have deliberately strained to avoid non-western tradition and/or poc theorists. Maybe articulating all this almost exclusively through a mesh of citations and fragmentary quotes by D&G, Foucault and a couple other Westerners is the real feat accomplished in Vibrant Matter.
I NEVER want to meet anyone stuffy and close-minded enough to require this much theoretical justification to accept, let alone entertain that "things" have more agency than has been traditionally thought in Western philosophy. I imagine this is only revalatory to contemporary academics who stopped reading 35 years ago when they received their PhD.
Also: Bennett must have deliberately strained to avoid non-western tradition and/or poc theorists. Maybe articulating all this almost exclusively through a mesh of citations and fragmentary quotes by D&G, Foucault and a couple other Westerners is the real feat accomplished in Vibrant Matter.
April 5, 2019
A fascinating and insightful book on how materialities constantly infect and affect human society and vice versa. Bennett convincingly argues how things have agencies and how the dividing lines between human-nonhuman and nature-culture are not tenable.
April 24, 2021
Jane Bennett schafft es wie keine andere, die Vorstellungen eines Neuen Materialismus anschaubar und relativ leicht verständlich darzulegen. Ich empfehle dieses Buch an alle, die sich mit dem Konstrukt der Handlungsmacht von Nicht-Menschlichem beschäftigen wollen.
June 4, 2021
Touched on a lot (lively matter, assemblages, political ecology, ethics, etc.) but didn’t seem particularly substantial. Like a sampler or something.
I got more out of similar ideas from Mel Y. Chen’s Animacies or Alexis Shotwell’s Against Purity, or even Butler’s more recent works on precarity.
I got more out of similar ideas from Mel Y. Chen’s Animacies or Alexis Shotwell’s Against Purity, or even Butler’s more recent works on precarity.
June 18, 2011
Great points and an interesting think. Actor network theory is everything to do with everything we study today. I just wish she'd write in a more approachable way.
May 10, 2013
Great feminist take on material culture and new media studies. Lots of Deleuze & Guittari, Spinoza, and her personal fave, Thoreau.
December 15, 2019
One of the most inaccessible books I’ve ever attempted to read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 99 reviews