speculations iv

Upload: ziggy00zaggy

Post on 26-Feb-2018

218 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 7/25/2019 Speculations IV

    1/123

    speculations

    Speculatio

    nsIV

  • 7/25/2019 Speculations IV

    2/123

    Speculations IV

  • 7/25/2019 Speculations IV

    3/123

    nbsarc2013

    [email protected]

    EMichael AusinPaul J. EnnisFabio GironiThomas GokeyRober Jackson

    -10 0615797865-13 978-0615797861

    2327-803

    Designed by Thomas Gokey

    v 1.0

    puncum books brooklyn, ny

    mailto:[email protected]://www.speculationsjournal.org/http://www.speculationsjournal.org/mailto:[email protected]
  • 7/25/2019 Speculations IV

    4/123

    REFLECTIONS PROPOSALS

    L B On No Setling he Issue of Realism

    L R. B Poliics and Speculaive Realism

    G H The Curren Sae of Speculaive Realism

    E A. J Weird Reading

    A K A Dangerous Supplemen Speulaive Realism, Aademi Blogging, and

    he Fuue o Philosophy

    C N Speculaive Realism Ineim Repo wih Jus a Few Caveas

    J R The Fuure of an Illusion

    D S

    Realism and Represenaion On he Onologial un

    J A. B The World is an Egg Realism, Mahemais, and he Tesholds o

    Diffeene

    M DL Onological Commimens

    M G The Meaning of Exisence and he Coningency of Sense

    84 P G Pos-Deconsrucive Realism Is Abou ime

    A J Poins of Forced Freedom Eleven (Moe) Teses on Maeialism

    P M. L Realism and he Infinie

    J M Ho o Behave Like a Non-Philosopher O, Speulaive Vesus Revisionar Meaphysis

    D T

    The Horror of Darkness owad an Unhuman Phenomenology

    5 Ediorial Inroducion

  • 7/25/2019 Speculations IV

    5/123

  • 7/25/2019 Speculations IV

    6/123

    EDITORIALINTRODUCTION

    Wih his special issue of Speulaionse aned ochallenge he conesed erm speculaive realism,offering scholars who have some involvemen wihi a space o voice heir opinions of he neork ofideas commonly associaed ih he name.

    Whils undoubedly born under speculaive

    realis auspices, Speulaionshas never ried o behe gospel of a dogmaic speculaive realis church,bu raher insead o culivae he bes heoreicallines sprouing from he resurgence, in he lasfew years, of hose speculaive and realis concernsatemping o break free from some of he mossringen consrains of criique. Sociologis RandallCollins observed ha, unlike oher fields of inel-lecual inquiry, [p]hilosophy has he peculiariyof periodically shiing is own grounds, bu alwaysin he direcion of claiming or a leas seeking hesandpoin of greaes generaliy and imporance.1If his is he case, o deny ha a shi of grounds hasindeed become manifes in hese early decades ofhe weny-firs cenury would be, a bes, a sign of asevere lack of philosophical sensiiviy. On he oherhand, heher or no his shi has been oardsgreaer imporance (and in respec o wha?) is noonly a legiimae bu a necessary quesion o ask.

    For hose ineresed in answering i, ha of wheherspeculaive realism migh be he besname for hisnew cluser of concerns is, we believe, an alogehermoo conundrum. Iniially associaed ih a lisof proper names, he speculaive realis neorkof inellecual influences has no spread idelyhroughou various academic environmens (oenreaching beyond philosophy), preserving an iden-

    iy via is associaion ih realis and pos-criicalambiions, and eliciing reacions ranging fromoverly-enhusiasic adopion o sneering dismissal.While he erm should be used ih cauion sincecerain secarian appropriaions of i remain adanger o be avoided (as is always he case wih newinellecual currens promising a break ih hepas), criics canno jus ish speculaive realismou of exisence.

    Having o deal wih i, and in order o endow i wihsomeheurisic value, an argumen in favour of heerm speculaive realism could perhaps be offered.If here is virue in i, i lies in he way in which he

    o ords should be inerpreed as keeping eachoher in check, muually consraining heir respeciveambiions: we need grounded realis commimens(of boh episemological and onological kinds) o1Randall Collins,Te Soiology o Philosophies: A GlobalTeor o Inelleual Change (Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversiy Press, 1998), 19.

    keep speculaive zeal under conrol, and e needa speculaive ill o avoid a realism amouning olitle more han an encyclopaedic caalogue of heexisen. Such a minimal inerpreive key, i seems,can leave enough semanic riggle room o allofor differen sances o be included.

    Whaever he inrinsic value in he name, he con-ribuors o his volume have all engaged, more orless direcly, wih a criical analysis of he vices and

    virues of speculaive realism: from he exen ohich is adversarial sance oards previous phil-osophical sances is jusified o wheher i succeeds(or fails) o address saisfacorily he concerns haosensibly moivae i, hrough o an assessmen ofhe mehods of disseminaion of is core ideas. Theconribuions are divided in o secions, iled

    Reflecions and Proposals, describing, wih someineviable overlap, o kinds of approach o hequesion of speculaive realism: one geared owardsis rerospecive and is criical appraisal and heoher concerned ih he posiive proposiion ofalernaive or parallel approaches o i. We believeha he final resul, in is heerogeneiy, ill be ofbeter service o he philosophical communiy hana dubiously univocal descripive recapiulaion of

    speculaive realis enes.While proud of he form ha his special issue

    has aken, here is one aspec e regre: as all oooen is he case for publicaions in our field (andunforunaely many ohers), a quick glance a helis of conribuors ill reveal a severe gender im-

    balance. In he ineress of full disclosure (hereis no poin in being apologeically evasive on hisissue, especially hen commendable iniiaiveslike he Gendered Conference Campaign are verypublicly raising he awareness of he philosophical

    communiy), we have ried our bes o minimise hisimbalance, alhough ih poor resuls. Given heconsrains we posed on he eligibiliy of inviees (ofeiher gender) we did our bes o idenify qualifiedfemale scholars ih direc links o speculaiverealis neworks. Unforunaely, of en such femalescholars ho received our inviaion all bu onehad ofor various reasonsdecline.

    We would like o hank all he conribuors for heirparicipaion in his projec: heher or no one

    believes in somehing like philosophical progress,i can only be hrough he inellecual exchange hapapers such as heirs ill doublessly elici ha a

    new sep owards he clarificaion of conemporaryphilosophical projecs can be aken. We ouldndream of presening his volume as he las ordon he issue of speculaive realism, bu e ouldlike o hope ha i migh become somehing of amilesone along he ay.

  • 7/25/2019 Speculations IV

    7/123

  • 7/25/2019 Speculations IV

    8/123

    Reflections

  • 7/25/2019 Speculations IV

    9/123

  • 7/25/2019 Speculations IV

    10/123

    L B

    LEEBRAVERONNOTSETTLINGTHEISSUEOFREALISM

    Philosophy is a means of escape. Our presencein his orld is an acciden, in boh senses of heword, an unforunae fae ha has befallen us as wehave fallen ino i. This is a orld of shados andreflecions, of illusions and elisions, of ase and

    deah. I is a realiy in decay ha has, paradoxically,alays been in decay, a ruins ha as never hole.We are in his orld, bu e do no belong here.

    We yearn for a realiy ha is real, and a ruh hais rue. Since hese are no o be found among hederius of everyday life, e mus seek i in a orld

    beyond or behind his one, a realm ha ruly exissbecause i has no hiff of non-exisence abou

    ino desrucion, no imperfecions, no suffering,no deah. Our duy in his life is o escape his life,o ihdra physically, emoionally, inellecually,spiriually from hese shados, o slip he bondsha hold uso escape. And philosophy is hashos us our goal and guides us o i.

    We are born ino a paricular place, a paricularculure, body, appeies, bu hese are no ho ereally are. Like King Arhur, e are of royal bloodhidden in a commoners house, or like Harry Potere are really a izard in muggles clohing. In phi-losophy, our rue self is reason. When e hink, eurn away from bodily pleasures and disracions opure inellecual conemplaion, from he coningeno he essenial, from he shadows of he cave o herealiy waiing ouside. Mediaing on hese matersles us join ourselves o ha realm, aligning us wihrealiy insead of illusion, ruh insead of opinion.In doing so, e become like hem and, jus a litle

    bi, e become hem.This was, wih a few noable excepions, he dom-

    inan concepion of philosophy, reason, and realiyfor o millennia. This is he sory ha cenuriesof meaphysicians ere eaned on. Even he ordmeaphysics, regardless of is paricular origin, cap-ures he idea: he discipline ha sudies he realiyha is beyond or meahis changing, empirical

    physis. No I don an o lay he blame a he feeof any one individual, bu it is all Platos fault. Iwas Plao who wroe wha is surely he greaes soryever old, which has survived many ransformaionsand reincarnaions ih he main feaures inac.

    We can see is oulines in much of Chrisian phi-losophy, for which we are children of God who havefallen ino a world of sin and corrupion. I survivesin Descares laying of he foundaions of scienceon a Plaonic disrus of he senses and he vague

    informaion hey give. Mehodological doub is hisay ou of he cave by revealing he mahemaicalproperies ha are rue because hey do no varyamong perceivers or across ime. The lesson ofhese mea-physicians is ha e mus no sele ohe orld e see around us, bu mus ever srive oranscend i, for he sake of our minds and our souls.

    No KanKan is an ineresing figure in hisnarraive, as he is in so many hisories. Kan is he

    Janus-faced philosopher. Equal pars empiricisand raionalis, he boh brings he early modernperiod o a close and opens up he space for nine-eenh-cenury hough, which largely consiss of aseries of foonoes o Kan. He is he las of he greaconinenal realiss and a he same ime he firs inhe line of German idealiss, a commited deerminishile simulaneously a passionae liberarian. Hehas been praised as he grea philosophical hope forfinally defeaing skepicism, and denounced as heulimae skepic. I is small wonder ha he is maserof he aninomy, he philosophical expression offinding oneself pulled inexorably in conradicorydirecions. In Yogi Berras ords, henever Kancame o a fork in he road, he ook i.

    Wih regard o our opic, Kan boh embracesand rejecs Plaos sory. He argues ha humans areinescapably dran o ranscenden invesigaions,hile orking o persuade us in, les be hones, aimes excruciaing deail o conen ourselves wihimmanen concerns.1He secures he necessary anduniversal knowledge of one realm while forbiddingall knoledge of he oher. Kan giveh, and Kanakeh aay and, ha is mos impressive, ih hesame gesure. He preserves he idea of a realiyha in principle ranscends our abiliy o kno iand ha represens realiy as i is in-iself, hile a

    he same ime elling us ha only he orld as eexperience i is of any concern o us, a leas as faras science goes. He grans us he physics o knohe phenomena we can know, he faih o no knowhe noumena we canno, and he Ciiqueo ell hedifference.

    This srange, beauiful, endlessly fascinaingsysemdeeply paradoxical and ye meiculouslysrucuredlaid he ground for much of he phi-losophy ha followed. Meaphysics had previouslyenjoyed a fairly setled grounde had a basiagreemen on he independence of realiy and hedefiniion of knoledge as he accurae capuring

    1 Human Reason has his peculiar fae ha in one species of isknoledge i is burdened by quesions hich, as prescribed byhe very naure of reason iself, i no able o ignore, bu which, asranscending all is powers, i is also no able o answer: ImmanuelKan,Ciique o Pue Reason,rans. Norman Kemp Smih (NeYork: S. Marins, 1965), . vii.

  • 7/25/2019 Speculations IV

    11/123

    S IV

    of i, and e jus disagreed on he deails. Wha ishe precise naure of realiy in iself? Wha is he

    bes mehod for capuring i and ho far may ehope o succeed? These are he kind of quesionsha mark wha Kuhn called normal science, wherehe basic ideas are agreed upon and debaes akeplace on he basis of commensurable erms. Kanchanged almos everyhing, shaking up ha hadlong been setled, redefining some very basic noions.

    If e are realiss and hold ha he orld is ouhere, independen of us, and ha knowledge meansgrasping i as i is in iself, hen i seems ha opossibiliies are open: eiher e can achieve hisknoledge or e can. The poin of radiionalpre-Criical episemology is o each us how o pushour minds beyond heir naural limiaions so hahey can limn realiy iself. As Leibniz promised,if e can leave behind he resricions of he bodyand senses, e can come o hink ih Gods head,a leas o some degree. Skepics, of course, ake heoher opion, arguing ha we can never surpass ourall-oo-human ays of knoing. We should giveup dreams of ranscendence and make peace ihcommon lifes beer, billiards, and backgammon.

    Bu Kan opened up a hird pah: he orld ofphenomena is he one we live in, he only world wellever kno in his life, so e should sop reaing ias second bes. We can subsiue inersubjeciveagreemen among ourselves for agreemen ihrealiy in iself. This ould be a ne kind of ruh,one ha is a lesser ruh, perhaps, bu a ruh none-heless, he only kind fi for creaures like us. Thereare cerainly pragmaic reasons for making hechangeif we have no way of ever gaining access ohe real world and i canno direcly impac us and,conversely, if knowledge of he phenomenal world

    allos us o conrol i reliably, hen eve made agood rade, even if, judged by absolue sandards,e are setling for second bes.

    Bu is jus his sense of setling ha I hink haunshe idealiss. Noumena represen he vesigial re-mains of radiional meaphysics in Kans sysem,like an onological appendix, and i hreaens oburs. I is he separaion beeen mind and orldha makes i necessary o connec he o, and ahe same ime makes ha connecion permanenlyinsecure. As Hegel ries, he divorce beeenhough and hing is mainly he work of he CriicalPhilosophy, and runs couner o he convicion of all

    previous ages, ha heir agreemen was a mater ofcourse. The anihesis beween hem is he hinge onwhich modern philosophy urns.2Earlier hinkershad cerainly disinguished beeen subjec and2 G.W.F. Hegel,Hegels Siene o Logi, rans. A.V. Miller(Amhers: Humaniy Books, 1969), 35/22r.

    objec, bu hey firmly believed in heir assuredcompaibiliy, assuming a pre-esablished harmony

    beeen he ays e hink and he ays he orldorks hich guaranees ha e can kno i.

    Kans posiion is revoluionary in ha he accepshe divorce beeen hinker and hing bu rejecshe dogmaic ceriude ha he wo necessarily runin parallel, compaible ays. In fac, e kno hahe opposie is rue, ha he ays e hink are no

    he ays he orld iself is. We can never capurerealiy as i ruly is because is alays we ho arerying o capure i. The very atemp o faihfullyrepresen he orld inroduces inerference, andhis disorion ges replicaed in all our atempso ge a he world, since all of hese atemps bringalong ourselves as knowers. This applies no jus opercepion, in he inuiions inroducion of imeand space ino experience, bu o concepion as well.

    Jus o hink ha a noumenal world exiss seems oemploy some of he very conceps ha Kan resricso phenomena. If hese forms srucure our mindsall he way down, hen hey also go all he way downin he world ha we perceive and hink abou, evenin jus hinking ha i exiss. As Hegel argues, o sayha a world in-iself is ou here is always implicilysaying ha a orld in-iself exisso-us; even isin-iselfness is somehing ere posiing. Wihoua ruly exernal conras, he feaures e imposeon he world simply become he worlds feaures or,as he pus i, logic is meaphysics. We can never geou of he orld as e see i because e can neverge around our ays of seeing i.

    If a noumenal realiy is somehing we can in prin-ciple never have access o, no even jus o hink i,hen he meaning of phenomena changes. Wihouhe conras of an in-iself, qualifying experience as

    for-us loses he meaning i had hen i served as aconrasing erm, as Niezsche famously concludes:

    he rue orlde have abolished. Wha orldhas remained? The apparen one perhaps? Bu no!Wih he ue wold we have also abolished he appaenone.3On he radiional meaphysical scheme, emus setle for doxaandphysis, second-rae ruhand realiy, because has all e can ge. Bu if eleave behind he concepual frameork ha madeha conras meaningful, hen e no longer haveo make apologies for he orld ere in conacih and he vies e cobble ogeher. This idea isha I called Coninenal Ani-Realism in my firs

    book,A Ting o Tis Woldi akes he mea ouof meaphysics.

    3 Friedrich Niezsche, Te Poable Niezshe, ed. and rans.Waler Kaufmann (Ne York: Penguin Books, 1954), 486,ialics in original.

  • 7/25/2019 Speculations IV

    12/123

    L B

    I see his Coninenal Ani-Realism reaching iszenih ih Heidegger. He undersands being omean he presenaion of somehing o us, wih boh

    presenaion and somehing undersood verybroadly. There are many differen kinds of hings

    and hey can presen hemselves o us in manydifferen ways or, o pu i anoher way, being is saidin many ways. Neverheless, hings mus come inohe clearing for us o discuss hem and assign hem

    any kind of meaning a all, including jus he facha hey are.4This undermines Kans disincionbeeen appearance and realiy:

    I is phenomenologically absurd o speak of hephenomenon as if i ere somehing behind hichhere ould be somehing else of hich i ould bea phenomenon.One canno ask for somehing

    behind he phenomenon a all, since ha he phe-nomenon gives is precisely ha somehing in iself.5

    Phenomena are ha are; he ay e experiencehe orld is he ay i is. This is hy Heideggeridenifies phenomenology, he sudy of our expe-rience of he orld, ih onology, he sudy of heorld as i is, indeed, e can go ahead and say asi is in-iself.6The noion of a realiy beyond hisone has been rejeced, so is effec of demoing ourexperience o mere appearance has been disarmed.Merleau-Pony makes he poin nicely when he says,

    e mus no, herefore, onder heher e reallyperceive a orld, e mus insead say: he orld isha e perceive.7

    Philosophy can no be used no for escape bufor a very differen purpose, somehing like a home-coming. Philosophy can help us see he orld hawe acually live in, as phenomenology does, and see

    ha his isour world, our place. The way Hegel ells4 A being can be uncoveredonly if he being of hisbeing is already disclosedonly if I already undersand i.Only hen can I ask wheher i is acual or no and embarkon some procedure o esablish he acualiy of he being:Marin Heidegger, Te Basi Poblems o Phenomenology,rans. Alber Hofsader (Bloomingon: Indiana UniversiyPress, 1982), 72.5 Marin Heidegger, Hisor o he Conep o ime, rans.Theodore Kisiel (Bloomingon: Indiana Universiy Press,1985), 86. See also: appearance as appearance or objecdoes no need a all sill o oespondo somehing acual,because appearance iself ishe acual: Heidegger,Phenom-enologial Inepeaion o Kans Ciique o Pue Reason,

    rans. Parvis Emad and Thomas Kalary (Bloomingon:Indiana Universiy Press. 1997), 69.6 There is no onology alongsidea phenomenology. Raher,sienifi onology is nohing bu phenomenology: Heidegger,Te Basi Poblems o Phenomenology, 72.7 Maurice Merleau-Pony,Phenomenology o Peepion, rans.Colin Smih (Ne York: Rouledge, 2002), xviii.

    i, coming o see ha his orld is our home is hepoin of all of hisory, as e gradually move ino iin sages. We can sop our longingfor somehingbeyond when we see our belongingo his place. Weare no seling oa second bes ruh and realiy,

    bu raher seling inoour one rue home, setlingdon as e as a species gro up and learn o giveup childish dreams of ranscenden realms anddisguised kings of faraay lands.

    The ques for knowledge has hree opions: findinga ay o expand our mind o reach he orld ouhere, giving up ha atemp as fuile, or shrinkinghe orld o ha is ihin our reach. Pre-CriicalMeaphysics atemped he firs, skepicism hesecond, and Coninenal Ani-Realism pursuedhe las opion.

    While he Ani-Realis soluion has been quiepopular over he las couple of cenuries, recenlysirrings of disconen have begun o arise. Themoivaion behind he Ani-Realis redefiniion ofrealiy was o ge rid of he idea ha we were setlingfor second bes. Bu, a number of recen meaphysi-cians have argued, isn hissoluion isela form ofsetling? Reducing realiy o ha e are or can bein conac wih seems o sell knowledge and realiyshor. Ani-Realiss are pasing he arge ono heend of heir rifles and congraulaing hemselveson hiting bulls-eyes.

    These recen meaphysicians, loosely gaheredunder he name Speculaive Realism, yearn forwha Quenin Meillassoux calls hegea oudoos,he absolueouside of pre-criical hinkers.8An-i-Realism, hey believe, has urned ou o be litlemore han a sophisicaed form of idealism, and i ishigh ime for some rock-kicking. The Ani-Realissassured us ha he exchange of he in-iself-in-iself

    for he in-iself-for-us would cos us nohing, bu iurns ou ha in he rade we have los wha was mosimporan. Aer all, wha does i profi a philosopherif he gains knowledge bu loses he whole world? Inhe course of he las o cenuries of philosophy,hese hinkers believe, we have indeed los he world,and i is a orld mos badly los.

    The Speculaive Realiss believe ha i is An-i-Realism ha represens he childish vie, for iamouns o a kind of cosmic narcissism where beingexiss only in correlaion wih us or, in Heideggerserms, ha being can only be in our clearing. Thismakes he orld less our home han our nursery

    room here everyhing is organized around us.Kans Copernican Revoluion urns ou o be aPolemaic Reversion.

    8 Quenin Meillassoux,Afe Finiude: An Essay on heNeessit o Coningenc, rans. Ray Brassier (Ne York:Coninuum, 2008), 7.

  • 7/25/2019 Speculations IV

    13/123

    S IV

    This marks a differen sor of confinemen in adifferen kind of cave since we can never ge ousideour ways of hinking. On Kans sysem, we can findou all sors of informaion abou paricular facs inhe world, bu we know in advance ha everyhing wecan ever encouner will obey he laws of Euclideangeomery and Newonian physics. This is simply heflip side of he necessiy and universaliy of mahand science. The Ani-Realiss have urned us ino

    concepual solipsiss ho only find a orld fitedo our pre-exising undersanding of i.We ge ouside his concepual shell by hinking

    abou wha hings are like enirely independen ofour undersanding and experience of hem. TheSpeculaive Realiss agree ih he Pre-CriicalRealiss ha here is more o heaven and earh hanis dream of in he Ani-Realiss philosophy, buhey criicize hose Pre-Criical hinkers for nobeing Realis enough, for surrepiiously imporinghuman-sized conceps and an anhropocenricviewpoin ino wha hey hough of as a genuinelyindependen realiy.

    Moreover, he Pre-Criical Realiss misakenlyhough ha e can only find genuine realiy else-where, in a ranscenden realm. Bu he SpeculaiveRealiss argue ha e don have o look o some

    beyond o find ha exceeds our grasp; everhinghas an inner essence e are no privy o. For heSpeculaive Realiss, sudying his orld is noseling o seond bes, bu neiher should e seleinoa compleely domesicaed orld. Raher, eshould eselein more ineresing places, away fromhe anhropocenric ciy, o sudy he ineracionsha ake place among beings far aay from ourprying eyes.

    I find his line of hough inriguing and I ake heir

    arning abou he danger of concepual solipsism,bu Im sill oo much of an Ani-Realis o embraceSpeculaive Realism whole-hearedly. I seems righo me ha e alays bring our houghs o anyconsideraion of he world as i is independenly ofus, which auomaically compromises any absolueindependence. Bu he Speculaive Realiss are righo poin ou ha he Ani-Realiss may have exagger-aed he comprehensiveness of our pre-forming ofexperience. If experience were so fully pre-digesed

    by he ays our minds process informaion, ecould never experience surprise. Specific, onicsurprises, sure, bu no radical surprises ha violae

    and ransform our very noions of ha is.Laely, Ive become ineresed in hese momens ofrevoluionary experience, when our whole sense ofwha he world is like ges urned inside ou and weare forced o form enirely new conceps o process

    ha is happening. These experiences overhelmand shor-circui our normal undersanding ofhings, calling for ne ays or someimes per-peually escaping hem. According o ha I amcalling Transgressive Realism (for hose couninga home, his is he fourh srain of realism), heseare he paradigmaic poins of conac ih a re-aliy unformed by human conceps, hen a rue

    beyond ouches us, sending shivers hrough our

    concepual schemes, shaking us ou of any com-placen feeling-a-home. These momens are haallo us o escape he sulifying enclosure ihinour on ays of hinking ha he Ani-Realiss seup, here everyhing akes place on he basis ofranscendenal anicipaion. Hoever, agains heSpeculaive Realiss, I sill hink ha realiy has omake some kind of conac wih us for us o be ableo alk abou i. I don see how discussion of he waysha inanimae objecs experience or encounereach oher in he dark aer eve all gone o bedcould ever be more han mere speculaion. Is jusha his conac doesn alays fi nealy ino ourconceps, he ay he Ani-Realiss had i.9

    If he Pre-Criical Realiss ell us no o setle forhe adry shabby orld e find ourselves in, andhe Ani-Realiss ell us o setle ino his orld asour home, and he Speculaive Realiss urge us oresetle elsewhere, Transgressive Realism emphasiz-es he ay realiy unsetles us. We can never setledown wih a single way of undersanding he world

    because i can alays unexpecedly breach hese.Such experiences do no ge squeezed ino ourmenal srucures bu insead violae hem, crack-ing and reshaping our caegories. This violaion ishe sign of heir exernaliy since everyhing econceive remains he offspring of our conceps and

    so reains a family resemblance ih hem. Raherhan he wholly independen noumenal realm haHegel righly rejecs, hese aeexperiences ha ehave bu hich shater our ays of undersandingexperience, exceeding our comprehension bu noescaping our aareness.

    Transgressive Realism, I believe, gives us a realiyha ranscends our ways of hinking, bu no all ac-cess o i, offering a middle pah ha les us have ourineffable cake and parially eff i oo. These aporeicexperiences ener our aareness, no hrough hepahways prepared by our minds bu in spie of hem,ransgressing our anicipaory processes. Someimes

    hese srange ideas ransform our ay of hinking,reshaping our caegories around heir non-Euclideanshapes, bu some permanenly escape atemps o

    9 See Lee Braver, A Brief Hisory of Coninenal Realism,Coninenal Philosophy Review45:2 (2012): 261-289.

  • 7/25/2019 Speculations IV

    14/123

    L B

    classify hem. These are he wild houghs ha buckall domesicaion, escaping sable caegories; heseare he ideas prized by many coninenal hinkersas he oher o our normal ways of hinking, whichhelps explain wha may look like willful obfuscaionand a casual rejecion of basic raional principles.Many of hese figures do culivae he irraional in asense, bu for eminenly sensible reasons, once hefull concepual conex has been laid ou.

    We can find srains of his noion in early Heidegger,here he feeling of uncanniness or no-a-home-ness reminds us ha our being is forever a issue.Alhough he poin of he book is o find he mean-ing of being, here is a sense in which being cannohave a meaning, ha he book as a hole bringsDasein before he ha-i-is of is here, hich, assuch, sares i in he face ih he inexorabiliy ofan enigma.10Our being-here, he fac ha here isa here for being o be in, is incomprehensible, andinexoablyso. The idea also appears in his laer work,in ideas like earh, hich appears openly clearedas iself only when i is perceived and preserved asha hich is essenially undisclosable. Earh husshaters every atemp o penerae i.11

    Perhaps he grea philosopher of TransgressiveRealism, hough, is Levinas, ho sars from a com-mimen o phenomenologye mus deal ihbeings as we experience hemand follows his ouunil he finds experiences ha can be experienced,houghs ha hink more han hey can hold: heface of he oher or God or he infinie. Like Heide-ggers earh, such an idea consiss in grasping heungraspable hile neverheless guaraneeing issaus as ungraspable.12While i surpasses our waysof comprehending i, i sill makes conac; indeed,Levinas someimes seems o hink ha i is only

    such experiences ha ruly ouch us.He criicizes mos philosophers as close ideal-

    iss because hey insis ha he orld be knoable,hich means ha i mus conform o our reason.This happens overly in Kans idea ha we inroducehe order we find in he world, bu Levinas sees he

    10 Marin Heidegger, Being and ime,rans. John Macquarrieand Edard Robinson (San Francisco: HarperSanFran-cisco, 1962), 175. In iself i is quie incomprehensiblehy eniies are o be unoveed, hy uhandDaseinmus be (271).11 Marin Heidegger,Basi Wiings,ed. David Farrell Krell(San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993), 172.12

    Emmanuel Levinas, Basi Philosophial Wiings,eds.Adriaan T. Peperzak, Simon Crichley, and Rober Ber-nasconi (Bloomingon: Indiana Universiy Press, 1996),19. Wha is essenial here is he ay a meaning ha isbeyond meaning is insered in he meaning ha remainsin an order Ibid., 70.

    same idea working clandesinely in he backgroundof mos hinkers (wih he odd excepion of Descares,who posis an innae idea of God ha we could nohave creaed). For everyone who insiss ha realiybe inelligible hereby reduces i o he scale of ourminds.13On his model of hough, he says, oneonly learns wha one already knowsnohing abso-luely new, nohing oher, nohing srange, nohingranscenden, could eiher affec or ruly enlarge a

    mind.14

    Bu such a fully pre-digesed realiy does nodeserve he name since i represens a mere exen-sion of our selves. As he says of Husserl, he holeorld reduces o merely our houghs of he orld,hus beraying he rue meaning of inenionaliyhich hros us ouside of our minds. The ideaof being does no herefore suffice o susain heclaim of realism, if realism is equivalen o affirmingan aleriy ouside he Same. Only he idea of heinfinie renders realism possible.15True realismis founded on an inassimilable aleriy16ha cannever be absorbed ino our caegories since heseinrinsically reduce he oher o he same.

    For Levinas, as for Kierkegaard, he very essence ofehics is o never relax, assured of ones uprighnessin good conscience.17Being ehical means remainingforever unsetled, never sure if were doing he righhing; in fac, i means knoing ha, whaeveehave donewe know ha we have no done enough.Our responsibiliy ohe oher is inexhausible ashe experience ohe oher overflows and overloadsour ways of undersanding, violaing he concepualscheme we use o domesicae experience, brushingup agains somehing fundamenally oher, givingus a realiy ha lives up o he name.

    Discussing such ideas presens challenges, opu i mildly. We are alking abou, aer all, ha

    hich e canno alk abou. One of he issues Imexploring no is he quesion of heher e canin fac do so ihou compromising heir aleriy,heher e can devise conceps for ha hichescapes concepualiy.

    One conclusion I have reached is ha his is onearea where ar seems beter equipped han philosophy.I is difficul for philosophy o approach a subjecwihou an elaborae concepual apparaus designed13 Raionalism implies ha he conours of being fi inohe human scale and he measures of hough Ibid., 13.14 Ibid., 151. Hegel agrees ih his: Though is alaysin is on sphere: is relaions are ih iself, and i is is

    own Objec: Hegels Logi,rans. William Wallace (Oxford:Clarendon, 1975), 49/28.15 Levinas, Basi Philosophial Wiings, 21.16 Ibid., 75.17 The jus person ho knos himself o be jus is nolonger jus Ibid., 17.

  • 7/25/2019 Speculations IV

    15/123

    S IV

    o capure, lay ou, and analyze i. Ar, on he oherhand, can sugges, i can insinuae, i can indicaeihou filling in he deails ha ould spoil hemysery ha is rying o bring o our atenion, a

    bi like phenomenologys formal indicaion. Oneechnique is o place evens in a mundane conexso he phenomenon in quesion can make conacwih us, hus saisfying he need for access. Then hearis can use oher deails o blur is coninuiy wih

    familiar realiy, never breaking ih i enirely buundermining he subjecs obedience o he rulese ake for graned and assume o be universal.Like Penelope, he aris undoes wih one hand heundersandabiliy she consrucs ih he oher.

    Horror is a genre ha dells in his concepualerriory. Heidegger dras a famous disincion

    beeen fear and anxiey, here fear has a definiesource hich gives us hings o do in order oescape i, hereas anxiey is an indefinie smoh-ering fog ha comes from nohere and nohingo cover everyhing over ih he sickly pallor ofinsignificance. Le us add horror as a hird moodwhich combines elemens of boh. In horror, hereis a definie horrible hing ha is hreaening me

    bu i resiss atemps o undersand i, exceedinglaws of naure ha we had aken o be inviolable. Iisn jus fear of harm befalling me, hough i hasmore of ha han he holly inchoae anxiey; isonological horror of ha his incomprehensiblehing is and ha unimaginable hings i can doo me beyond jus inflicing pain and deah. I canexacly fear i because I canno ge a grip on wha iis hreaening, and his uncerainy makes i all hemore horrifying. I may fear an axe-wielding maniacho is rying o kill me, bu I recoil in horror froman axe-wielding maniac who keeps geting up aer

    Ive pu kniting needles hrough his neck.H.P. Lovecra is a wrier popular among Specula-

    ive Realiss for his view of cosmic indifference: heuniverse, summed up in he Old Gods, is no ou oge usi jus doesn care abou us. We live in a cold,disincly inhuman realiy and one of Lovecrasgrea insighs is ha his cosmic indifference is,in some ays, more horrifying han malevolence.There are elemens of Lovecra ha fi my soryoohe way oherworldly phenomena frequenlyviolae Euclidean space or show colors weve neverseen ha drive he scholarly proagoniss who sudyhem mad, for example.

    Bu my favorie Transgressive Realis auhor (alongwih he Polish science ficion wrier Sanislaw Lemho alays emphasizes he alienness of aliens),is Philip K. Dick. His orks coninually verge oncollapsing under heir on narraive eigh as he

    removes he signposs ha would allow us o orienourselves in his orlds. Dicks books lead us donnarraive Mbius srips. In Ubik, for example, ogroups of characers are each rying o convincehe oher ha heyare he ones ho survived anexplosion hich pu he oher in a hallucinaorycryogenic half-life and, as bes I can ell, heyre bohrigh. Te Man in he High Casleells an alernaehisory here he Germans on World War II, and

    an auhor uses aleaory echniques o wrie a srangealernae hisory in which he Germans los. By heend of he book he characers are unsure hichhisory acually happened and begin o suspecha heyre acually living in a ficional alernaehisory. His maserpiece, VALIS, is abou a scienceficion rier named Phil Dick ho finds he an-nouncemen of he coming of he messiah encodedin a ork of science ficion, hereby encoding hisannouncemen in he science ficion novel VALIS.

    If philosophy begins in wonder, hen where doesi end? Wha isis end? Arisole said ha hile ibegins in ondrous quesioning, i ends ih hebeter sae of ataining answers, like an ich we gerid of wih a good scrach or a childhood disease ha,once goten over, never reurns.18Ho depressing!Why can a good quesion coninue being quesion-able or, in a more lieral ranslaion of he German,

    quesion-worhy? As Heidegger pus i, philosophicalquesions are in principle never setled as if someday one could se hem aside.19Couldn e learnfrom quesions wihou rying o setle hem, resolveourselves o no resolving hem? Couldn isdom

    be found in reconciling ourselves o is perpeuallove, and never is possession? Witgensein oncewroe ha a philosophical problem has he form: Idon know my way abou,20which was he sympom

    of he deep confusion ha consiued philosophyfor him. Bu Heidegger loved andering aimlesslyin he woods, following Holzwegeor pahs ha leadnohere, sumbling ono dead-ends hich couldalso be clearings.

    18 Arisole claims ha philosophy begins in onder,bu e mus end up in he conrary and (according o

    he proverb) he beter sae, he one ha people achieveby learning he anser. Arisole,Meaphysis 938a, TeBasi Woks o Aisole, ed. Richard McKeon (Ne York:

    Random House), 1820.19 Marin Heidegger, Inoduion o Meaphysis,rans.Gregory Fried and Richard Pol (Ne Haven: Yale Uni-versiy Press), 44.20 Ludwig Witgensein,Philosophial Invesigaions,3rd ed.,rev. rans. G. E. M. Anscombe (Madsen: Blackwell, 2001), 123.

  • 7/25/2019 Speculations IV

    16/123

    L R. B

    LEVIR. BRYANTPOLITICSANDSPECULATIVEREALISM

    Is i ou aul i he newoks ae simulaneously eal, like naue,naaed, like disouse, and olleive, like soiet? Laour1

    1. STRANGEBEDFELLOWSSR ANDSOCIALANDPOLITICALTHEORY

    Since is birh in 2007, speculaive realism (SR) hasgeneraed a grea deal of conroversy in journals, heheory blogosphere, and a conferences. One wouldsearch in vain for a unified speculaive realisposiion or docrine. The four original speculaiverealiss ho coined he ermRay Brassier, Gra-ham Harman, Iain Hamilon Gran, and QueninMeillassouxargue for very differen onologiesand episemologies, opposed o one anoher in anumber of respecs. If here is anyhing ha uniesheir posiions, i is 1) a defense of some varian ofrealism or maerialism, and 2) a criique of correla-ionism. Firs coined by Meillassoux, correlaionismis he hesis ha we can only ever speak of being asa correlae of he subjec and never he orld andsubjec apar from one anoher.2Beyond ha, hesor of realism (or maerialism) each of hese hink-ers defends and ho hey criique correlaionismdiverges quie subsanially.

    I ill no here discuss he various speculaiverealis posiions nor he many divergen varians ofobjec-oriened onology. Raher, in his aricle whaineress me are he conroversies ha have emergedaround SR. These debaes have no primarily akenplace in he discipline of philosophy, bu have raherunfolded in disciplines ouside of philosophy such

    as lierary sudies, media sudies, he social sciences,and varians of social and poliical hough inflec-ed by neo-Marxis heory, feminism, race heory,and queer heory. Given ha correlaionism is araher classical and absrac episemological issuein philosophy, he quesion arises as o jus hy afairly echnical issue in philosophy has generaedsuch heaed debae in poliically oriened branchesof he humaniies? Moreover, given ha SR, in hehands of is original four founders has been a raherapoliical se of philosophical concerns focusedon quesions of he being of he real, he naureof maerialiy, and quesions of episemology, i

    1 Bruno Laour, We Have Neve Been Moden, rans. CaherinePorer (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Universiy Press, 1993), 6.2 Quenin Meillassoux,Afe Finiude: An Essay on heNeessit o Coningenc, rans. Ray Brassier (Ne York:Coninuum, 2008), 5.

    is sriking ha debaes surrounding SR have beenfocused on quesions of he social and poliical. Inha follos my aim is o ouline jus hy SR hasgeneraed hese conroversies and discuss ha imigh have o offer o poliically oriened heoryin our curren hisorical momen.

    2.THEBASICSCHEMAOFCRITICALTHEORY

    Broadly speaking, a criical heory (CT) can bedefined as any heory ha coness he naualnessof caegories peraining o human ideniies andsocial relaions, revealing ho hey are sociallyconsruced, coningen, and hisorical. Arguably, hefirs formulaion of criical heory can be found inLucreius De Reum Naua. There Lucreius wries,

    Whaever exiss you ill alays find conneced,To hese o hings, or as by-producs of hem;Conneedmeaning ha he qualiyCan never be subraced from is objecNo more han eigh from sone, or hea from fire,Weness from aer. On he oher hand,Slavery, riches, freedom, povery,War, peace, and so on, ransiory hingsWhose comings and goings do no aler subsanceThese, and quie properly, e call by-podus.3

    Lucreius dras a disincion beeen properiesha belong o hings hemselves such as mass, andproperies ha arise from ho e elaeo oherhings such as slavery. Unlike hea hich is anininsipropery of fire, slavery is no an inrinsicpropery of a person, bu raher people are madeino slaves by oher people.

    While a number of peoplegenerally hose in

    poer or ho sand o benefi from a paricularay of ordering socieymigh ry o claim hapeople are nauallyslaves, ha sexualiy is naurallysrucured in paricular ays, ha cerain groupsare naurally inferior, ha a paricular economicsysem is he naural form of exchange, and so on, acriical heory reveals how wehave onsuedhesehings. Two housand years laer, Marx will sum uphe elemenary gesure of criical heory hen hewries ha he commodiy is nohing bu he defi-nie social relaion beween men hemselves whichassumes, for hem, he fanasic relaion beweenhings.4When purchasing a commodiy, e ake

    3 Lucreius, Te Way Tings Ae: Te De Reum Naua o iusLueius Caus, rans. Rolfe Humphries (Bloomingon:Indiana Universiy Press, 1969), 33.4Karl Marx,Capial: Volume , rans. Ben Fokes (NeYork: Penguin Classics, 1990), 165.

    http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/2.Thehttp://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/2.Thehttp://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/2.The
  • 7/25/2019 Speculations IV

    17/123

    S IV

    illusraes his poin nicely in his example of heo doors in The Insance of he Leter in heUnconscious5:

    I ill be noed ha he o doors in Lacans dia-gram are idenial. Maerially, physically, here is nodifference beween he door on he le and he oneon he righ. Apar from heir posiion in ime andspace, here is nohing in he doors hemselveshamakes hem one ype of door raher han anoher.Pu differenly, here is nohing in he eeenof hesignifiers and ha makesone door he Ladies room and anoher door heGenlemens room. I is insead he signifie iselfhe social and culural componenha inroduceshis difference beeen he doors.

    Draing on he Peircian concep of he sign, ecan hus see ho criical heories proceed in heirdisincive form of criique. Peirce argues ha signsare a riadic relaional srucure composed of asign-vehicle or he sound or riing ha conveyshe sign, an inerprean or he concepualizedmeaning behind he sign, and he referen or hahich he sign denoes in he orld:

    In essenialis discourses such as racism, hoseproperies ha make a hing he tpeof hing i is,

    are found in he eeen. They are held o be ha5 Jacques Lacan, The Insance of he Leter in he Uncon-scious or Reason Since Freud, in is: Te Fis CompleeEdiion in English, rans. Bruce Fink (New York: W.W. Noron& Company, 2006), 416.

    our relaionship o his objec as 1) merely being arelaion beeen a person, he seller, and he hing,and 2) rea he value as being an ininsifeaureof he hing iself. For example, e rea he valueof gold as being a real propery of he hing like iscolor or aomic eigh. Wha Marx reveals in hiscelebraed analysis of commodiy feishism is havalue arises from he labor required o produce hecommodiy. The consequences of his are profound,

    for i allos Marx o demonsrae ha a) exchangerelaions are no merely relaions beween a personand a hing, bu open on o a broader neork ofsocial relaions by virue of he producive relaionsha go ino producing he commodiy, b) ha valueis no an inrinsic feaure of hings, bu arises ou ofa paricular sysem of producion, c) ha value arisesfrom workers, no owners or capial, and d) ha heserelaions under capialism are unjus insofar as heyusurp orkers of ha is righfully heirs becausemore value is produced in producion han workersare compensaed for in heir labor. Accompanyinghis analysis, Marx presens a hisory of modes ofproducion shoing ha in he pas here have

    been very differen sysems of producion as ellas he possibiliy of oher modes of producion. Indoing so, he hus shos ha he capialis mode ofproducion is social and hisorical, undermininghe hesis ha i is a naural universal or ha socialrelaions haveo be his ay.

    Formally, raher han a he level of conen, Marxsanalysis of commodiy feishism ill become heguiding schema of revoluionary social and poliicalanalysis for criical heory. Henceforh, he criicaloperaion ill consis in shoing a feishinMarxs sensea ork in hose social formaionsand relaions claiming o be naural and herefore

    inelucably necessary. Thus, for example, heresexis, heeronormaive, and racis discourses illargue ha forms of social inequaliy arejusified

    because cerain groups of people are ininsiallyinferior o ohers and herefore are unsuied ovarious occupaions and naurally need o be led,he criical heoris ill sho ho hese ideniiesare socially consruced, hisorical, and have beenand can be oherwise. Where he apologis will argueha capialism is he naualform of exchange andha i has exised a all imes and places hrough-ou hisory, he criical heoris ill demonsraeho capialism arose under paricular hisorical

    condiions and ha oher sysems of producionand disribuion are possible.The criical gesure hus consiss in showing ha

    somehing e ook o be a propery of he hingshemselves is insead social and culural. Lacan

    sense (inerprean)

    sign vehicle (represenanem) referen

  • 7/25/2019 Speculations IV

    18/123

    L R. B

    Lucreius called conneced properies. In oherwords, he essenialis argues ha hings hemselveshave hese properies regardless of ho e speakabou hem. By conras, he criical heoris atempso sho ha ha e ook o be a propery of hereferen is inseadin Saussurean languageaneffeof he signifier (sign-vehicle) and he signi-fied (inerprean) soring or carving up he orldin paricular ays. Like Lacans doors, he criical

    heoris argues ha here is nohing in he refereniself ha makes hings wha hey are for sociey, buraher ha i is language, discourse, and praciceha carves up he orld in a paricular ay.

    The poliical implicaions of he social consruc-ivis hesis are obvious. If i is rue ha signs arearbirarywhich is o say, ha signs have no naualor mimeic link wih wha hey signify and ha sig-nifying sysems can carve up he world in a varieyof waysand if i is rue ha how hings are soredino kinds is an effec of he signifier/signifiedrelaion, raher han properies belonging o hehings hemselves, hen i follows ha jusificaionsfor inequaliy premised on claims abou ha isnaural and inrinsicand herefore, inelucablefall apar because i is language and pracices hacarve up he orld in his ay, no he orld iselha is srucured in his way. Insofar as language ishisorical and hasboh across differen languagesand hroughou hisorycarved up he orld in avariey of differen ays, here is no one ay heworld mus be carved. We could jus as easily nameour wo doors and . There isnohing in he doors hemselves ha dicaes hapeople mus be sored o pass hrough hem in oneway raher han anoher. Raher wha makes a door is wha Lucreius called a by-produc of

    ho we elaeo he doors.The criique of feishism and he semioic urn has

    hus been profoundly imporan o emancipaorysruggles. In showing ha cerain social formaionsare he effec of our pracices and ho e signifyhings, e undercu jusificaions for oppressivesocial relaions ha claim ha hings mus be hisay because hey are naural and herefore peopleare merely occupying heir inelucable and necessarysocial posiions; and, in shoing ha hese hingsare socially consruced ha we are he ones whomade hings his aye open up he possibiliyof consrucing alernaives. As iek pus i,

    Being-a-king is an effec of he neork of socialrelaions beeen a king and his subjecs; buand here is he feishisic misrecogniiono heparicipans of his social bond, he relaionship

    appears necessarily in an inverse form: hey hinkha hey are subjecs giving he king royal rea-men because he king is already himself, ousidehe relaionship o his subjecs, a king; as if hedeerminaion of being-a-king ere a nauralpropery of he person of a king.6

    Tha framework ha sees being-a-king as a naualpropery of being king, alsosees obedience o he

    king as jus and legiimae by naure. By conras, aheoreical orienaion ha recognizes ha a kingis only a king because of he social relaions hamake him a king, calls ino quesion he legiima-cy of he kings sovereigny by shoing ha i isweha make kings kings, and ha e can chooseo rescind his sovereigny and organize socieyin differen ays. A he formal level, similar ar-gumens have been deployed agains capialism,racism, heeronormaiviy, and pariarchy. The basicoperaion of CT consiss in unmasking essenialis,heological, and nauralis jusificaions for socialsysems premised on inequaliy, demonsraing hain realiy hey are social consrucions ha unjuslydefend he privilege of a fe and ha are capableof being oherise.

    3.THEDANGERSOFSR ANDTHELIMITSOFCT

    In ligh of he foregoing, e can see hy he appa-enly absrac concerns of SR have generaed so muchconroversy in poliically oriened domains of hehumaniies. Through is criique of correlaionismand is defense of realism, SR risks arguing hahe king eally isa king. In oher ords, criiquesof correlaionism and defenses of realism are nomere echnical philosophical issues, bu have very

    significan poliical implicaions. Radical emanci-paory poliical heory has been correlaionis andani-realis hrough and hrough. In arguing ha iis language and social pracices ha carve up heorld, CT is correlaionis in ha i reas caego-ries or ypes as resuling from our discourse abouhe orld. I is ani-realis in arguing ha ypes orkinds ha e atribue o he social orldmale,

    female, sraigh, gay, black, hie, and soonare he resul of social consrucions, of dis-courses and pracices, and are herefore no nauralkinds. Seen in his ligh, blanke condemnaionsof correlaionism risk undermining decades of

    hard-on emancipaory vicories in he name ofjusice and equaliy.

    6 Slavoj iek,Te Sublime Obje o Ideology(Ne York:Verso, 2008).

    http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/3.Thehttp://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/3.Thehttp://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/3.The
  • 7/25/2019 Speculations IV

    19/123

    S IV

    Hoever, before proceeding, i is imporan onoe ha maters are significanly more complexhan he foregoing migh sugges. Firs, many po-liical criiques in he radiion of CT proceed onhe basis of ealispremises. In oher ords, heybohsho ha cerain social caegorizaions aresocially consruced, andha hey are based onalseclaims abou our biology. For example, in seeking odemonsrae ha he male/female binary is perfor-

    maive or socially consruced, Buler atemps oshow how even biology does no suppor his binary.7This is a realis argumen. Similarly, when Sephen

    J. Gould criiques eugenics, he shows, among oherhings, how biology does no suppor he claims ofhe race heoriss.8Oen i is realis appeals o henaure of human beingsha e are plasic andha here are no significan geneic differences

    beeen men and omen and people of differenracesha serve as grounds for he unmaskingof feishes pracices by CT.

    Second, i is no clear ha heher or no oneis a correlaionis or a realis is an eiher/or. I ispossible o be a correlaionis abou some hingsand a realis abou ohers. In discussions of SR,here has been a endency o overlook he fac haCT has largely been concerned ih criiques ofsoialkinds. While here are imporan exampleso he conrary, CT has largely been occupied ihdemonsraing ha caegories or kinds perainingo human ideniies and ho socieies are orga-nized are socially consruced. Ian Hacking hasargued ha if e are o undersand hese debaes,is imporan o disinguish beeen ineracivekinds and non-ineracive kinds.9An ineracivekind is a kind ha has he capaciy o hangehehing ha i represens. As such, i funcions as

    boha descripionanda norm. Folloing Buler,for example, e can rea a kind like female asineracive. When a person is caegorized as female,his caegory doesn simply desibefeaures of hereferen subsumed underneah i, bu also presensa nomaivescrip defining how women ougho bein order o be omen. Is i because omen nau-rally have hese properies ha hey are classifiedas omen, or do omenpeomhese hings as aresul of being caegorized in his ay? Ineracivekinds change he social saus of he person assumedunder hemconsider ho becoming a professor

    7 Judih Buler,Gende ouble: Feminism and he Subvesiono Idenit(Ne York: Rouledge, 1999), 136-141.8 Sephen Jay Gould,Te Mismeasue o Man(Ne York:W.W. Noron & Company, 1996).9 Ian Hacking, Te Soial Consuion o Wha?(Cambridge,MA: Harvard Universiy Press, 1999), 36.

    or being caegorized as menally ill changes onessocial sausand he people subsumed underhem adop atiudes and pracices oards hesecaegorizaions. This suggess ha hey denoeno naural feaures, bu raher are socially con-sruced. By conras, a non-ineracive kind suchas being-hydrogen changes nohing in hydrogenaoms. Unlike he person subsumed under he kindof being-depressed ho migh begin o enaor

    perform sympoms of depression as a consequence ofbeing caegorized in his way, hydrogen aoms donchange heir behavior and properies as a resul of

    being caegorized in a paricular ay. Ineracivekinds are reflexive in ha hey change ha heycaegorize and e can adop sances oards hem,hile non-ineracive kinds are non-reflexive. Iis possible o be a realis abou some hings and anani-realis and correlaionis abou oher hings.Debaes surrounding SR need o be far more preciseabou hese issues, exploring quesions of wheheror no all kinds are naural, wheher some kinds arenaural and ohers are consruced, and deerminingjus here e migh dra he line.

    Where SR risks undermining advances in globalsruggles by dismissing ide bodies of ani-realiscriique ell suppored by ehnography, sociology,and linguisics, CT has made i very difficul o ad-dress cerain conemporary poliical quesions. Aswe saw in he las secion, he gesure of CT consissin brackeing he referen so as o reveal he feishis-ic misrecogniion a he hear of essenialis socialcaegorizaions and he nauralizaion of cerainypes of social organizaion such as hose found inpariarchy, capialism, and heeronormaiviy. Thishas led o a endency o rea all poliical inequali-ies as disusive or semioi, and o rea all poliical

    problems as problems of discursiviy. Under hismodel of poliics, he producion of poliical changeconsiss in unmasking he feishisic misrecogni-ion upon hich unjus social relaions are based,hereby disclosing he illegiimacy of cerain socialrelaions and opening he possibiliy for forgingne social relaions.

    Criical unmasking has been an exremely po-erful ool in emancipaory srugglesespecially insruggles for gender equaliy, racial equaliy, fighsagains monarchial power, and sruggles for sexualfreedombu is noneheless problemaic for oreasons. Firs, i is no clear ha he power srucuring

    social relaions is solelydiscursive or semioic incharacer. Feaures of geography, echnologies, howinfrasrucure is arranged, he number of calories aperson ges a day, mediums and channels of com-municaion, how ime is srucured in day o day life,

  • 7/25/2019 Speculations IV

    20/123

    L R. B

    and neworks and pahs of disribuion all conribueo he organizaion of social relaions and funciono reinforce poer relaions. A people migh veryell kno ha heir circumsances are unjus, buhave litle opion bu oleraing hem because hesrucuraion of heir geographical condiions allowfor no oher alernaives. CT ends o proceed fromhe premise ha people olerae unjus condiions

    because hey have misaken beliesand ha i is

    merely a quesion of revealing he unruh of hesebeliefs o produce change. While ideology, no doub,plays a significan role in susaining unjus socialassemblages, his overlooks he role ha hingshemselves play in organizing poer.

    Second, he basic schema of CT makes i difficulo raise he necessary poliical quesions perainingo one of he mos imporan issues of our ime:global arming. The poliical quesions posed byglobal arming are of a differen order han hosefound in radiional CT and pracices of debunkingfeishisic misrecogniions. The endency of CT iso reduce he orld o discursiviy or he semioic.While clearly feishisic misrecogniion plays a rolein social pracices ha conribue o global arm-ing, climae change also raises quesions abou healbedo of he earh, he properies of fossil fuels, herelease of frozen mehane gases in he undra inohe amosphere, he number of calories requiredo susain global populaions, he unis of energyrequired o disribue hose calories, produce hem,and o run ciies and homes, he impac of variousagriculural pracices, and so on. These quesionscanno be adequaely addressed so long as we brackehe referen. No, responding o hese issues requiresrealis or maerialis onologies ha recognizehe efficacy of hings hemselves. In brackeing

    he referen in he name of he discursively andsemioically consruced, CT makes i difficul oeven recognize hese hings as sies of he poliical.

    4.THEPOLITICALOPPORTUNITYOFSR

    I ould like o sugges ha SR, in is bes momens,is no a ejeionorannulmenof CTs criiquesof feishisic misrecogniion premised on socialconsrucivism, bu is a heoreical framework ha

    boh expands our undersanding of wha exercisespoer in social assemblages and ha sies belongo he sphere of he poliical. Seen in his ligh, SRs

    various criiques of correlaionism and defenses ofrealism need no be aken as rejecing eak socialconsrucivisms, bu as delimiing he domainhere hese models of criique are appropriaeand applicable, while opening a space o recognize

    he poliical efficacy of hings, as ell as openingne sies of poliical impor here recogniion ofhe real is necessary, such as climae change. Fromhis vanage, he problem ih CT is no ha i iscorrelaionis because here are domains such asmonarchy, sexual ideniies, racial ideniies, andso on ha are indeed socially consruced, bu hai ovesaesis correlaionism. Is endency is osee allpoer as semioic or discursive and o see

    all beings as effecs of he signifier, foreclosing herole ha non-signifying eniies play in exercisingpower or social relaions, and making i difficul oanalyze he real properies of nonhuman eniiesand he differences hey make in he orld.

    By conras, he heoreical orienaion sugges bysome varians of SR, he new maerialis feminisms,acor-neork heory (ANT), and he assemblageheory of Deleuze and Guatari, suggess a broaderpoliical heory and se of sraegies ha can bemodeled on Lacans borromean kno10:

    In his final eaching, Lacan flatens his hree orders,

    conceiving hem as inerrelaed domains ha areall on equal fooing ihou one domain overcod-ing he ohers. In Lacans earlies eaching, i ashe order of he Imaginary ha as dominan. Inhe second phase of his hough, he order of heSymbolic srucured he ohers. In he hird phase,i is he Real ha organizes he oher wo orders. Inhe final phase, e are o hink he simulaneousand synchronous inerrelaion of all hree orders,wihou one order overcoding he oher wo orders.

    A poliical heory infleced by SR, he ne ma-erialisms, and ANT, ye sympaheic o CT, ouldatemp a similar gesure. The domain of he Symbolic

    would reain he claims of radiional CT and wouldconsiue wha we migh call semiopoliics or he

    10 Cf. Jaques Lacan,Enoe: On Feminine Sexualit, he Limiso Love and Knowledge, rans. Bruce Fink (Ne York: W.W.Noron & Company, 1998), chaper 10.

    The Real

    The Imaginary The Symbolic

    http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/4.Thehttp://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/4.Thehttp://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/4.The
  • 7/25/2019 Speculations IV

    21/123

    S IV

    criical unmasking and debunking of discoursesand narraives legiimizing various power relaionsand ideniies hrough appeals o naure, divineorders, and ahisorical essences. The domain of heImaginary would be he domain of human and alienphenomenology,11exploring he lived experienceof ho humans encouner he orld abou hem,

    bu also ho various nonhumans such as animals,baceria, plans, echnologies, and insiuions

    selecively relae o he orld abou hem. Finally,he domain of he Real ould be he exploraionof hose properies ha really do belong o hingsand he efficacy hings organize on oher hings.

    Here my remarks mus be brief and impression-isic, bu wih borromean criical heory (BCT), newdomains of poliical inquiry and inervenion areopened. For example, e no learn ha semiopol-iics only ells us par of he sory regarding poerrelaions. While discursive and semioic agenciesplay an imporan role in he form ha socialrelaions ake, i is also rue ha all sors of nonsig-nifingagencies peraining o he order of he Realconribue o he organizaion of social relaionsand poer as ell. A difficul o pass mounainrange, for example, conribues o he form socialrelaions and economy ake, no by virue of hoe signify he mounain, bu by virue of ha hemounain is. Premised on he Real, BCT would addfour addiional forms of poliical analysis o ourreperoire of heoreical ools: geopoliics, infrapol-iics (from infrasrucure), hermopoliics (from

    hermodynamics), chronopoliics (from ime).In draing atenion o hese oher domains, BCTould also open a space for perhaps unrecognizedways in which power funcions o perpeuae unjussocial relaions, while also assising in he invenion

    of ne sraegies for poliical invenion.Geopoliics would explore he impac of feaures

    of geographyhe availabiliy of resources, oceancurrens, eaher paterns, local fauna, mounainranges, rivers, and so onon he form ha socialassemblages ake, bu would also invesigae poliicalquesions ouside of quesions of human jusiceand equaliy, such as hose posed by ecoheorissand criical animal heoriss. Wih some noableexcepions, he endency of semiopoliics has beeno resric he poliical o quesions of human jusiceand equaliy, almos enirely ignoring he animaland he ecological as a sie of he poliical. We need

    ne poliical caegories and frameorks o raisehese issues (Alaimo, Braidoti, Calarco, and Wolfe,

    11 Cf. Ian Bogos,Alien Phenomenology o Wha Is Like o Bea Ting(Minneapolis: Universiy of Minnesoa Press, 2012).

    among ohers, have all done an excellen job inbeginning o develop his frameork12).

    Infrapoliics would invesigae he role ha ech-nological and urban infrasrucures play on hesrucuraion of social relaions and poer. Heree ould invesigae ho roads, rain lines, heproperies of various media such as he elegraph,he sor of poer used, conribue o he form hasocial assemblages ake and how poliics funcions

    noby virue of how we signifhem, bu by virue ofwha hey aeand how heyre configured. Similarly,hermopoliics would begin from he premise hain order for people o live, for ciies o run, for pro-ducion o ake place, and so on, enegyis requiredin he form of calories and various fuels. Moreover,his energy mus be produced and disribued o beconsumed. And, of course, he consumpion of energyproduces wase. Thermopoliics ould invesigaehow energeic concerns conribue o he form socialrelaions ake, he impac of consumpion and wase,and he manner in hich energeic requiremensexercise power over life. Finally, chronopoliics wouldinvesigae how emporal consrains conribue ohe srucuraion of social relaions and he perpe-uaion of oppressive forms of poer.

    In opening poliical hough o he domain ofhe Real raher han resricing i o he domainof he Imaginary and Symbolic, BCT promises odisclose unexpeced ways in which oppressive powerfuncions and mainains iself, boh unmaskingnew sies of poliical sruggle and new possibiliiesof inervenion. A he level of infrapoliics, for ex-ample, is difficul o imagine he possibiliy of heArab Spring or Occupy Wall Sree in he absence ofhe inerne and social media such as Titer andFacebook because prior o his informaion had o

    be ranspored hrough he channels of he nesmedia or face o face encouners. These new mediaopened he possibiliy of new forms of organizaion(hile also alloing emancipaory collecives o

    bypass pary sysems ha ere before required odisseminae and organize acion due o infrasruc-ural limiaions on communicaion). The poinisn ha hese media ausedhese forms of poliicalacion, bu ha hey rendered ipossible. Recognizingha he maerial mediums of communicaion canrender enirely new forms of emancipaory poliics

    12 See Sacy Alaimo,Bodily Naues: Siene, Envionmen, andhe Maeial Sel(Bloomingon: Indiana Universiy Press,2010); Rosi Braidoti, Te Poshuman(Malden, MA: PoliyPress, 2013); Mathew Calarco,Zoogaphies: Te Quesion ohe Animal om Heidegge o Deida(New York: ColumbiaUniversiy Press, 2008); Cary Wolfe, Wha is Poshumanism?(Minneapolis: Universiy of Minnesoa Press, 2010).

  • 7/25/2019 Speculations IV

    22/123

    L R. B

    possible, migh lead us o see he consrucion andproliferaion of such infrasrucure inegral opoliical emancipaion.

    The case is similar ih hermopoliics andchronopoliics. The endency of semiopoliicsis o claim ha people olerae oppressive socialassemblages because hey are duped by signifyingregimes, failing o recognize ha heyare he onesha give power o hese consrucions. The criical

    gesure hus becomes an unmasking ha allows uso see ha weare he source of his power and havehe capaciy o make hings oherise. Clearly hisis an imporan emancipaory gesure, bu her-mopoliics and chronopoliics sugges ha ohermechanisms of poer are in play as ell. A helevel of energy, collecives of people migh very wellrecognize ha he social assemblage in which heyexis is unjus and coningen, hile nonehelessoleraing i because hey can dra he energyhey require o live and susain hemselves in anyoher ay. Similarly, a he level of ime, e mighfind ha ho he orking day is srucured leaveslitle ime for anyhing else, much less poliicalchange. The average orking and middle classperson akes up early in he morning, has o feed,dress, and ge heir child ready for school, hen goeso a job here hey ork for nine o elve hoursa day a mind-numbing and energy-sapping labor,comes home, does chores, feeds hemselves andheir family, and falls asleep ih a glass of WildTurkey aching brainless realiy elevision. Is iha hey are duped by an ideology, by a sysem ofsignificaion, ha leads hem o olerae his sysem,or is i ha heir ime is srucured in such a ayha hey have litle ime for anyhing else and canonly enjoy mindless litle pleasures? Oen he CT

    speaks as if i were he former, while a chrono- andhermopoliical perspecive migh suspec he later.While BCT readily recognizes he dangers oulined sowell by Rancire wih such argumens, as hisoricallyheyve been used o defend he need for philoso-pher-kings or an avan gadeinellecual pary orepresen he ineress of he orking and middleclass,13we believe ha he reflecions of hermo- andchronopoliics reveal ime and energy as sies ofpoliical sruggle, where we encouner sraegies ofoppression hrough he srucuraion of ime andhe formaion of dependence on forms of energy,and suspec ha ransformaions in he space of

    ime and he availabiliy of energy can conribue obringing abou emancipaory change. Here energyand ime exercise poer and emancipaion no by

    13 Cf. Jacques Rancire, Te Philosophe and His Poo(Durham:Duke Universiy Press, 2003).

    ho hey are signified, bu by ha hey are in helives of peoples.

    If, hen, here is a poliical opporuniy o befound in SR, ANT, and he ne maerialisms, hisill arise from he abiliy of hese orienaions oreveal unexpeced sies of poliical concern, un-expeced ays in hich poer funcions hroughnon-signifying agencies, and hrough opening newand creaive ways of responding o desrucive and

    oppressive forms of poer. Someimes i makesmore sense o lieally unnel hrough a mounain,and someimes he quesion of poliics is a ques-ion of ime no misaken beliefs. In academiaoday, for example, e see he Sae developing allsors of sraegies for exhausing he ime of faculy,hereby undermining he possibiliy of exploringoher forms of inellecual, educaional, and sociallife. The problem here is no misaken beliefs, buchronopoliical poliical sraegies aimed a heTaylorizaion of he Academy. Wheher or no SRgrabs his poliical opporuniy, heher or no i

    becomes a discourse ha defends oppressive formsof social organizaion hrough appeals o he Real,essences, naure, and divine orders is somehingha only ime ill ell. Clearly he debae so farreveals ha here is a lo of ork o do.

  • 7/25/2019 Speculations IV

    23/123

    S IV

    GRAHAMHARMANTHECURRENTSTATEOFSPECULATIVEREALISM

    Elsehere I have old he hisory of SpeculaiveRealism, and ill no repea i here.1Though someprefer he loer-case phrase speculaive realism,I deliberaely use capial leters, since Speculaive

    Realism is a proper name. I originally referred oan assembly of four philosophers for an April 2007orkshop in London: Ray Brassier, Iain HamilonGran, Quenin Meillassoux, and he auhor of hisaricle. So much for he hisory of he movemen.

    Any discussion of Speculaive Realism needs obegin by avoiding he inermiten and poinless

    debae over heher Speculaive Realism reallyexiss. This quesion comes five years oo lae o bemeaningful, and generally akes he form of a pu-down raher han a bona fide quesion. SpeculaiveRealism is now he opic of a hriving book series aa major universiy press, and he subjec of a leasone forhcoming monograph.2I is embedded inhe ediorial policy of several philosophy journals.I has become a eme dain archiecure, archae-ology, geography, he visual ars, and even hisory.I has crossed naional boundaries wih ease, and issurely he cenral heme of discussion in he growingconinenal philosophy blogosphere. Speculaive Re-alism is he opic of several posdocoral fellowshipsoffered in he Unied Saes his year. I has been hesubjec of semeser-long classes a universiies asell as graduae heses in Paris. Though here aresill ough ess ahead concerning he breadh anddurabiliy of Speculaive Realism, i has long sincepassed he exisence es o a far greaer degree

    han mos of is criics.This aricle is mean as a rapid geographic sur-

    vey of he basic inellecual differences among heSpeculaive Realiss as of lae 2012. This is no heplace for deailed concepual engagemen wih heseauhors, which I have done elsewhere and will con-inue o do. Also, for reasons of space I will confinemyself o he original 2007 group along ih heobjec-oriened onology srand o hich I belong.No sligh is inended o hose le unanalyzed here(Seven Shaviro comes o mind, among ohers).

    1

    For he fulles version of he sory o have reached prinso far, see of Graham Harman, Quenin Meillassoux: Phi-losopy in he Making(Edinburgh: Edinburgh UniversiyPress, 2011), 77-80.2Peer Graton,Speulaive Realism: An Inoduion(Ne-ork Educaion Press, forhcoming 2013).

    1. CORRELATIONISM

    In a recen online inervie, SpeulaionsfounderPaul Ennis remarks as follow: Coninenal realismis he fringe of he fringe. I migh be popular fornow, bu we can already see a sor of knuckling downby he anirealisshe backlash. Mos of hem findhe whole ani-correlaionism hing silly and I donhink coninenal realism is acually a hrea o he

    dominance of anirealism3

    Wha Ennis neglecs omenion is ha he coninenal anirealiss wouldnever even have called hemselves anirealiss unilquie recenly. The fac ha we speak of coninenalanirealism a all is due parly o he couner-modelsof Speculaive Realism and Manuel DeLanda, andparly o Lee Bravers riumphalisic anirealis book

    A Ting o Tis Wold.4The year 2002 inessed hepublicaion of my book ool-Beingand DeLandasInensive Siene and Viual Philosophy, boh of hemcandid saemens of realism.5This was somehingne in he coninenal radiion. While analyicphilosophy has always been atenive o he realismvs. ani-realism debae, in coninenal circles hemere ac of proposing such a debae as reaed asa sor of vulgar gaffe. Realism vs. ani-realism had

    been defined as a pseudo-problem, especially inhe phenomenological school ha se he agenda fornearly a cenurys worh of coninenal philosophy.I as said for example ha here is no idealismin Husserl, since inenionaliy is alays alreadyouside iself in aiming a inenional objecs. Morerecenly here has been he emergence of Derridaas a realis claimans such as John Capuo andMichael Marder, ho make heir case no by chal-lenging previous readings of Derrida, bu simply

    by bending he meaning of he erm realism o

    signify ha Derrida as doing all along.6In shor, e no have a raher lively realism vs.

    anirealism debae in coninenal philosophy hasimply did no exis en years ago. The reason ha

    3 Paul Ennis inervieed by Liam Jones,Figue/Gound ,November 12, 2012: htp://figureground.ca/inervies/paul-ennis/4 Lee Braver,A Ting o Tis Wold: A Hisor o Coninen-al Ani-Realism(Evanson, IL: Norhesern UniversiyPress, 2007).5 See Graham Harman, ool-Being: Heidegge and he Mea-physis o Objes (Chicago: Open Cour, 2002.); ManuelDeLanda, Inensive Siene and Viual Philosophy(London:Coninuum, 2002).6 See John D. Capuo, For Love of Things Themselves:Derridas Hyper-realism, 2001: htp://w.jcr.org/ar-chives/01.3/capuo.shml; Michael Marder, Te Even ohe Ting: Deidas Pos-Deonsuive Realism(Torono:Universiy of Torono Press, 2009).

    http://figureground.ca/interviews/paulhttp://figureground.ca/interviews/paulhttp://www.jcrt.org/archives/01.3/caputo.shtmlhttp://www.jcrt.org/archives/01.3/caputo.shtmlhttp://www.jcrt.org/archives/01.3/caputo.shtmlhttp://www.jcrt.org/archives/01.3/caputo.shtmlhttp://figureground.ca/interviews/paulhttp://figureground.ca/interviews/paul
  • 7/25/2019 Speculations IV

    24/123

    G H

    debae did no exis as because coninenal phi-losophy was in fac oelaionis, jus as Meillassouxholds.7In his 2002 book, DeLanda praised [hose]philosophers who gran realiy full auonomy fromhe human mind, disregarding he difference be-ween he observable and he unobservable, and heanhropocenrism his disincion implies. Thesephilosophers are said o have a ealisonology.8Wih some rare and ineffecual excepions (he

    onderful Xavier Zubri comes o mind9

    ), no onein he coninenal radiion as declaring realismdevoid o ioni etmologial iksprior o 2002. Theseearlier coninenal philosophers generally held harealism was a pseudo-problem, since we canno hinkof humans wihou world or world wihou humans,bu only of a primal correlaion or rappor beweenhe o. I had already used he erm philosophiesof access o describe his phenomenon, bu Meil-lassouxs correlaionism is cachier and more ohe poin. Correlaionism is he docrine ha ecan only speak of he human/orld inerplay, noof human or orld in heir on righ.

    As Ennis menions, here are no some ho callhe criique of correlaionism silly, as I heard wihmy on ears a perfecly good evens in Germanyand Seden during 2012. Tha is exacly he ordha is being used: much like idiosyncraic inhe 1980s/1990s, silly is odays erm of choicefor coninenal philosophers ho an o dismissihou argumen somehing ha hey happen odislike. Bu Meillassouxs criique of correlaionismmakes a raher lucid meaphysical claim. I says hamuch coninenal philosophy is neiher realis noridealis, bu oelaionis. Tha is o say, i adopsan inermediae posiion in hich e canno sayha he orld eiher exiss or fails o exis ouside

    human hough. Insead, all e can alk abou ishe correlaion of orld and hough in heir in-separabiliy. This claim by Meillassoux can only

    be righ or rong, no silly. And if Meillassoux iswrong o say ha mos coninenal philosophers arecorrelaioniss, hen hey mus be eiher realiss oridealiss, and i is heir duy o sae hich of heseposiions hey prefer.

    To summarize, i is impossible for coninenalphilosophers simply o dodge he criique of cor-relaionism made by Speculaive Realism. Even if

    7 QueninMeillassoux inroduces he erm correlaionismon page of 5 ofAe Finiude, rans. R. Brassier (London:Coninuum, 2008).8 Manuel DeLanda, Inensive Siene and Viual Philosophy,(Lodon: Coninuum, 2002), 4.9Xavier Zubri,On Essene, rans. A.R. Caponigri (Wash-ingon, D.C.: Caholic Universiy of America Press, 1980).

    you rejec a realis posiion, you canno rea i as apoorly formulaed clich, as Husserl and Heideggerand mos of heir descendans unforunaely did.Insead, you have o adop eiher a correlaionisposiion or an ourigh idealis one. The shared basisof Speculaive Realis philosophies is a rejecionof all correlaionis posiions, and ha rejecionhas had palpable impac on he landscape of con-inenal philosophy. The quesion is no, Wha

    has Speculaive Realism accomplished? bu raher,Wha ill Speculaive Realism sill accomplish?And here we reach a differen and more ineresingopic: he ongoing duel beeen various forms ofSpeculaive Realism.

    2. DIFFERINGFORMSOFANTI-CORRELATIONISM

    During he 2007 Speculaive Realism orkshopa Goldsmihs, I noed ha he four paricipanscould be grouped up in differing eams of o vs.o or hree vs. one, depending on hich poinsof disagreemen ere vieed as mos imporan.10Slavoj iek makes an exaggeraed version of hesame poin when he describes Speculaive Realismas a Greimasian semioic square formed fromhe axes of science/ani-science and religion/an-i-religion. Bu he later axis is possible only dueo ieks incorrec porrayal of me as a religiousphilosopher.11In fac, all e can really be sure ofis a ofold cu ha should no be described laiek as science/ani-science, bu as ha I ouldcall episemis/ani-episemis. To explain hemeaning of episemism, we mus briefly considerMeillassouxs April 2012 Berlin lecure.12Despiemy disagreemen ih mos of he conen of halecure, I agree compleely wih Meillassouxs claim

    ha he key division places him and Brassier onone side of he fence and me and Gran on he oher.

    In he aforemenioned Berlin lecure, Meillassouxclarifies an ambiguiy in he erm correlaionism.InAfe Finiude, he erm as someimes used orefer solely o a skepical posiion ha canno besure abou ha migh exis ouside hough, as inhe philosophy of Kan. Bu a oher imes, correla-ionism was broadened o include ourigh idealism.This ambiguiy is clarified in he Berlin lecure,which draws a new disincion in erminology. The

    10 See pp. 368-369 of Ray Brassier e al., SpeculaiveRealism, Collapse III, 2007: 306-449.11 Slavoj iek, Less Tan Nohing: Hegel and he Shadow oDialeial Maeialism(London: Verso, 2012), 640.12 Quenin Meillassoux, Ieraion, Reieraion, Repeiion:A Speculaive Analysis of he Meaningless Sign, rans. R.Mackay, April 20, 2012, forhcoming.

  • 7/25/2019 Speculations IV

    25/123

    S IV

    new and wider erm is now he Era of Correlaion,hich begins ih Berkeley and allos nohing oexis ouside he subjecive realm.

    Bu his Era of Correlaion occurs in wo (acuallyhree) forms in Meillassouxs new model of he hisoryof philosophy. Firs, here is correlaionism in hesric sense, a basically skepical posiion ha findsi impossible o escape from hough so as o makeconac wih somehing ha is no already affeced

    by our mode of hinking. In his sense boh Humeand Kan presumably coun as correlaioniss, asould Husserl, Heidegger, and various posmod-erniss. Bu second, here is also ha Meillassouxno calls subjecalism, a ype of philosophy haencompasses boh idealism and vialism, whichaccording o Meillassoux have an essenial relaed-ness and [an] original ani-maerialis compliciy.For Meillassoux, an exemplar of he idealiss isHegel, and good examples of he vialis pole wouldbe Niezsche and Deleuze. While he idealiss andvialiss may seem o be radically opposedsince hefirs give privilege o human hough while he laterabolish such privilegeboh are supposedly alikeinsofar as hey absoluize he subjec. They makehe enire universe purely subjecive, and herebyeliminae he dead mater ha rue maerialissmus recognize in he world alongside he houghha ries o kno his dead mater. A his poin,Meillassoux redras he alliances ihin Specula-ive Realism. His preferred ally is Brassier, despiehis open surprise ha Brassier can see anyhing ofmeri in Franois Laruelle. Meanwhile, Gran and Iare assigned o he subjecalis camp. Concerningmy on posiion, Meillassoux ries:

    Harman, in paricular, develops a very original and

    paradoxical subjecalism, since he hyposaizes herelaion e have ih hings ha, according o him,ihdra coninually from he conac ha e canmake ih hem. To make of our subjecive relaiono hings ha ihdra from heir (full) conacih us, he universal relaion of hings o hingshis is a ypically subjecalis gesure, carried ou ina ne and brillian form, bu hich sill belongs oha I have called he Era of Correlaion.13

    There is no space here o push back a lengh, whichI plan o do in a forhcoming book.14Bu firs, Meil-

    13 Ibid. Using he capialized phrase Era of Correlaionraher han Robin Mackays era of Correlaion, hichaccuraely mirrors ha Meillassoux does in he Frenchoriginal, bu hich srikes me as more confusing for heEnglish reader han Era of Correlaion.14 Graham Harman,On Episemism: Coninenal Mahe-maism and Sienism(Ann Arbor, MI: Open Humaniies

    lassoux is wrong o claim ha I projec human psy-chism ono he world as a whole. Indeed, he alreadyknows my argumen beter han his. The argumenis ha all relaion is a form of ranslaion, so hainanimae objecs fail o exhaus each oher duringcollision jus as human percepion or knowledge ofhose objecs fails o know hem. Real objecs do noencouner each oher direcly, bu only encounersensualobjecs, or images of real objecs. All conac

    beween real objecs is indirec, mediaed by sensualrealiy, and his holds for raindrops and sones noless han for humans. We need o view his sensualrealm in he mos ulra-primiive erms. Meillas-soux complains ha his leaves only a differenceof degree beeen sand grains and humans. Yei is unclear hy his ispima aiemore absurdhan Meilassouxs on heory of coningen andgroundless jumps from mater, o life, o hough,o he jusice of a virual God.

    Bu he real problem is ha Meillassoux simplyequivocaes hen he says ha boh idealism andvialism absoluize he subjec.15For i is one hingo say (like an idealis) ha he hing-in-iself is

    jus a special case of he hing-for-hough and hahere canno be anyhing inaccessible o he subjec.Bu i is quie anoher o say (like a vialis) haeveryhing is a subjec. For even if we posulae haa rock is a perceiving eniy, i ould no folloha is exisence consiss enirely in perceiving.Indeed, his is ruled ou from he very firs sep ofmy philosophy, hich saes ha nohingis everexhaused by is relaions. If I ere nohing morehan my percepions, inenions, and relaions inhis momen, here is no ay ha hese relaionscould ever change. For Meillassoux o claim ha

    boh idealism and vialism absoluize he subjec

    is analogous o accusing boh flags and naions offlagism since flags are enirely flags, hile allnaions have flags. The analogy o he maerialisposiion would hus amoun o insising ha manynaions give up heir flags; such flagless naionsould hen be analogous o he dead mater ofMeillassouxs maerialism. Only in his ay couldhe absoluizing of flags be prevened. The ob-jec-oriened posiion, by conras, is ha even if allnaions have flags, naions are noneheless morehan heir flags, and he same would hold for flaglessnaions. In shor, here is no such hing as a unified

    subjecalism ha unifies idealism and vialism any

    more han here is a flagism ha unifies flag andPress, forhcoming).15 Panpsychism would have been a more effecive choicehan vialism, since life is a differen heme from psychealogeher. Bu I have made his erminological conflaionmyself in he pas.

  • 7/25/2019 Speculations IV

    26/123

    G H

    naions under a single class of eniies. The fac hasubjecalism allows Meillassoux a convenien wayof pigeonholing me and Gran as non-maerialissdoes no enail ha anyhing like subjecalism exiss.

    Of he oher criicisms Meillassoux makes of myposiion in Berlin, here is anoher ha is easy oaddress quickly. He ries:

    Harman designaes ih he posiion philoso-

    phies of access philosophies ha base hemselvesupon he relaion beeen humans and hings, andhich consider ha e have access only o his ac-cess, no o hings hemselves. Bu Harman, o mymind, does no escape from his access, since onhe conrary he hyposaizes i for he hings hem-selves: here is no longer any chance of our escapingfrom access, since from no on, i is everyhere.16

    Wha Meillassoux fails o noe is ha my phrasephilosophies of access is simply an abbreviaionof he longer phrase philosophies of humanaccess.In oher words, Meillassoux and I simply disagree aso ha is harmful abou Kans legacy. On he onehand, Kan proclaims finiude: here are hings-in-hemselves ha can be hough bu no direcly known.For Meillassoux his is a sin agains reason, and hisenire career is passionaely devoed o fighing i.For me, his finiude is ineviable. The problem, as Isee i, is ha Kan made i a special humanfiniuderaher han a global one peraining o all eniies.If e discuss he collision of o rocks, hen i isweho are discussing i, and herefore i is really adiscussion abou our on condiions of access ohe rocks raher han abou he rocks hemselves.This Kanian anhropocenrism is one ha does noboher Meillassoux in he leas. Indeed, his embrace

    of he correlaional circle (we can hink he hingouside hough wihou urning i ino a hough),as hough i ere an argumen of impassable rigor,shos ha his rejecion of Kanian finiude doesno enail a rejecion of Kans privileging of hehuman-orld relaion over all ohers. Tha is hereal impasse beween me and Meillassoux, and hushe is wrong o blame me for inconsisenly adopingo opposed principles (finiude and he passagebeyond finiude) hen I simply do no accep hesecond. If I were wriing a shor reaise wih a Meil-lassouxian flavor, I ould no call i Afe Finiude(hich I ake o be impossible) bu somehing like

    Afe he Coelaional Cileno in Meillassouxssense ha we need o pass beyond he circle hroughcray argumenaion, bu simply in he sense hahe correlaional circle was never a good argumenin he firs place.16 Meillassoux, Ieraion, Reieraion, Repeiion.

    This brings us o he heme of episemism. Thereason ha Meillassoux and Brassier are very closeindeed is ha boh are episemiss. I have coinedhis phrase o describe he mahemaism and sci-enism ha are no so idespread in coninenalphilosophy (originally hanks o iek and Badiou).Mahemaism deems iself capable of deducingeernal ruhs, as Meillassoux claims o be able odo a he sar of his Berlin lecure (and he means

    i lierally, despie he scare quoes around eernalruhs). Scienism, forever burned and biten andaroused by he surprises of scienific heory change,is forced o proceed in more indirec fashion. Ascienism like Brassiers knos i can never reacha final scienific heory, and hus i proceeds inself-negaing fashion along a kind of via doloosa,desroying all he folk images i encouners whilehoping o approach he scienific images ha areonly a elosand can never be atained. Wha Meillas-soux and Brassier share in common is he idea hareason ougho be able o atain he direc presenceof he hing. Meillassoux, much like Descares, is surehe can do his given sufficien ime for reflecionand careful self-criique. Brassier, a more urbuleninellecual persona, holds ha he bes e can dois coninually srip aay our gullible delusions byay of an asympoic approach.

    Ye despie heir shared claim o be arden realiss,boh Meillassoux and Brassier have surprisingly weakmodels of realiy-in-iself apar from humans. Meil-lassouxs hings-in-hemselves exis in hemselvesonly because hey are able o oulas he humanlifespan. Bu insofar as a human hinker is presen,his hings-in-hemselves are fully commensurablewih he hinkers adequae mahemaizaion of hem.Meillassoux gives no clear explanaion as o hy a

    mahemaized arillery shell in knoledge ouldno iself become an arillery shell. Presumably hehas some heory of how he mahemaized primaryqualiies of a hing inhere in dead mater, bu wehave no ye seen such a heory from him. Meillas-soux seems o see no problem wih fully ranslainga hing ino knowledge of ha hing, idenifying isprimary qualiies ih he mahemaizable ones.As for Brassier, he ulimae realiy for him (as forhis model Wilfrid Sellars) is made up of scienificimages. Bu noe ha hese are sill images, hichmeans ha in principle someone migh inesshem direcly. Our sense of he in-iself needs o be

    much sronger han his, as Socraes already held: bypreferringphilosophiaover sophia, love of isdomover isdom, Socraes already dre a sric line ofseparaion beeen realiy and any knoledge ofi. In his respec, episemism cus agains he grainof he mission of philosophy.

  • 7/25/2019 Speculations IV

    27/123

    S IV

    Les now urn briefly o Iain Hamilon Gran. InBerlin, Meillassoux defined realis philosophies ashose ha ensure ha human hough can aainhe real. I have argued above ha his is he exacopposie of realism, since i makes he real fullyranslaable ino somehing else (such as knowledge),hough he real is precisely ha which can never beperfecly ranslaed. On his quesion, Gran appearso be solidly on my side, since he reas houghs as

    phenomenal producs of a dynamic naure raherhan as privileged onological royaly able o copyhe orld ihou ransforming i.17 In my 2009lecure in Brisol, I criicized Grans posiion (alongwih he much older philosophy of Giordano Bruno)for leading us back o a philosophy of he One inhich individual objecs are reaed as emporaryobsrucions of a unified dynamic mater from whichall hings emerge.18Gran responded in Te Speula-ive un, couner-arguing ha Brunos One is sill asubsance whereas Grans concep is of naure as adynamic process, and herefore ha he canno beidenified wih Bruno.19I couner ha he difference

    beeen Grans process and Brunos subsance isless imporan han heir shared relucance o granauonomous power o individual eniies. For bohhinkers, realiy is somehing like a pre-Socraicapeionfrom hich individuals emporarily ariseand ino which hey evenually descend. Gran goesso far as o describe paricular objecs, hroughouhis book on Schelling, as reardaions of a moreprimal producive force. I regard