Contemporary changes in the domain of knowledge production are usually seen as posing significant challenges to ‘the University’. This paper argues against the framing of the university as an ideal-type, and considers epistemic gains from treating universities as assemblages of different functions, actors and relations. It contrasts this with the concept of ‘unbundling’, using two recent cases of controversies around academics’ engagement on social media to show how, rather than having clearly delineated limits, social entities become ‘territorialised’ through boundary disputes. (...) The conclusion extends this discussion to the production of knowledge about social objects in general. (shrink)

Concentrating on the way in which new materialist authors like Jane Bennett have read and appropriated the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze, this essay has two major objectives: first, it aims to point out the shortcomings of the new materialism's concept of the political. Second, it seeks to investigate the differences and affinities between neomaterialist thought and Deleuze's philosophy. While Deleuze's focus on material becomings and concrete assemblages certainly lends itself to being utilised by neomaterialist authors, what many of these authors (...) tend to ignore is the Marxian influence in Deleuze's thinking. It would be misleading, then, to see Deleuze as a new materialist avant la lettre, thereby implying that he categorically dismissed the ‘old’ materialism. Rather, what is unique about Deleuze's philosophy is its combination of a Marxist understanding of modes of production and their material conditions with a social ontology – inspired, among others, by Spinoza and Tarde – that emphasises the complex intermingling of human and non-human actors. (shrink)

This article explores a key difference that Elder-Vass has identified between critical realism and pragmatism: their divergent views on the viability of the concept of social structure. Noting that...

This article proposes complementing actor-network theory (ANT) with Niklas Luhmann’s communication theory, in order to overcome one of ANT’s major shortcomings, namely, the lack of a conceptual repertoire to describe virtual processes such as sense-making. A highly problematic consequence of ANT’s actualism is that it cannot explain the differentiation of economic, legal, scientific, touristic, religious, medical, artistic, political and other qualities of actual entities, assemblages and relationships. By recasting Luhmann’s theory of functionally differentiated communication forms and sense-making as dealing with (...) different types of virtual attractors calling for actualizations in concrete assemblages, I propose a symmetrical understanding of societal differentiation processes as based on the co-production of virtual attractors and actual assemblages. (shrink)

One of the strikingly iconoclastic features of actor-network theory is its juxtaposition of the claim to be a realist perspective with denials that supposedly natural phenomena existed before scientists “made them up.” This paper explains and criticizes such arguments in the work of Bruno Latour. By combining referent and reference in the concept of assemblages, Latour provides a superficially viable way to reconcile these apparently incompatible claims. This paper will argue, however, that this conflation of referent and reference leads Latour’s (...) ontology into difficulties that can only be resolved by abandoning it in favor of a more conventional—critical—realism. (shrink)

The monad, of which we will speak here, is nothing else than a simple substance, which goes to make up compounds; by simple, we mean without parts. From its origins in antiquity the monad is a concept that has time and again beguiled and attracted philosophers. This thesis will argue that it is a concept that lives on in the work of Bruno Latour and that it continues to have a contemporary relevance, offering a way out of sterile debates rooted (...) in Cartesian dualism – subject/object, interior/exterior, essence/accident, whole/part, mind/body – and an alternative to those traditions which privilege one side of the dualism over the other – positivism on one hand, postmodernism on the other. The present study charts the development of the monad through the modern period, beginning with the work of Gottfried Leibniz and, thereafter, its recurrence in the work of Gabriel Tarde, Alfred North Whitehead, and, finally, Bruno Latour. However, rather than simply sketching a chronological history of the monad this study takes as its starting point Bruno Latour’s Actor-Network Theory, or to use Latour’s preferred formulation, Actant Rhizome Ontology. Arguing that Latour’s work is best understood as being another instance of a monadological metaphysics that – contra Graham Harman – owes more to Whitehead than Heidegger, to Tarde than Nietzsche, to Leibniz than Spinoza; the thesis traces the genetic intellectual relations between Latour and his three co-monadologists. Latour himself frequently identifies Leibniz, Tarde and Whitehead as intellectual antecedents in his own work; in the spirit of Latour’s own Actor-Network Theory, this thesis takes a closer look at these claimed chains of association. The first chapter surveys Leibniz’s monadology and argues that, far from being an idealist, Leibniz was committed to a monism that recognized the materiality of simple substance through his corporeal ‘de Volder’ monad. This does not necessarily lead, as argued forcibly Pauline Phemister, to pan-psychism, as Leibniz anticipates William James’ ‘depsychologized’ category of experience with his three level system of bare, soul and spirit monads, where only the spirit monads possess anything resembling a mind; however, it takes Whitehead’s transformation of the monad into the actual entity to complete the break between experience and mind. The second chapter provides a close reading of Gabriel Tarde’s Monadology & Sociology, a work only made available in English in 2012. Latour has played a significant role in the rediscovery of Tarde, claiming his criminologist compatriot as an intellectual forefather; yet throughout the 20th century Tarde’s work quietly influenced continental philosophy through Giles Deleuze who, despite only ever mentioning Tarde parenthetically, borrows Tarde’s very own formulation for the title of Difference et Repetition. The chapter presents Tarde’s work as being an explosion of the Leibnizian monad where the universe is no longer reflected but literally embodied in each individual entity while at the same time diffused through the universe of monads by virtue of relations of possession. Taken together with his theory of repetition and imitation, his privileging of difference over identity, and his philosophy of having – his ‘echontology’ – Tarde’s monadology provides the foundations for a truly relational ontology; foundations which Latour will retrospectively claim for Actor Network Theory. The third chapter considers Whitehead’s metaphysical scheme as presented in Process and Reality. Whitehead resolves the ‘audacious fudge’ committed by Leibniz – the doctrine of pre-established harmony – through a complex and sophisticated realist metaphysical system, one held together by ‘creativity’. Whitehead’s categoreal scheme, his peculiar vocabulary, his reiterative method whereby ideas are presented over and over again in different contexts mirror the very metaphysical scheme he describes. This – along with his insistence on the atomic nature of time and the instantaneous emergence and realization of each ‘actual entity’ – lays the basis for Latour’s democratic ontology which, as well as famously according equality between human and non-human actors affords concepts the same ontological status as the thinker in whose mind they have been formed. The final chapter returns to the work of Latour himself to find the monad reassembled as the ‘actor-network’. Latour’s ontological scheme is discussed in detail with reference to his three antecedents, and his ontology is presented as a reiteration/renewal of the monad; an ontology that itself demands to be renewed each and every time it is deployed. Finally, the thesis argues that Latour pays insufficient heed to Whitehead’s understanding of abstraction with the result that, despite developing the idea himself, Latour fails to fully embrace the ontological reality of the abstract. This in turn leads to his preference for litany over critique and results in a philosophy with a great deal of descriptive power but little or no transformational power. The ‘compositionist’ politics that emerge from Latour’s Actant Rhizome Ontology are ambiguous and utopian, and the thesis concludes by suggesting that more work is required to further Latour’s democratization of the monad, to include its radicalization, in pursuit of a monadology that provides an ontological basis for: …the genuine resolution of the conflict between man [sic] and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. (shrink)

I have used practice as method to investigate the creative potential of portable projectors, and theoretical approaches to reflect on: 1. the perception of the environment and its textures, 2. the sense of place-making and being while in motion, 3. the portability and collective mediation of the environment, and 4. the collaborative process of participation. These four themes emerged from the four video walks I developed during the research: The Surface Inside (2011), I-Walk (2012), Walk-itch (2013), and (wh)ere land (2014). (...) To delve into the philosophical nuances and practical outcomes, I have paired the four video walks with the four themes. This research approach resembles the design process, where practice develops in the action of reflection (Sch¨on,1983). The thesis and portfolio are the result of an iterative practice-reflection process which is based on the thread metaphor. The experience of being and walking in the environment is proprioceptive (J. J. Gibson, 1986) and can only be partially conveyed through audiovisual records. People experience the complex texture of the environment in motion (i.e. accretion of surfaces). While moving, they thread their own paths into the environment (Ingold, 2007) and establish links with the environment, technology and others. As they move, people experience the texturality of the surfaces they encounter. Video records captured with visual apparatuses (Flusser, 2000) are a fraction of the points of observation a person may have adopted while walking in and experiencing the environment. These records are likely to be created with PEDs, shared in digital environments and accessed on digital screens. When these records are experienced on digital screens, the texture of the environment is reduced to a flat surface. PEDs, with their digital screens, are carried around everyday and enable people to communicate with others, to collect and share audiovisual material, and to experience hybrid environments where tangible and digital realms converge (Coyne, 2010). Audiovisuals can be accessed anywhere and are no longer dependent on the architectures that hosted them in the past. Yet, PEDs may also isolate people from their immediate surroundings and favour introspective engagement with audiovisual content, digital others and digital environments (Turkle, 2011). The size of PEDs limits the number of people that can engage with the content at only one time. Pocketsize devices tend to be used individually, and their audiovisual content played through digital screens and headphones which foster cocoon-like engagement. Through the four video walks, I investigate how portable projectors may be used to challenge this inward looking mode of experiencing audiovisuals on flat digital screens, and to devise participatory events where people thread their paths in the environment, and project and engage with audiovisuals together. In the video walks, I invite people to move with projections and explore mediated public environments. Instead of sitting in front of fixed projections or looking at digital screens, people experience and share visuals while walking and projecting them in the environment. Portable projectors are starting to be embedded in mobile phones and other portable electronic devices (PEDs), and this presents new challenges and opportunities to creative practitioners. Thus, I study the affordances of portable projectors and develop artworks where participants walk, project visuals and explore textures in the environment collectively. (shrink)