[-empyre-] Meillassoux / Harman

[frederic neyrat]

About OOO and politics, this interview of Graham Harman, "Marginalia
on Radical Thinking: An Interview with Graham Harman",
(http://skepoet.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/marginalia-on-radical-thinking-an-interview-with-graham-harman/)
seems political - but not obviously on the left side...

Besides, there are sometimes confusions between politics and the
condition of possibilities of politics (cf Vibrant Matter, a very good
book about these conditions of possibilities)

Best,

Frederic Neyrat

2012/6/14 Michael O'Rourke <tranquilised_icon at yahoo.com>
>
>
>
> Thanks to Zach for mentioning my article “Girls Welcome!!!” which made an initial attempt to sketch the potential affinities between speculative realism, object oriented ontology and queer theory. My forthcoming book with Punctum called simply Queering Speculative Realism will be a more ambitious sortie in this general direction. Zach correctly recalls that I say (in this interview: http://independentcolleges.academia.edu/MichaelORourke/Papers/1272839/X_Welcome_A_Conversation_with_Michael_ORourke_by_Stanimir_Panayotov) that there is a possible argument to be made for linking up Quentin Meillassoux’s notion of “hyperchaos” and “gender”. I admit in the interview that I really haven’t fully worked that through. And I still haven’t although I find what Zach has to say about the necessity of contingency and queerness really helpful in getting me moving. The impression that Meillassoux’s hyperchaos might help us to think about gender struck me upon reading an interview he gave with Robin Mackay and Florian Hecker (http://www.urbanomic.com/archives/Documents-1.pdf). I guess I will return to that to help me formulate what it is that I think is going on there.
>
>
>
> Both Zizek and Badiou anticipated Galloway’s recent invective against the apoliticality of Object Oriented philosophy and Speculative Realism (see the interviews in The Speculative Turn) but I’m not so sure they are right.  To take just a few examples: How could Tim Morton’s work on ecology be considered apolitical? Or Levi Bryant’s democratization of objects? It is even harder to argue that Jane Bennett’s writing on vibrant materiality which emerges directly out of political theory fails to advance an ethics or a politics.  The challenge as Jeffrey Jerome Cohen has been telling us is to extend the notion of the biopolitical in our work. What, Jeffrey would ask, would a more generously envisioned zoepolitics (or zoeethics or zoeontology) look like? And why would or wouldn’t we desire it?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre