Abstract
Relational ontologies that postulate the primacy of relations over their relata may seem like a contrary and incompatible approach to object-oriented ontology (OOO). Therefore, this paper aims to clarify the relationship between Barad’s and Escobar’s relational ontologies and Harman’s OOO by comparing and contrasting the relative coherences between them. After outlining the central assumptions of the different accounts, I discuss the problems of relational ontologies with regard to several ethical, political, and posthumanist issues. I argue that OOO is able to avoid their pitfalls without rejecting the major benefits of relational ontologies. After a critique of the pluralization of worlds within relational ontologies, I argue for the rejection of the concept of world(s) in favor of understanding space and time as emerging from polar tensions within the quadruple objects. Consequently, this highlights the potential of OOO to encounter the Anthropocene beyond scientific realism and to account for the plurality of reality without granting any hegemonic access to it. This paper, therefore, argues for a conceptualization of ontological difference without one or many worlds.
References
Ainsworth, Peter Mark, “What is ontic structural realism?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 41 (2010), 50-57.10.1016/j.shpsb.2009.11.001Search in Google Scholar
Barad, Karen, “Diffracting Diffraction: Cutting Together-Apart.” parallax 20:3 (2014), 168-187.10.1080/13534645.2014.927623Search in Google Scholar
Barad, Karen. Meeting the Universe Halfway. Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham/London: Duke University Press, 2007.10.2307/j.ctv12101zqSearch in Google Scholar
Bertet, Patrice et al. “A complementarity experiment with an interferometer at the quantum-classical boundary.” Nature, 411:10 (2001), 166-170.10.1038/35075517Search in Google Scholar
Bonneuil, Christophe. “The geological turn: narratives of the Anthropocene.” In The Anthropocene and the Global Environmental Crisis. Rethinking modernity in a new epoch, edited by Clive Hamilton/Christoph Bonneuil/François Gemenne, 17-31. London/New York: Routledge, 2015.Search in Google Scholar
Caro, Mario De. “Zwei Spielarten des Realismus.” In Der Neue Realismus, edited by Markus Gabriel, 19-32. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 2015.Search in Google Scholar
DeLanda, Manuel & Harman, Graham. The Rise of Realism. Malden, MA: Polity, 2017.Search in Google Scholar
Dussel, Enrique. Der Gegendiskurs der Moderne. Trans. Christoph Dittrich. Wien/Berlin: Turia + Kant, 2013.Search in Google Scholar
Escobar, Arturo. Designs for the Pluriverse. Radical Interdependence, Autononmy, and the Making of the Worlds. Durham/London: Duke University Press, 2018.10.1215/9780822371816Search in Google Scholar
Escobar, Arturo. “Thinking-feeling with the Earth: Territorial Struggles and the Ontological Dimension of the Epistemologies of the South.” Revista de Antropología Iberoamericana 11:1 (2015), 11-32.10.11156/aibr.110102eSearch in Google Scholar
French, Steven & Ladyman, James. “Remodelling structural realism: Quantum physics and the metaphysics of structure.” Synthese 136:1 (2003), 31-56.10.1023/A:1024156116636Search in Google Scholar
Harman, Graham. Bells and Whistles. More Speculative Realism. Winchester/Washington: Zero Books, 2013.Search in Google Scholar
Harman, Graham. Object-Oriented Ontology. A New Theory of Everything. London: Pelican, 2018.10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.013.997Search in Google Scholar
Harman, Graham. “On the Horror of Phenomenology: Lovecraft and Husserl.” In Collapse IV. Philosophical Research and Development, edited by Robin Mackay, 333-364. Oxford: Urbanomic, 2008.Search in Google Scholar
Harman, Graham. “On Vicarious Causation.” In Collapse II. Philosophical Research and Development, edited by Robin Mackay, 171-205. Oxford: Urbanomic, 2007.Search in Google Scholar
Harman, Graham. The Quadruple Object. Winchester/Washington: Zero Books, 2011.Search in Google Scholar
Harman, Graham. The Third Table / Der dritte Tisch. Berlin/Stuttgart: Hatje Cantz, 2012.Search in Google Scholar
Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. Trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. Oxford: Blackwell, 1962.Search in Google Scholar
Hollbrand, Martin et al. (Ed.). The Ontological Turn. An Anthropological Exposition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.Search in Google Scholar
Ladyman, James. “What is structural realism?” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 29:3 (1998), 409-424.10.1016/S0039-3681(98)80129-5Search in Google Scholar
Law, John. “What’s Wrong with a One-World World.” Online: http://heterogeneities.net/publications/Law2011WhatsWrong-WithAOneWorldWorld.pdf [last access: 16.11.2018], 2011.Search in Google Scholar
Meillassoux, Quentin. After Finitude. An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency. Trans. Ray Brassier. London/New York: Continuum, 2008.10.5040/9781350252059Search in Google Scholar
Morton, Timothy. Humankind. Solidarity with Nonhuman People. London/New York: Verso, 2017.Search in Google Scholar
Povinelli, Elizabeth A. Geontologies. A Requiem to Late Liberalism. Durham/London: Duke University Press, 2016.10.1515/9780822373810Search in Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. Reason, Truth and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.10.1017/CBO9780511625398Search in Google Scholar
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. In Other Worlds. Essays in Cultural Politics. New York/London: Routledge, 1988.Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Michael Feichtinger, published by De Gruyter Open
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
