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_i...@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@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au > http://www.subtle.net/empyre _______________________________________________ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
