Skip to main content

A society of objects

Orientation towards objects, as an attitude that goes beyond ontology and acquires all dimensions of a political stance, opens up the political issues of how to deal with objects. Adrian Bowyer, with the RepRap project, suggests that symbiosis is a relationship with objects that should replace the current one where they are put at the service of our lifes. Currently we can make scarse room for a genuine life for objects - they often appear as the ultimate harbour of lifelessness. In particular, their lack of life is put into our service - we make their existence as an existence at our service. Still, it is clear that they make alliances, they rescue us, they are actants in networks that sustain other supposedly living existences. They carry a messianicity in them - in the Derridian sense that Bennett explores which makes them capable of saving lifes at any moment. Objects appear as a lifeless part of our life but as actants of our political choices - which amount to the way we live - they are part of the political struggles.

A different politics (and a different erotic) towards objects would emerge from Bowyer´s vision that starts with RepRaps. Our relation to objects would involve a community with them, a symbiosis. We give the reprap printers what they need, they give us what we need to have a life that is shared. It is like taking the items in the cyborg life to be companions, to be with us extending the sense of mutual aid for life that Haraway cherishes. Ultimately, such a society of objects hints towards Lovelock´s Gaia. Our mode of life is negotiated through alliances with objects and once they cease to be seen as simply what our arrows of intentionality point towards, they become more like partners in a joint life. As political partners that compose this joint way of life, their force will surely be determined by tests of strength. The strength of a reproducing object (or a universal fabricator of objects) is nevertheless remarkable. It carries the seed of the continuation of a joint life. It looks like objects can become life-sustaining stations and no longer mere items that can be easily replaced. We are then looking at a redistribution of preciosity (and vulnerability): objects will become dearer because more precious in their capacity to sustain a whole environment for a joint life.

Politically, Bowyer´s vision can imply a different territorial machine. No longer the territory of capital that flows between goods and users (and no longer the territory of an owner that overlooks the objects that belong to them) but rather a multi-territorial scheme where services flow from different poles. Objects will then become the inorganic body of humans (as humans will become the organic body of objects), to use Marx´s apt phrase in Manuscripts. A society of objetcs is different from a human society that has diplomatic relations with another society but rather a joint society where objects show up from all sides.


  1. how do we know what they "need" as opposed to how their functions serve our needs?
    and why is this kind of personification better than a Pickering style mangle of practices with affordances and resistances?



Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Giving Birth

This is a month of giving birth: 1. On the first day of the month (my birthday) I sent out my book BUG (Being Up for Grabs) to publisher. A birth-giving moment. 2. On the forth, we started the Journal, called Journal of Questions. It is a Jabèsian and Jarryian endeavor that intends to reflect in many languages about the gaps between thought and translation. It will be available soon. 3. On the 10th, day before yesterday, offspring Devrim A. B. was born. Her name means revolution in Turkish and is a roughly common name. She's very attentive and concentrated - especially on her own fingers that she learned to molest in her youth during her womb months. She was gestated together with BUG. Hope the world enjoys.

My responses to (some) talks in the Book Symposium

Indexicalism is out: l   The book symposium took place two weeks ago with talks by Sofya Gevorkyan/Carlos Segovia, Paul Livingston, Gerson Brea, Steven Shaviro, Chris RayAlexander, Janina Moninska, Germán Prosperi, Gabriela Lafetá, Andrea Vidal, Elzahrã Osman, Graham Harman, Charles Johns, Jon Cogburn, Otavio Maciel, Aha Else, JP Caron, Michel Weber and John Bova. My very preliminary response to some of their talks about the book follows. (Texts will appear in a special issue of Cosmos & History soon). RESPONSES : ON SAYING PARADOXICAL THINGS Hilan Bensusan First of all, I want to thank everyone for their contributions. You all created a network of discussions that made the book worth publishing. Thanks. Response to Shaviro: To engage in a general account of how things are is to risk paradox. Totality, with its different figures including the impersonal one that enables a symmetrical view from nowhere

Hunky, Gunky and Junky - all Funky Metaphysics

Been reading Bohn's recent papers on the possibility of junky worlds (and therefore of hunky worlds as hunky worlds are those that are gunky and junky - quite funky, as I said in the other post). He cites Whitehead (process philosophy tends to go hunky) but also Leibniz in his company - he wouldn't take up gunk as he believed in monads but would accept junky worlds (where everything that exists is a part of something). Bohn quotes Leibniz in On Nature Itself «For, although there are atoms of substance, namely monads, which lack parts, there are no atoms of bulk, that is, atoms of the least possible extension, nor are there any ultimate elements, since a continuum cannot be composed out of points. In just the same way, there is nothing greatest in bulk nor infinite in extension, even if there is always something bigger than anything else, though there is a being greatest in the intensity of its perfection, that is, a being infinite in power.» And New Essays: ... for there is ne