Critical Theory and Feeling by Mussell Simon

Author:Mussell, Simon
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Manchester University Press

3

A feeling for things: objects, affects, mimesis

And things, what is the correct attitude to adopt towards things?

– Samuel Beckett, The Unnameable

Recent years have seen an explosion of scholarly interest in things. From the ‘new materialisms’ to ‘object-oriented ontology’, from ‘thing theory’ to ‘actor-network theory’, much of contemporary thought is turning its attention to the world of objects. What are the reasons for this shift? One of the principal motivations behind the turn to objects is a reaction against the ‘cultural turn’ and its subject-centred, discursive, ‘critical’ modes of textual interpretation and constructivism. These dominant models of thinking are said to overlook the myriad ways in which non-human matter is in itself irreducibly complex, productive, vibrant, dynamic, and so on. Another reason for the proliferation of object-oriented approaches is the growing awareness of ecological threats associated with the changing climate, whose grave implications seem to dwarf the significance and figure of the human being. Indeed, such a rejection of anthropocentric perspectives and methodologies is common to most object-led theory. For the range of thinkers from various backgrounds and disciplines who have contributed to this rethinking of the object world, no longer is the object to be understood simply in contradistinction, or epistemological service, to a human subject. Rather, against the prohibitions set out by Kant, the aim of many of today’s prominent thought-dispensers is precisely to think an object in- and for-itself.

This last ambition undergirds the ideas loosely collected under the banner of ‘object-oriented ontology’ (OOO), also known as ‘speculative realism’ (SR). In this chapter, I want to show how the contemporary (re)turn to objects initially serves as a useful corrective to social or political theories that fail to properly engage with the object world (this includes forms of traditional Marxism that often presume ‘reification’ to be a perennial evil, rather than a particular social relation). I take this as an opportunity for a timely reconstruction of early critical theory’s own engagements with the object world via aesthetics and mimesis. This is most evident in Siegfried Kracauer’s materialist film theory, as well as in Adorno’s theories of mimetic comportment and the preponderance of the object. Drawing out the affective qualities of critical theory’s relation to objects in this way not only challenges the Marxist orthodoxy that subordinates issues around objects and aesthetics; it will also serve as a rejoinder to today’s self-appointed envoys for the object world. My aim is to demonstrate that despite the considerable hype surrounding its leading proponents, OOO/SR suffers from a severe political and historical deficit, rendering it a practice of passive description rather than active interpretation (let alone intervention). The work of early critical theory is shown to avoid the shortcomings evident in OOO by effectively mediating subjectivity and objectivity through aesthetics.

In order to properly situate and re-evaluate critical theory’s engagement with objects, it is necessary to understand the dual dangers that accompany any theorization of objects. The first is that of excessive subjugation – evident in traditional, subject-centric political theory (including forms of orthodox Marxism).

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.