New materialism is a term which refers to several theoretical perspectives withincontemporary philosophy that attempt to rework the conventionalontological understanding of the material world. While many philosophical tendencies are associated with new materialism, in such a way that the movement resists a single definition, its common characteristics include a rejection ofessentialism,representationalism, andanthropocentrism as well as the dualistic boundaries between nature/culture; subject/object; and human/non-human.[1] Instead, new materialists emphasize how fixedentities and apparently closedsystems are produced through dynamicrelations andprocesses, considering the distribution ofagency through the interaction of heterogeneous forces.[2] The movement has influenced a wide variety of new articulations between intellectual currents in science and philosophy, in fields such asscience and technology studies, as well assystems science.
The term was independently coined byManuel DeLanda andRosi Braidotti during the second half of the1990s to identify an emerging body ofinterdisciplinary theory that sought to overcome thepost-structuralist emphasis ondiscourse, while drawing on the work ofGilles Deleuze,Félix Guattari, andGilbert Simondon in seeking to establish a materialist ontology that prioritizes processes ofindividuation.[3]
New materialism has been well-received by some individuals in a wide range of disciplines in contemporary academia, from environmental studies to philosophy. Frequently referenced works includeKaren Barad'sMeeting the Universe Halfway[4] andJane Bennett'sVibrant Matter[5]. New Materialists emphasise howCartesian binaries around human and nature have caused many issues in the world by ignoring social complexity.[6] New materialism has been championed for its more integrated approach that considers material and immaterial, biological, and social aspects as interconnected processes rather than distinct entities.[6]
EcologistAndreas Malm has called New Materialism 'idealism of the most useless sort', stating that the approach has little use for climate action or changing our relationship with nature, since it denies distinctions between humanity and nature. Malm argues that this supports the status quo rather than challenging it.[7] He also expresses frustration with the writing style of many New Materialists, claiming that they resist distinctions between things, making their writing impenetrable.[7]
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link)