Diana Coole and Samantha Frost - Essay Example

? DIANA COOLE AND SAMANTHA FROST By Diana Coole and Samantha Frost In the philosophical opinion of Diana Coole and Samantha Frost, past ontological approaches on political and social inquiry were inadequate in the sense in which they excluded certain perspectives of matter from their texts (Coole, & Frost, 2010). The two thinkers contend that new thinking about the qualities of matter and its relationships with other discourses expand the dimensions of political and social inquiry. Limitations of these discourses, in their view, relate to the inability of past researchers and philosophers to comprehend matter in terms larger than the fixed, rigid, and limited entity. Coole and Frost insist that emerging realities in the fields of sciences, arts, geography, and other disciplines are sufficient proof that matter contains more active and viable qualities that previously thought. A precise understanding of the case made by the two thinkers regarding the need for ontological reviews of political and social inquiries should begin with an assessment of the new qualities, which they assign to matter. Coole and Frost argue that matter is an excess and a force (Coole & Frost, 2010). By this, they imply that it can influence actions, activities, and processes in as many areas as it is represented. Furthermore, the two philosophers adopt the position that matter has some form of relationality and an element of difference. According to their argument, these qualities make matter active, unpredictable, self-creative, and productive. These new perceptions of matter foster alternative views regarding the influence and relationship between matter and discourses such as political and social realities. Coole and Frost engages significantly with the problem of dualism, which poses problems in dealing with the cultural theory. Within the context of new materialism, the two authors seek to entrench the view that the mind is essentially a material entity. By this position, new materialism challenges the views adopted by transcendentalism and humanism, which emphasize on the duality between the mind and the body. New materialism suggests that the body is the object of the mind and the two are not entirely separate but relate in one uniform continuum. It is important to regard new materialism in light of the different aspects that relate to it. For instance, by emphasizing on the primacy of the material, this new approach promotes the matter to a level that articulates various concerns that relate to the characteristic of various discourses. Other proponents of the position adopted by Coole and Frost suggest that matter feels, suffers, yearns, converses, desires, and remembers. Following this position, it is possible to demonstrate that the essence of all reality is resident in matter. The arguments presented by Coole and Frost have the effect of affirming the cultural theory by challenging the foundations on which modernism and post-modernism are founded. The elimination of the Cartesian divide between the mind and the body resolves one of the fundamental philosophical problems that continue to engage different schools of philosophers. It might be argued that the weight of the evidence presented in the work of the two philosophers draws significantly from the ordinary experiences and the transformations in reality as manifest in the emerging changes in nearly all spheres of life. The focus on matter changes the course of the debate between the essence of the body in ways that redefine a wide range of discourses including feminism, gender differences, sexuality, and other realities that seek to demonstrate the link between the mind, the self, and the body (Dyke, 1987, p. 106). Another important problem that the two philosophers seek to explore is the place of justice and ethics within the context of new materialism. Their perspectives on this matter are that the values of justice and ethics are part of matter as understood within the bigger picture of materialism. This position is consistent with the view expressed by other proponents of new materialism to the effect that matter connects all things and that there cannot be any separate identities that lack some kind of links between them. As such, it makes sense, to consider the fact that some of the issues relating to materialism are essentially inseparable. According to other philosophers, the relationship among ontology, ethics, and epistemology is inseparable. According to some defenders of new materialism, past approaches and ontologies pressed for distinct divisions among disciplines (Connolly, 2011, p. 34). The tenets of their arguments posited that certain discourses could stand alone independent of any associations with other disciplines. In essence, the arguments made by the various positions tended to foster the notion of separation of powers between discourses that emanated from different disciplines. As such, the perspectives promoted the position that divisions were essential. Such discourses promoted the development of separatist tendencies such as essential feminism and cultural difference (Gleick, 1987). On this note, it is possible to consider the fact that these ontologies were deficient in the sense in which they insisted on the existence of strict divisions. Factors supporting the development of alternative ontologies are anchored on the realization that essential differences are unstable and have to rely on the acknowledgement of the common linkages through materialism for their survival. New materialism denies the existence of differences between discourses. It promotes postulates that support the existence of essential linkages between the various discourses through the common convergent point of materialism. Matter is considered as a fundamental linking point that connects diverse relationships, associations, entities, and objects. According to these postulates, the apparent differences that exist between disciplines should not be considered in terms of dissociations but rather as separations for the form of specialization on different purposes that ultimately culminate into common perspectives. On this note, the position challenges the existence of strict differences in gender and other discourses. The claims adduced by these two authors provide interesting perspectives especially when considered within the discourses such as change and permanence. Transformations around the world, which have been witnessed in the fields of science, geography, politics, culture, and economics, have stretched beyond the limitations of existing theories and perspectives (Lewin, & Roger 1992). One explanation that accounts for this is that previous ontologies ignored the multiple qualities and capacities of matter as brought out in the joint thesis developed by Coole and Frost. It is therefore necessary to consider the merits of their argument in light of the limitations of previous ontologies, which lack the structural insights necessary to resolve the new findings and emerging realities. Changes that take place in the world of genetics, particle physics, and the emerging global challenges testify to the inherent forces that are resident in matter, and which demand a reexamination in order to assess their relationship with the broader subjects of social and political inquiry (Bergson, 2010, p. 358). As presently constituted, the substances in social and political spheres have ignored important aspects of matter that hold vital forces behind the kind of dynamism and transformations that inform modern experiences and happenings around the world. The development of a new ontology to incorporate the role of matter in political and social discourses would redeem the disciplines from theoretical limitations that have shown a significant mismatch with the practical and metaphysical world. The two authors extend their thinking into the linkages between metaphysics and matter. In their view, the metaphysical world is not necessarily delinked from the physical world. For instance, they argue that some forms of spiritual experience have important points of connection with the material world. As such, the two worlds of materialism and metaphysics relate in ways that are more complex than the representation shown in the past ontologies. According to the authors, the connection between the material and spiritual continues into the cultural to form some aspect of continuum. It is within this continuum that the qualities of matter as an entity with some form of vitality expand the understanding of the disciplines beyond the traditional theoretical approaches (Stockwell, 1998). In this respect, the approach of a new ontology as proposed by the two thinkers expands the limits of matter and completely redefines the understanding of its relationship with other disciplines. The argument presented by the two authors also connects with the perspectives presented by Henri Bergson who seeks fresh perspectives on the aspect of freedom (Bergson, 2010, p. 357). Bergson’s philosophy is founded on his interpretation of multiplicities into two categories. The first category is the continuous multiplicity while the second one is the discrete multiplicity. The differences in continuous multiplicity relate to kind, while those in discrete multiplicity are regarded by degree. Another important distinction is that continuous multiplicity manifest non-numerical and qualitative while the differences in the discrete multiplicity are numerical and therefore quantitative in nature. Bergson also observed that continuous multiplicities are continuous in nature while discrete multiplicities are discontinuous in nature. Other points of distinction identified in Bergson’s philosophy are that the differences in continuous multiplicities are virtual while those in discrete multiplicities are actual. Moreover, continuous multiplicities entail an aspect of qualitative discrimination whereas discrete multiplicity entails an aspect of quantitative differentiation (Bergson, 2010, p. 360). Within the understanding of matter, Bergson argues that continuous multiplicities entail some aspect of subjectivity, while discrete multiplicities are generally objective in nature. The differences cited by Bergson expand on the meaning in both theories from the perspective of materialism. Determining the essence of being requires the establishment of the constituent elements with regard to their relationship with matter. Bergson sought to establish these constituent elements through the theory of assemblages. According to Bergson, the aspect of freedom carries more meaning than the traditional considerations that often attach it to certain givens. Bergson attempts to establish such freedom as an intrinsic quality that emanates from within an agent or an individual. Such conceptions defy old ontologies, which define specific conceptual framework for assessing the same concept. Matter becomes the germ of such freedom as expressed within the individual freewill without reference to external realities and influences as suggested by the two authors. According to Bergson, various disciplines and realities are essentially connected in multiple ways. It is important to consider the fact that the materialism becomes the point at which various discourses assemble. To a significant degree, some of the issues that relate to the dimensions of change are essentially determined by the element of materialism. The qualities of change, vitality, relationship, and force, which are found within materialism, are fundamental in establishing the assemblages within which the various discourses connect. It is important to consider the position adopted by the two philosophers as an effort of resolving some of the philosophical problems that have been found within the fields of cultural and political inquiry. To a significant degree, the two areas demonstrated important weaknesses due to their failure to connect with emerging realities in their areas. Past ontologies had adopted positions that appeared static and rigid (Crockett & Robbins, 2012). According to Coole, such approaches failed to recognize the changing aspect of reality. They were developed within certain cultural and political environments that had not anticipated the current changes that have taken place in the different fields of human interest. As such, the authors sought to demonstrate that reality, by its very nature is not static. Moreover, they sought to make the point that the world will continue to be subject to the subtle, but dynamic forces that are resident within matter. Their position is consistent with emerging evidence from scientists, which have linked the changing geographical conditions with the dynamic forces in matter. Fresh perspectives on matter, as suggested by Coole and Frost must include the relationship between materialism and capitalism. In the opinion of other philosophers, the driving force of capitalism would be deprived of its motive in the absence of material gain (Brannigan, 1998). At the basic level, the authors suggest that the force of capitalism is primarily directed by humanity’s pursuit of material advantages. The levels of superiority between agents of capitalism are necessarily directed by competition towards the material items. Such competition, when perceived at a higher level, determines the conflict among man, groups, communities, and ideologies. All forms of competition are ultimately reducible to the pursuit of material supremacy (Harris, 2001). In essence, the fundamental aspects of materialism should be seen from the point of matter as the building unit. This observation effectively disengages ideological battles from the real of the abstract towards a practical level. Other important explanations offered by Coole and Frost seek to expand the understanding of feminism within the aspect of new materialism. The pursuit of freedoms and liberties are considered as fundamental towards the attainment of the appropriate power balance between the forces of feminism and patriarchal forces. In essence, the consequence of this struggle is considered important in the general process of obtaining some kind of material balance or advantage. Other supporters of new materialism observe the trend as an effort to tilt the scales of material advantage towards some definite direction. It is important to consider the fact that nearly all the explanations that focus on the struggle between discourses are reducible to the competition for matter. In this sense, the authors observe that new ontologies must explore the specific areas in which matter attends to the attendant discourses. The capacity of matter to change provides it with a transforming influence, which affects the other discourses as understood within the framework of political and social discourses (Wilkerson & Paris, 2001). The changes that take place in matter have significant impacts on social and political realities. Social and political realities are connected to environmental forces. The environment is largely constituted by material realities, which are founded on matter. Therefore, the changes in matter have the power to spark off a series of effects within the social and political realities. The effects of these transformations are perceptible in the emerging perspectives that adopt positions that are diametrically opposed to the old order. From this position, the two thinkers contend that nearly all forms of change are founded on the transforming power of matter. Political changes, revolutions, aspects of instability, and the rise of extremism are explained within the context of materialism (Wilkerson & Paris, 2001). The same explanation also borrows significantly from Marxism and capitalism. Alienation of labor and the search for political control, in the opinion of the two authors, are ultimately reducible to competition for material gain. In this regard, the thinkers seek to demonstrate the fact that the different forces of materialism are essentially connected by the desire of the competing agents to wrest control over matter. The connection between matter and the drive towards cultural freedom have not fully been explored in the other discourses. On this score, the arguments presented by Coole and Frost open up a new front of comprehension that could be used to expand on the perspectives on the connection between the various parties as understood within the framework of culture and politics. Coole and Frost seek to justify the connection between matter and life from the point of view of the scientific advances that have taken place within the field of biotechnology. In essence, it might be argued that some of the issues that connect between materialism and scientific developments offer proof of the vitality and versatility of matter (Alaimo & Hekman, 2008). The authors contend that matter is fundamental to all reality. It connects with nearly all forms of discourses and reality in ways that are not easily perceptible on casual observation. The evidence of changes that take place within these discourses has to be connected with the causal relationship between matter and the results. The capacity of scientists to change the world and human society is regarded as humanity’s capacity to alter reality by engaging certain qualities of matter. By their very nature, matters of reality often relate to challenges of nature as understood from the objective world. The postulations of the two thinkers attempt to open up more windows that reveal the complex but consistent connections between the world of ideas and the world of things. These connections determine the manner in which reality multiplies itself through connections and linkages. On this score, it might be argued that new perspectives on matter as developed within the postulations of Coole and Frost require the development of matching theories that would operationalize them into alternative meanings. Scientific evidence is largely considered to be at the core of the relationship between matter and the political inquiries of the modern age (Zizek, 2012). Theoretical conflicts that attend to the old explanations, according to the authors, require adjustments or total overhaul in order to regain consistence with the new evidence as established by the two. Structurally, the authors are of the opinion that the old or existing ontologies have significant limitations that lay obstacles in the understanding of the pertinent connections between matter and reality. As a form of balance, it might be argued that certain manifestations of reality within the political and cultural discourses have changed drastically due to human effort and influence on the composition of matter. The transforming agents of matter are considered both natural and manmade. On this level, the emergent theories have to adjust to these new realities by establishing the intricate connections between the forms of political and cultural reality and the effects of change in the composition of matter. Some specific forces construct social realities and cultural discourses (Williams, 2005, p. 51). The power that creates these forces is resident in the element of matter. It is therefore important to consider matter as an entity that affects and is in turn affected by the basic differences that make up matter. The qualities attached to matter weave their relationship into various issues and consequences. In a significant sense, the two authors present matter within the context of post-humanism. Accordingly, they attach the qualities of liveliness and agency to make it seem dynamic and versatile as understood within the element of reality. These qualities make it possible for the perceptions of matter to engage into the discourses of economics and other areas traditionally ignored by existing ontologies. In this regard, the authors make a compelling case for a review of ontologies in order to adjust the level of comprehension of the relationship between matter and the social and political discourses. To a significant level, Coole and Frost manage to challenge certain untested truths and unstable postulations that seek to promote superficial explanations regarding the relationship between matter and other discourses. Finding alternative definitions and qualities of matter is an important step towards the formulation of theories that could be relied upon to expand the understanding between matter and other discourses. Social and political inquiries require alternative means of interpretation in order to explore insights that continue to emerge within them. For instance, it is important to consider the fact that some of the issues contained in the postulation of the two thinkers relate to the cultural turn that has brought with it various conceptualization challenges that have threatened the structure of existing theories. In a broader perspective, emerging realities have continued to weaken the fundamentals on which these postulations are built (Parry, 2004). Therefore, it becomes important to evaluate ways in which new ontologies and theories can be developed in order to accommodate the place of matter in social and political inquiries. The mismatch between the existing ontologies and the place of matter or materialism in political and social discourses has to be determined through an assessment of structural flaws in the ontologies in light of the changing dimension of facts as presented through the evidence of new materialism. In essence, the positions adopted from by Coole and Frost are consistent with the need to review traditional approaches to social and philosophical inquiries by including dimensions of materialism, which had been largely neglected by past discourses. The philosophical efforts developed by Coole and Frost have to be understood in terms of a determined effort to build bridges between discourses, meanings, and disciplines by seeking new connections between materialism and the concepts. The development of ontologies to engage social and political discourses is necessary in order to furnish the understanding of the nature of connections between the materialism and other discourses. New materialism develops perspectives that contest modernist assumptions that seek to create distinctions, essential differences, and strict boundaries between associations. Works Cited Alaimo, S, & Hekman, S, J 2008, Material Feminisms, Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Bergson, H 2010, Creative Evolution, Random House, New York. Brannigan, J 1998, New Historicism and Cultural Materialism, Palgrave Macmillan, New York. Connolly, W 2011, A World of Becoming, Duke University Press, Durham. Coole, D, Frost, S, (Eds) 2010, New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency and Politics, Duke University Press, Durham. Crockett, C & Robbins, J, W 2012, Religion, Politics, and the Earth: The New Materialism, Palgrave Macmillan, New York. Dyke, C 1987, The Evolutionary Dynamics of Complex Systems: A Study in Biosocial Complexity, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Gleick, J 1987, Chaos, Abacus, London. Harris, M 2001, Cultural materialism: the struggle for a science of culture, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek. Lewin, & Roger 1992, Life At the Edge of Chaos, Macmillian, New York. Parry, B 2004, Postcolonial Studies: A Materialist Critique, Routledge, London. Stockwell, C, T 1998, New modes of thought, based upon the new materialism and the new pantheism including a tribute to Edward Drinker Cope, Kessinger, Kila Mont. Wilkerson, W, S & Paris, J, R 2001, New Critical Theory: Essays on Liberation, Rowman & Littlefield, New York. Williams, R 2005, Culture and materialism: selected essays, Verso, London. Zizek, S 2012, Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism, Verso Books, London. Read More