Object-Oriented Ontology and Bushfires

The reader of this blog probably has noted by now that I have a certain preference for Latour related philosophy. I admit this is somewhat limited for a blog that claims to focus on the broad spectrum of contemporary ontology. I’m very open to other branches and schools in contemporary ontology, but I have simply not the expertise to pick articles which are of interest. At the moment I’m looking for other people who would also like to contribute to this blog, so that we can broaden the topics a bit more. Until then I will keep posting articles on topics on which I have some knowledge.

This time an article which is a cross-over between sociology and ontology.  Dean Pierides and Dan Woodman write in Object-oriented sociology and organizing in the face of emergency, what Graham Harman’s philosophy can contribute to the conceptualisation of a bushfire disaster in Australia. After the ‘Black Saturday’ bushfires in 2009 had killed 173 people, a research was commissioned to investigate the organisational errors which had led up to the disaster. In this research Pierides and Woodman argue that only the social dimension of the organisational disaster has been evaluated, i.e. the emergency services and meteorological institutes. Such research however has it shortcoming if one doesn’t take the ‘nature’ side of things into account. By conceptualising the bushfire as an object which can never be exhausted by the relations it has with the emergency services and institutions, Pierides and Woodman explain how the bushfire can mediate surprises. It are exactly these surprises that are not present in the organisation of emergency services and institution. And never can become present as long evaluations of the disaster only focus on the social dimension.

De Castro’s Multi-Naturalism

In the review of Latour’s Inquiry into the Modes of Existence that linked to earlier this week, Patrice Maniglier pointed out that there is a metaphysical turn in human sciences going on. One of the names he associated this turn with is the Brazilian anthropologist Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, whose book Cannibal Metaphysics will appear in November by Univocal press. In order to gain some idea where Cannibal Metaphysics is about, I have looked up an older article by de Castro published in Common Knowledge in 2004 (unfortunately you need a subscription to read it). As far as I could see,  the article deals with the same themes that will feature in the book, and judging from it I can say the book looks very promising.

In the article de Castro sets out a contrast between the modern ontology and the ontology of the Amerindian people of the Amazon. In his conception the modern ontology consists of a dualism between nature and culture (this off course echo’s Latour’s modern constitution in We Have Never Been Modern), in which nature is made all encompassing. The result of this ontology is that every reconception of nature (which off course always takes place in the west) will always have its consequence for culture (and this is most often the culture of the other, in opposition with the west). In contrast the Amerindian people don’t take nature as universal, they make it dependent on perspectives (humans perceive nature different that animals, and animals perceive nature different than spirits and so on), yet none of these natures is absolute and they are all just as true). This however doesn’t imply that the Amerindians are relativistic. Their ontology is rather based on relations that can be exchanged, the structure of the relation is stable and can be called objective. Because of the multi-naturalism the Amerindian ontology doesn’t have the pitfall of modern ontology, that is to say, a reconception of nature doesn’t imply a reconception of culture.

Side note: One of the more astonishing details in the article is the description of the warrior in Amerindian culture. Before the warrior can kill the enemy, he has to imagine himself from the perspective of the enemy. In other words he has to subjectivise his enemy, and as a result himself. The killing of the enemy stands for the taking over of the subjectivity of the enemy. According to the Amerindian people the enemy gives his subject as a gift to his killer. In the human nature it is the materiality (objectivity) which keeps humans from becoming each other prey and predator.

Heidegger and Realism

In order to fill this blog with some content, I continue to highlight some articles. This time it will be a piece by Markus Gabriel in which he interprets Heidegger’s Kehre as an attempt to come up with a realist ontology. The most remarkable argument in this article is probably Gabriel’s defence of Heidegger’s philosophy against Meillassoux’ argument of correlationism. He even goes so far as to claim that After Finitude should be read as an interpretation of Heideggers philosophy, not as an argument against it. The argument is only presented as a side remark. In a footnote Gabriel promises that it will feature in more detail in his upcoming Fields of Sense (In Edinburgh press Speculative Realism series).

P.S. Maurizio Ferraris contributes to the same issue of META with an outline of his New Realism. I did  not have time yet to read it, but it looks promising.

Latour’s metaphysical turn

Apart from keeping you updated on future events; I also want to make use of this blog to highlight some recent articles, which might be of interest to the readers. The first one is a very lucid written article on Bruno Latour’s turn to metaphysics by Patrice Maniglier. In my opinion Maniglier rightly concludes with the statement that Latour’s presentation of metaphysics as diplomacy  still has its problems, but provides at least (if not more) a provocative alternative to the more traditional metaphysics and deconstruction driven philosophies. Also, Maniglier manages to formulate the matter more clearly, than Latour himself was able to in his Inquiry into the Modes of Existence.

P.S. The rest of the articles in the new issue of Radical Philosophy are also worth reading.