Objects Don't Have Desires: Toward an Anthropology of Technology beyond Anthropomorphism

“Postdualist” approaches, such as the material turn in humanities and social sciences, represent understandable reactions to humanist idealist traditions Western thought, but tend be deluded by a focus on individual artifacts rather than global, relations which their existence depends. The attribution of agency even desires abiotic objects, championed posthumanist researchers Bruno Latour Donna Haraway, is cognate category mistakes recurrently identified theorists fetishism anthropomorphism. Paradoxically, given subversive ambitions, proponents new concern with materiality artifactual are offering an ideology that ultimately buttresses capitalist world order ignoring trade causality inherent artifact money. concerns distributed also displace responsibility accountability from humans artifacts. Moreover, converging deep genealogy ideas blur boundary between nature artifice, depoliticizes technology naturalizing it. article proposes anthropology acknowledges reliance modern asymmetric global resource flows orchestrated money fictive reciprocity market prices. [material turn, posthumanism, fetishism, technology, postdualism] Aproximaciones “posdualistas”, tales como el cambio en las humanidades y ciencias sociales, representan reacciones entendibles la tradición humanista e idealista pensamiento occidental, sin embargo, tienden estar equivocadas por un enfoque artefactos individuales más que relaciones materiales globales de depende su existencia. La atribución agencia inclusive deseos objetos abióticos, abogada investigadores poshumanistas es cognada los errores categorías identificadas recurrentemente teóricos sociales fetichismo antropomorfismo. Paradójicamente, dadas sus ambiciones subversivas, proponentes nueva preocupación con materialidad están ofreciendo una ideología últimas refuerza orden capitalista mundial al ignorar del comercio causalidad inherente artefacto dinero. Las preocupaciones distribuida también desplazar responsabilidad obligación rendir cuentas humanos artefactos. Además, converger genealogía profunda oscurece límite entre naturaleza artificio, despolitiza tecnología naturalizarla. El artículo propone antropología reconoce dependencia moderna flujos recursos asimétricos orquestados dinero reciprocidad precios mercado. [cambio material, poshumanismo, fetichismo, tecnología, posdualismo] Many anthropologists experiencing dilemma relation currently widespread claims about “object agency.” Such professed various overlapping strands contemporary ontological posthumanism. Their common denominator can “postdualism” (Escobar 2018)11 Escobar (2018, xi, 20) usefully speaks “postdualist” academic trends emphasizing relationality, “the nonhumans certain renewed attention materiality.” He traces “political ontology” (Blaser 2013) interdisciplinary field political ecology through poststructuralism current phase “can broadly described postconstructivist neomaterialist” most aptly captured “ontological turn” 2018, 63–64). convincingly shows how seen efforts address previously subordinated sides dualist pairs, human/nonhuman, live/inert, mind/matter (95–96).. Although diverse, these approaches share ambition challenge conventional distinctions believed bolster Euro-American dominance neocolonialism (e.g., Barad 2019; Bennett 2010; Blaser 2013; Braidotti Cadena 2015; 2018; Haraway 2016; 1993, 2004a, Law Tsing 2015). They thus self-identify critical power structures representing subaltern posture. Among features thought commonly buttressing three central interrelated tenets Enlightenment: society, nonhumans, living nonliving. Over past few decades, critiques elements worldview have gained prominence several sciences humanities, including anthropology. In being uniquely familiar sympathetic non-Western ontologies, has ambivalent mainstream distinctions. Firstly, although constantly reminded inequalities often intensely engaged advocacy for marginalized groups, may not always convinced jettisoning nature/society distinction will contribute emancipation groups. On contrary, struggle requires clear identification repressive structure marginalizes them. Second, while prepared embrace rejections human exceptionalism, very rationale discipline precisely study beings special conceptual tools methodologies, deciphering symbolic systems. This anthropocentrism straightforward acknowledgment specificity. Thirdly, taking seriously informants’ conviction objects generally difficult reconcile anthropologists’ everyday experience. It one thing conduct sensitive ethnography respectfully documenting one's assertions object agency, it something else internalize valid statements reality. ways, many need cognitively sequester activity ethnographically convictions interlocutors own political, analytical, practical activities. this article, I argue anti-Enlightenment been presented emancipatory fact obstacles grasping exploitative operation capitalism. aim show some ostensibly postdualist theory obscuring crucial aspects neocolonial asymmetries. reveal economic largely fails recognize occurrence exploitation, we ontology diametrically opposite direction: more delineating versus acknowledging constitution world, rejecting illusion nonliving things agency. Modifying critique dualism help expose our inclination fetishize technological illuminate alarming ways systems transform natural they increasingly entwined so-called Anthropocene. My original reasons wanting understand circumstances derive my struggles economics ever since Victorian times deplorably inattentive dimensions (Hornborg 2019). Mainstream couches its exchange subjective terms perceived “utility,” consumer “preferences,” “demand” objective quantities physical resources—labor, land, materials, energy—that embodied traded commodities.22 transfers biophysical resources world-system—commonly referred ecologically unequal exchange—are irrelevant or invisible mainstream, neoclassical extensively documented methods flow analysis (Dorninger Hornborg Dorninger et al. 2020). arguably condition progress Industrial Revolution. Money prices serve semiotic veil both obscures organizes asymmetries under surface reciprocity. To lift project aiming at greater justice. No less economics, engineering science would acknowledge requisites—and asymmetries—of industrial growth. essence predominantly understood innovative knowledge—as represented abstract blueprint—rather articulation components machine, i.e., form machine itself. cognitivist approach pervasive sprang—a underpinning accumulation system (the economy) process (technology) ideas. While general aspiration escape bias traditional commendable, assumptions objectives “new materiality” struck me highly dubious far emancipatory. attribute voice prone only nonhuman entities. disregard latter attributing properties invite what Karl Marx recognized fetishism. afflicted discourses themes seemingly diverse philosophy (Latour 1996), complexity 2017), phenomenology art (Mitchell 2005). follows, discuss made regarding topics indicate why them must regarded untenable. ignore important difference effects phenomena. abandonment distinction, argue, significant ideological implications relinquishing depoliticizing technology. blurring boundaries biological evolution development serves naturalize instruments control intraspecies exploitation. focusing themselves, obscure rely imbued. sense, explicitly opposed neocolonialism, “relationality” 2018) remains confined interaction within local assemblages approaching technologies manifestations metabolism. final suggest “anthropology technology” abandon fetishistic notions economy generates illusions. accomplish this, clarify societal artifacts—that is, society conceived insulated segments reality distinct analytical dimensions. unveil globalized rely, causal (which say agency) money—an whose momentous repercussions posthumanists remarkably ignore. A “decolonial” general-purpose instrument foundational impetus toward derives studies (STS), particularly actor–network (ANT) Latour. Latour's perspectives bewildered his readers persuading counterintuitive challenges subtle intriguing validity. series books articles, beginning 1980s, he offered prolonged serious argument machines other “actants” endowed volition.33 eagerness anthropocentrism, effect promoted deny it, could verbatim “desires,” “points view,” “souls” anything anthropomorphic? book Aramis—an intricately automated transport designed Paris failed materialize—Latour (1996) complex processes leading up abortion. His point shift understanding those exclusive strategies purported goals As distilled cover, wants grasp “technological innovation needs desires, especially desire born.” We told Aramis “point view.” preface, indicates hitherto isolated “people who interested souls machines” (vii–viii). radical empiricism refuses constrained sociology privilege unique sources purposes, perspectives. obviates any attempt identifying macro-scale patterns propelled reproduced capitalism world-systems—indeed, seems, theory. collectives ignores dismisses significance purposive communication. appears impute no specific motivations consciousness. implication should impact earthquake volcanic eruption belongs same phenomena actions originating language legislation. flattening implies simply matter having consequences there purposiveness involved. What disturbs humanists sociologists ANT meanings—that culture—appear role organizing actions. accustomed thinking use defines specificity behavior—and justifies much theory—Latour's disavowal exceptionalism accept. Part reason so followers solve obvious problems 1993). But does superficially. real-world span divide, mean categories “nature” “society.” misguided believe “society” denote parts each other, distinction—often Cartesian (cf. 2018)—is different retain. Anthropogenic climate change, instance, certainly aspects, give us carbon cycles toolbox. distinguishing binary crusade against risks throwing out baby bathwater. Given cannot participate communication define incorrect assert extend list” “who participates” “full-blown actors” 2005, 72; emphasis added). However valid, observation enables integrate societies extensive troops baboons (Strum 1987) claim instigators unwillingness distinguish subjects suggests either mechanical processes—propelled acts volition mindless momentum—or metaphysical vitalism imputing purposes all things. Much unacceptable deliberations idiosyncratic “subject” “object.” frequently subject/object coincides society/nature diagnostic much-maligned “modern constitution.” argues replaced 237–38). objection none coincide. “nonhumans” include great diversity sentient Kohn 2013), “society”—as himself abundantly demonstrated—includes vast complexes objects. uses sense—evoking subject's over object—but dictionary confirm, “a feeling entity; conscious mind; ego, esp. external mind” (Allen 1990, 1214). piece rock metal indisputably dog mouse, huge might theorize possible interacting environments.44 Gregory Bateson (1972, 379, 457) us, respond kicked. Whereas Bateson's was energy propelling movement dog, just well capacities choosing response—that vein, Ingold (2011, 94) retorts “concept make allowance real organisms, inert matter. absurd place grain sand aphid scales balance equivalent.” recent books, (2017, turned planetary anthropogenic warming illustrates interfusion nature—defined driven nonsymbolic phenomena, respectively—it prompt dissolve nor do meteorological calamities Anthropocene planet into vengeful subject humanity passive object.55 (2017) enthusiastically adopts James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis, according biosphere functions teleologically, like gigantic organism. formidable. More anyone else, provided concepts number scholars following example demanding concede nonhumans. fundamental question rarely answered “nonhumans.” usually applied conceivable entity, whether Thus, example, amorphous mix “microorganisms, animals, plants, machines, rivers, glaciers, oceans, chemical elements, compounds” (Danowski Viveiros Castro 2017, 100). task emancipating heterogeneous collection entities strains vocabulary beyond feasible. accept nonhumans—down elements—have reserved humans: participation goals, perspectives, rights, responsibility? politics, legislation, moral philosophy? Some indications where lead Jane Bennett's (2010) Vibrant Matter, “vital running Drawing long line philosophers Spinoza Deleuze, agenda mysticism, when she asserts inanimate “an inexplicable vitality energy, moment independence resistance bodies: kind thing-power” (18; Her major electrical blackout North America 2003, grid itself, absolve technologies. Referring Latour, electricity itself “actant” contributing failure. Rather account flaws design grid, implicate fallibility engineers, seems propose bears responsibility. vibrant matter, writes, “presents individuals incapable bearing full effects” (37). “In agency,” continues, “virtuous” hesitate assigning singular blame humans. her failures remarkable infamous medieval trials insects prosecuted ruining harvests. failure determine are—or particular ill-designed recalled—but hardware part clearly case displacement problematic brand vitalism. There doubt want abolish indispensable, after all. For Eduardo Kohn, ethnographic fieldwork among Runa lowland Ecuador, admonishes “important kinds beings, selves objects” (Kohn 2013, 7). distinguishes former signs “represent way another” (9). recognizing forms representation, argues, Bennett, perpetuate modes subjectivity intermediate mind “unfeeling matter” (40). selves. Nonhuman treat generically—“indiscriminately lumping together beings”—is miss this. Contra concludes, “Selves, things, qualify agents. Resistance Nor, contra (2010), confer vitality” (92). What, then, beings? least Leslie White (1940), makes exceptional sign purely referent: symbol.66 respects mammals, observe life imbued Symbolic meanings socially negotiated. (2013, 55) observes, “symbolic reference, unique, emergent dynamic nested [the] broader semiosis stems depends.” words, nonliving, symbolism Posthumanists appear distinctions, invalidate ontologies implied “distributed extent environmental dilemmas component, reverberations economies technologies—phenomena founded systems—throughout biosphere. Cary Wolfe (2010, xii–xiii) offers tracing roots emergence cybernetics late 1940s. blurred organisms Originally aimed constructing military technologies—such goal-seeking missiles—that imitated focused communicational goal replicate led advances robotics artificial intelligence. connection evident calls “locus classicus” posthumanism: Haraway's “A Cyborg Manifesto” ([1985] 2014). explains introduction manifesto, “cyborg cybernetic organism, hybrid creature fiction” (610). published intended undermine exceptionalism: conveys mutually entangled species life. years, influential ecological predicament (Haraway 2016). position are, regards degradation 2017c). At point, (2016, 29) “we responsible shaping conditions multispecies flourishing,” background constant insistence dissolving ask whom appeal directed. conceiving systems, animate inanimate, animals herself, Gaia, kinds. coin theorizing existence, everything communication-control-system me. (Ihde Selinger 47–48) justified nonlife. (1972), anthropologist-cum-biologist founders cybernetics, unravel logic systems—which practically oriented cyberneticians knowledge designing information-processing technologies.77 Bateson, however, attempts technologically replicating did justify organisms. internal wiring machines—that them—has precluded considerations Even SCOT—the “social construction (Bijker, Hughes, Pinch 1987)—have neglected inputs substances, rates. Technologies indeed constructed, constructivists fail “social” includes ratios procured—generally net organized market. Societies metabolism—a metabolism—that concerned sociologists, historians, Nor heirs acknowledged dependence efficacy (asymmetric) glob