Zygmunt Bauman, Liquid Modernity (2000)

Zygmunt Bauman, Liquid Modernity (2000)

Foreword: On Being Light and Liquid (1-15)

“...fluids … liquids, unlike solids, cannot easily hold their shape. Fluids, so to speak, neither fix space nor bind time.” (2)

Reading this after Debord’s Theory of Dérive, and my comments/thoughts on the relationship of space/time to dérive, leads me to see ‘dérive’ as fluid, definitely not solid.

“... fluids do not keep to any shape for long and are constantly ready (and prone) to change it; and so for them it is the flow of time that counts, more than the space they happen to occupy: that space, after all, they fill but 'for a moment'.” (2)

This is interesting, particularly in regard to the recent post by Petra Nimm . Petra has been exploring fluidity and the shifts in identity that occur from moment to moment.

“... solids cancel time; for liquids, on the contrary, it is mostly time that matters” (2).

This does mean that time is relevant to the dérive if it is not a solid. But this time is a momentary, non-fixed, shifting, fluid time.

“Descriptions of fluids are all snapshots, and they need a date at the bottom of the picture.” (2)

And if they go undated? Can the moment be just a moment or must it be delineated? This seems to me to begin drawing parameters which contain the fluid. When Petra drops a bead of water on a piece of paper, or Franzi pours a puddle of paint onto a canvas, the fluid moves in the direction the paper or canvas is tilted. It may run off or over the edge, drip on the floor, and if the floor is slanted it may continue to flow until there is no more fluid to flow or it has reached a barrier of some kind. This leads me back to ask, which moment in the flowing of the fluid can or must be dated? The flowing fluid can be captured by many snapshots as it moves through space.

Mobility of fluids we equate with lightness. Lightness we equate with the ability to move easier, to change frequently.

Liquidity, fluidity as a metaphor for (the present) modernity. “... has modernity not been 'fluid' since its inception ?” (3)

Melting the solids.

I’m thinking of smashing the solids and creating ‘solutions’ by dissolving the smaller, crushed particles in a liquid. Also of paints, where the solid pigments are ground extremely fine, do not dissolve but are dispersed in the liquid medium, such as the watercolors used by Petra Nimm. The solid pigments are still solid, but they are now carried along by the liquidity of the medium, mimicking the quality of fluidity they do not themselves possess but assume vicariously.

“Modern times found the pre-modern solids in a fairly advanced state of disintegration; and one of the most powerful motives behind the urge to melt them was the wish to discover or invent solids of - for a change - lasting solidity, a solidity which one could trust and rely upon and which would make the world predictable and therefore manageable.” (3)

The desire for solidity is greater than for fluidity; yet fluidity is what we seem to be left with more often than not. Still, the refining of the solids is a necessary step that determines the quality of the resulting dispersion. Looking at a rock known to contain a certain pigment one might just see a plain old rock, perhaps a fleck or streak of color here or there. Through a laborious process of crushing, separating and grinding down one finally achieves pure color, no longer the lump of hard, gray stone.

“Between the overall order and every one of the agencies, vehicles and stratagems of purposeful action there is a cleavage - a perpetually widening gap with no bridge in sight.” (5) [see: Claus Offe (in 'The Utopia of the Zero Option', first published in 1987 in Praxis International)]

Yes, this is how it feels today.

“Rigidity of order is the artefact and sediment of the human agents' freedom. … If the time of systemic revolutions has passed, it is because there are no buildings where the control desks of the system are lodged and which could be stormed and captured by the revolutionaries; and also because it is excruciatingly difficult, nay impossible, to imagine what the victors, once inside the buildings (if they found them first), could do to turn the tables and put paid to the misery that prompted them to rebel. One should be hardly taken aback or puzzled by the evident shortage of would-be revolutionaries: of the kind of people who articulate the desire to change their individual plights as a project of changing the order of society. ”(5)

This made me think of a recent opinion piece in the NYTimes.

“Ours is, as a result, an individualized, privatized version of modernity, with the burden of pattern-weaving and the responsibility for failure falling primarily on the individual's shoulders. … Keeping fluids in shape requires a lot of attention, constant vigilance and perceptual effort - and even then the success of the effort is anything but a foregone conclusion. ” (8)

“Modernity means many things, and its arrival and progress can be traced using many and different markers. One feature of modern life and its modern setting stands out, … That attribute is the changing relationship between space and time. Modernity starts when space and time are separated from living practice and from each other and so become ready to be theorized as distinct and mutually independent categories of strategy and action...” (8)

“... time has become, first and foremost, the weapon in the conquest of space. “ (9)

The Circle

post-Panoptical

“What mattered in Panopticon was that the people in charge were assumed always to "be there', nearby, in the controlling tower. What matters in post-Panoptical power-relations is that the people operating the levers of power on which the fate of the less volatile partners in the relationship depends can at any moment escape beyond reach -into sheer inaccessibility.” (11)

There are times when the feeling that the argument “you’re in the driver’s seat” becomes simply a way for others to shirk responsibility, until the moment they decide they don’t like how one is driving, at which point they reappear to grab the wheel or slam on the breaks. At the same time, if the driving conditions are rough and one seeks assistance they are often absent, wanting no more to deal with the rough road than the driver behind the wheel. -”the end of the era of mutual engagement” (11) There is no more space for collaboration or assistance; you’re either on your own or have absolutely no control. No one wants to take responsibility but is quick to place the blame.

I find the author’s example of the war in the Balkans in the 1990s interesting, and looking back, I wonder how much of the early days of the second war in Iraq (which began after this was published) -the moment of GWB standing on the deck of the aircraft carrier in flight suit with ‘Mission Complete’ floating around him was not in part a response to what the author described of the Balkan war. Yet, at the same time it was in fact not in the least bit different.

“War today, one may say (paraphrasing Clausewitz's famous formula), looks increasingly like a 'promotion of global free trade by other means' “ (12)

As the G20 conference in Hamburg … and certain representatives imagine themselves as warriors of wealth to whom the spoils of war will flow (into their own accounts).

“Citizenship went hand in hand with settlement, and the absence of 'fixed address' and 'statelessness' meant exclusion from the law-abiding and law-protected community and more often than not brought upon the culprits legal discrimination, if not active prosecution. While this still applies to the homeless and shifty 'underclass', which is subject to the old techniques of panoptical control (techniques largely abandoned as the prime \-vehicle of integrating and disciplining the bulk of the population), the era of unconditional superiority of sedentarism over nomadism and the domination of the settled over the mobile is on the whole grinding fast to a halt. We are witnessing the revenge of nomadism over the principle of territoriality and settlement.” (13)

I think we might be experiencing a political and cultural backlash to this nomadic trend. However, that doesn’t mean it has changed or stopped. I think we will continue to move forward in this direction of nomadism in spite of the reactionary tendencies we are seeing throughout the world. But then, my view is skewed by my personal situation and experience.

Bits of this text still ring true today, but the events of the past year also make it very dated. This makes it very hard to critically assess because it is very hard to grab hold of anything. So, I guess the position that we are existing in a period defined by its liquidity/fluidity is on the mark. It is not a slow flowing stream we find ourselves in, rather we are being swept away by a flash flood with nary a tree trunk in sight -let alone any ground!

“For power to be free to flow, the world must be free of fences, barriers, fortified borders and checkpoints.” (18)

Unless one is afraid of losing power to others; in which case, build a wall.

“This seems to be a dystopia made to the measure of liquid modernity - one fit to replace the fears recorded in Orwellian and Huxleyan-style nightmares.” (15)

If only…

Chapter 4: Work (130-167)

Forward.

This seems to be a suspicious word nowadays; often used to mean the opposite of progress, regression. In terms of labor one can look to the coal mining industry in the USA and the call to bring back that form of work as a means to ‘making America great again’ denying the reality that such an act is one of regression and not progression. In this sense Henry Ford’s statement “History is bunk.” remains misunderstood, unheard by those who think that the now is to bring back the then in order to reach the future.

Modern utopias.

Thinking again about the recent study of males working less, with labor replaced by video games. Is it harder to picture a future that is a modern utopia when we have fulfilled so many of the fantasy’s the previous generations worked to achieve? Much of my adult life I’ve heard that the trend of ‘making better’ than it was for the generations of my parents and grandparents is nearly impossible, let alone a really attainable goal for my children’s generation.

“Pierre Bourdieu has recently wistfully noted: to master the future, one needs a hold on the present.2 Those who keep the present in their grip can be confident of being able to force the future to make their affairs prosper, and for this very reason may ignore the past: they, and only they, can treat past history as 'bunk', which translates into more elegant English as 'nonsense', 'idle boast' or 'humbug'. ” (131)

I’m not so sure the vast majority people have a hold on the present, and the those that do wield it against those who don’t. [author states this on 135]

Progress = self confidence of the present.[time is on our side, we are the ones who make things happen] (132)

I sort of like that definition because it is a clear statement of accountability -not just to ourselves but to the group.

“Indeed, is history a march towards better living and more happiness? Were that true, how would we know? We, who say that, did not live in the past; those who lived in the past do not live today: So who is to make the comparison?” (132)

True. We cannot speak on behalf of either the past or the future, only the present. Yet, as soon as we speak the present has become the past and the future the present.

“The most poignant yet the least answerable question of our times of liquid modernity is not 'What is to be done?' (in order to make the world better or happier), but 'Who is going to do it?'” (133)

Joshua discourse

“If anything, the human condition in the stage of 'fluid' modernity or 'light' capitalism has made that modality of life yet more salient: progress is no longer a temporary measure, an interim matter, leading eventually (and soon) to a state of perfection (that is a state in which whatever had to be done would have been done and no other change would be called for), but a perpetual and perhaps never-ending challenge and necessity, the very meaning of 'staying alive and well'.” (134)

Progress no longer pertains to the group, but in the age of deregulation to the individual.

Progress is about ME, not you or us. It is for MY benefit and your concerns are only of concern to me as they will benefit ME.

Determinism and indeterminism in coexistence.

“Work was as signed many virtues and beneficial effects, like, for instance, the increase of wealth and the elimination of misery; but underlying every merit assigned it was it's assumed contribution to that order making, to the historic act of putting the human species in charge of its own destiny.” (137)

We are fated to work -all of us, together.

Thinking again to the recent study on work and video games.

Jacques Attali - labyrinth:

'In all European languages', Attali points out, 'the word labyrinth became a synonym of artificial complexity, useless darkness, tortuous system, impenetrable thicket. "Clarity" became a synonym of logic…. the labyrinth has become yet more treacherous and confusing owing to the illegible tangle of criss-crossing footprints, the cacophony of commands and the continuous addition of new twisting passages to the ones already left behind and new dead ends to the ones already blundered into. The settlers have become 'involuntary nomads', belatedly recalling the message they received at the beginning of their historical travels and trying desperately to recover its forgotten contents which - as they suspect - may well carry the 'wisdom necessary for their future'. Once more, the labyrinth becomes the master image of the human condition - and it means 'the opaque place where the layout of the roads may not obey any law. Chance and surprise rule in the labyrinth, which signals the defeat of Pure Reason.'9 ' (138)

“Work has drifted from the universe of order-building and future-control to the realm of a game; acts of work become more like the strategy of a player who sets himself modestly short-term objectives reaching no further than one or two moves ahead. What counts is the immediate effects of every move; the effects must be fit to be consumed on the spot.” (138-139)

“And so work has changed its character. More often than not, it is a one-off act: a ploy of a bricoleur, a trickster, aimed at what is at hand and inspired and constrained by what is at hand, more shaped than shaping, more the outcome of chasing a chance than the product of planning and design. … Work can no longer offer the secure axis around which to wrap and fix self-definitions, identities and life-projects.” (139)

Back to the game and how/who plays it and the impact on identity.

And now the description of the melting of solids and molds and labor has me seeing The Large Glass.

“The present-day uncertainty is a powerful individualizing force. It divides instead of uniting, and since there is no telling who will wake up the next day in what division, the idea of 'common interests' grows ever more nebulous and loses all pragmatic value.” (148)

Instability and uncertainty is being generated all around us.

“... when virtually all rules concerning the game of promotions and dismissals have been scrapped or tend to be altered well before the game is over, there is little chance for mutual loyalty and commitment to sprout and take root. “ (148)

We can only play the game together when we agree on and stick to the rules.

“Having shed the ballast of bulky machinery and massive factory crews, capital travels light with no more than cabin luggage - a briefcase, laptop computer and cellular telephone.” (150)

And the irony of this sentence in the conditions of 2017… such items will no longer be permitted in the cabin!

“As Michel Crozier pointed out a long time ago, being free of awkward bonds, cumbersome commitments and dependencies arresting the freedom of manoeuvre, was always a favourite and effective weapon of domination; but the supplies of that weapon and the capacities to use them seem nowadays doled out less evenly than ever before in modern history.” (151)

So that is the tactic?!

Robert Reich’s categories… where the artist fits in appears to me to slip and slide between the various categories he identifies, belonging simultaneously to all and none.

“... Jacques Attali … ‘They do not own factories, lands, nor occupy administrative positions. Their wealth comes from a portable asset: their knowledge of the laws of the labyrinth.' They 'love to create, play and be on the move' They live in a society 'of volatile values, carefree about the future, egoistic and hedonistic'. They 'take the novelty as good tidings, precariousness as value, instability as imperative, hybridity as richness'.19” (153)

This text is on one hand like a fortune teller predicting the future which is today; on the other hand it is incredibly dated, less because it is dated than because of the backlash we are currently experiencing to the very conditions it predicted almost twenty years ago.

“'To procrastinate' means not to take things as they come, not to act according to a natural succession of things. Contrary to an impression made common in the modern era, procrastination is not a matter of sloth, indolence, quiescence or lassitude; it is an active stance, an attempt to assume control over the sequence of events and make that sequence different from what it would be were one to stay docile and unresisting, To procrastinate is to manipulate the possibilities of the presence of a thing by putting off, delaying and postponing its becoming present, keeping it at a distance and deferring its immediacy. ...To put it in a nutshell: procrastination derived its modern meaning from time lived as a pilgrimage, as a movement coming closer to a target. In such time, each present is evaluated by something that comes after. Whatever value this present here and now may possess, it is but a premonitory signal of a higher value to come. The use - the task - of the present is to bring one closer to that higher value. By itself, the present time is meaningless and valueless. It is for that reason flawed, deficient and incomplete. The meaning of the present lies ahead; what is at hand is evaluated and given sense by the noch-nicht-geworden, by what does not yet exist. “ (156)

https://youtu.be/AWtCittJyr0

“The most important thing put off in the act of procrastination tends to be the termination of the procrastination itself.” (157)

“The more severe the self-restraint, the greater would be, eventually, the opportunity for self-indulgence. Do save, since the more you save, the more you will be able to spend. Do work, since the more you work, the more you will consume.” (158)

Notions lost in the 21st century?

‘Casino Culture’ another ironic example…

The backlash is against the precariousness of contemporary culture. It is driven by the fear of uncertainty, but this is, in my opinion, a normal response of human nature.

Instant gratification as the panacea of the loss of security. In the US there was talk of the ‘Trump bump’ to the economy, but it never really happened. Unexpectedly the opposite did not happen either. It is as if the chaos has caused a weird equilibrium.

Insecurity and irritability leading to the way we treat each other and the disintegration of human bonds, lack of co-operations (and collaboration?). (see 164)

Alain Peyrefitte -confidence.

This reminds me of a recent piece by Thomas Friedman I read on formal authority and moral authority and how we respond to both. The crisis of authority is a crisis of confidence. This is the state we find ourselves in.

Guy Debord, Theory of the Dérive (1958)

Background to Situationists International: active 1958-1972, international, European organization of social revolutionaries comprised of avant-garde artists, intellectuals and political theorists. See anti-authoritarian Marxism, Dada and Surrealism. Guy DeBord ‘The Society of the Spectacle’. Concept of the spectacle - a critique of advanced capitalism concerned with the increased tendency for expression and mediation of social relations through objects. Consumption. Commodities. Psychogeography. This essay was published in Internationale Situationniste #2 (Paris, December 1958).

Bureau of Public Secrets… I like this already. Thank you, Ken Knabb.

dérive: “...a technique of rapid passage through varied ambiences; … playful-constructive behavior and awareness of psychogeographical effects” (1)

Dérive occurs when one drops one’s relations, work, lesiure, and other usual motives for actions, to be drawn psychologically into the surrounding terrain (geography?) and what they encounter there. Both a letting-go and grasping of knowledge -possibilities of the terrain- occur.

“The objective passional terrain of the dérive must be defined in accordance both with its own logic and with its relations with social morphology.” (1)

Subjectively and objectively. Collection of movement data, paths taken and avoided, useful in constructing dérives. Hmm … are they rambles with a map (GPS, smartphone) in hand?

Chance -important, but less than one thinks it might be.

“... the action of chance is naturally conservative and in a new setting tends to reduce everything to habit or to an alternation between a limited number of variants. Progress means breaking through fields where chance holds sway by creating new conditions more favorable to our purposes.” (1-2)

We return, again and again, to what has attracted us before.

“...limitations of chance…” (2)

It is a misconception to understand chance as ‘anything goes’ or ‘anything could happen’. Chance always has some external force it is subject to.

“... the primarily urban character of the dérive, … could be expressed in Marx’s phrase: “Men can see nothing around them that is not their own image; everything speaks to them of themselves. Their very landscape is alive.” (2)

We are attracted to the psychogeographical in/of the dérive like Narcissus to his reflection in the water.

To dérive alone or in small groups … Debord suggests small groups, …

“... small groups of two or three people who have reached the same level of awareness, since cross- checking these different groups’ impressions makes it possible to arrive at more objective conclusions.”

I don’t agree that this would facilitate the arrival at more objective conclusions because, even if the group consists of individuals who have reached the same level of awareness, it is still a group of individuals attracted to their own image.

“... in any case it is impossible for there to be more than ten or twelve people without the dérive fragmenting into several simultaneous dérives. The practice of such subdivision is in fact of great interest, but the difficulties it entails have so far prevented it from being organized on a sufficient scale.” (2)

I question if any dérive undertaken in a group of any size would not ultimately lead to its fragmentation into simultaneous dérives equal to the number of participants. Studying the fragmentations side by side would be interesting, and probably more telling in terms of ‘objective conclusions’ than what would come from a small group whose impressions were understood in the singular.

“... a dérive often takes place within a deliberately limited period of a few hours, or even fortuitously during fairly brief moments; or it may last for several days without interruption. … It is true that in the case of a series of dérives over a rather long period of time it is almost impossible to determine precisely when the state of mind peculiar to one dérive gives way to that of another. ” (2)

It seems to me that time as a framework is either unnecessary or at least not adequate in its application to the dérive. Therefore shouldn’t the discussion of time be left out of the discussion of the dérive, other than to clarify it’s inadequacy? I would think the same might be the case when describing the relationship of the spatial field to the dérive as put forth by the author. Both of these, like chance, are dependent upon external forces, namely the goals/intention of the dérive participants in relation to the starting point (place, place in time).

“The maximum area of this spatial field does not extend beyond the entirety of a large city and its suburbs.” (3)

What about a dérive that does cross physical borders? Sixty years after this was written can we envision a cyber dérive, one that crosses virtual borders?

“... behavioral disorientation of the possible rendezvous …” (3)

Could this be what happens with online gaming?

“One can see the virtually unlimited resources of this pastime.” (3)

A recent article on a paper published in June 2017 by the United States National Bureau of Economic Research:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/03/upshot/why-some-men-dont-work-video-games-have-gotten-really-good.html?_r=0

Ása Richardsdóttir and Lene Bang Henningsen, It starts with a conversation. Question your knowledge by sharing. 2017.

I have nothing against the premise of this book and believe that collaboration in various forms is a part of every practice -and life in general- the style in which the book is written is of the type that I tend to find frustrating due to the authors over-simplification and presentation of basic knowledge of how approach something like collaboration. However, if both or all parties prior to collaborating read this book and decided to approach their collaboration by applying the tenets proposed here by Richardsdóttir and Bang Henningsen it could be helpful in contributing to a more fruitful collaboration.

The first, and probably key point, the authors make in their introduction is their friendship that grew out of a collaborative project and in turn has led to additional (this) collaboration. According to the authors the conversations of the collaboration should governed by the parameters (principals) of curiosity, openness, willingness to share, and the ability to listen. What is important to remember is that these principles are the same as those governing conversations between friends, and as the friendship grows these principles become stronger within the relationship. This would occur in conversations of collaboration … but like friendships, the development of these principles within the collaboration is a matter of time and not all collaborations develop equally, at the same pace, or for the same duration. It is clear not all collaborations lead to friendship, however, I think it becomes very important to remember, if we are looking at the conversations of collaboration using similar principles as those that govern conversations occurring within friendships, then we must acknowledge the following: 1. Friendships cannot be forced, sometimes they aren’t meant to be, or they might have an expiration date at which point it is okay to withdraw 2. Friendships are two-directional -dialogs not monologs, ‘potlucks’ where everyone brings something to share and helps out with the tasks of organizing, setting up and cleaning up; if or when the friendship becomes one sided, no longer based on the four principles mentioned by the authors, then it is okay to end it, and 3. Each friendship is unique because each member in the relationship is unique and the circumstances of the moment in their own ways impact the friendship as well.

I think it is important how the authors address the point of view, the perspective -personal and/or cultural- not just from which they write, but also that exists within the conversations wherever they occur. Identifying the differences as well as the similarities in perspective, and how this impacts the four principals, is the second key point to recognize here.

The authors state that “...collaboration is the essential way to secure valuable results” because it makes one aware of his or her own processes. While I agree that collaboration does make one more aware of his or her own processes -after all, you have to understand what it is you do, how you do it, in order to communicate this to others in a collaborative relationship - but I do not agree it is ‘the essential way’ or the only way to secure valuable results. There are many ways to achieve ‘valuable results’ and to develop awareness of one’s own processes, collaboration is not the only way. This sentence exemplifies what I find frustrating in the way the book is written, the language that is used to present the author's’ idea for how to start the conversations of collaboration. Although they follow it with a section on ‘Inspirations’, citing others whose ideas have contributed to the development of their own, thus showing there is more than ‘one way’.

“We have chosen to work collaboratively and internationally because we are curious and strongly believe larger networks can lead to new possibilities for individual artists and enable development of their artistry. Co-produced, co-funded, co-created productions strengthen the art community by bringing new work opportunities, parameters and models. It widens the horizon of everyone involved.” (12)

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. I also interpret it to exemplify that parts of our practice extend beyond the processes we engage in, therefore the larger networks may lead to the development of smaller fragments of our practice that otherwise might stagnate or remain underdeveloped. This is also where TI fits into the greater scheme of collaboration, as a place to develop tools of collaboration that carry across to other parts of the practices and processes of community members.

“You simply need to build a foundation fitting your needs and the stories you wish to share with your audiences.” (12)

“Net- working and working in networks is about sharing knowledge, being clear about your capacities and aspirations and securing successful matches with collaborative partners.” (12)

“research, meet and follow up” (13)

“An artist or a producer your own age can become a lifelong collaborator, as you move in the same circles. So, we advise you to start meaningful conversations now rather than later.” (13)

I don’t disagree with this, but question the age group the authors are addressing here. Am I included? And perhaps collaboration with all ages groups is a better goal as there is much to gain from collaborating with colleagues that are younger, older and the same age… particularly for those of us who are in-between/mid-career.

“Establish for yourself what it means to you to have a “good conversation”. “(15)

I agree this is very important. What is necessary for a ‘good conversation’ for me is stated in the second paragraph of this reading diary. Add to that the ‘40% on preparation, 20% on the actual meeting and 40% on the very important follow up and evaluation’ model applied by all conversation participants and I believe the potential for a fruitful conversation is at hand. It is frustrating when there is not a balance in these things… one person does all (or none of) the prep, one person dominates the meeting and one person does all (or none of) the follow up. There was a time I would bite the bullet and ‘go with the flow’ but I eventually realized it was not a ‘good conversation’ for me, so I have become clear with myself what is important for cultivating a fruitful conversation/collaboration.

“Give yourself the space and time for this important analysis. The very first step is analysing your own artistic practice and what you stand for.” (17)

Yes, and with the analysis comes the realization of not just what one’s practice is and what one stands for, but that there is only so much ‘time’ and it is important to understand how to best divy it up. I enjoy conversations and collaborations that are fruitful, but abhor when these become black holes of lost time.

“Understand where you can develop and progress and stay true to yourself.” (17)

This is important, and at times hard when staying true to oneself is incomprehensible to others. This is where it is important to have the ear/understanding of another to support the decisions one makes even if they might make different ones.

“Foremost, you need to speak your mind and heart. We encourage you to raise your voice and let people understand what you offer, look for and desire.” (18)

“... the essence of any strategy is choosing what NOT to do.” (18)

“practice making clear choices; nurtures a working culture - an environment that identifies what a clear choice is to you and your team. Invite constructive feedback from your colleagues and peers and make sure you set aside time for such conversations to develop. Not everything needs to be explored in a “square” format meeting. Sometimes a conversation is far more constructive than a meeting.” (21)

“Artistic skills are hugely undervalued in our societies.” (24)

The authors aren’t even living as women artists in 21st century USA or other parts of the world with much less support than they have in their countries of origin. I have a hard time with this, not because what they present from Andrew Simonet which help artist thrive...they do...but the reality of the situation is challenging.

“Besides Andrew’s four checkpoints we wish to add that a very important and on- going task in your daily work is to find and maintain relationships with people, who understand and support your vision.” (25)

This is most important and echos what I mentioned above in relation to values and remaining true to oneself. The idea of naming five people is good, and helpful in stressful times. The order and degree of support changes depending on the circumstances/situation. I do try to be as supportive to those five who are supportive of me … see the second paragraph above… this is high on my list of values.

“The maximum impact occurs when a shared narrative is embedded strongly in the team and when the timing is right!” (27)

“It depends entirely on where your focus lies, when it comes to collaboration.” (27)

This is the ‘it can’t be forced’ part of paragraph two. It can take time, and multiple conversations, to identify just what the shared narrative is, the values and perspectives of the other potential collaborators, what everyone might bring to the conversation/collaboration, and even that what seemed promising at first is not a good fit.

“In each meeting and conversation, it is important to be alert and aware of the culture you are engaging with. Don’t assume that two artists or two companies or an artist and a presenter think and work alike. Make sure you allow time and opportunity to explore the differences before you enter collaboration. This can save valuable time and effort.” (28)

“...we strongly encourage you NOT to engage into a collaborative project unless you have a sense you can indeed trust the person or company you are working with.” (29)

Still, there are times when things go bust anyway.

“In your daily work, the reality is always collaboration or a presentation of a collaboration. You are constantly preparing to meet your peers and colleagues to investigate questions and possible solutions. Once you are in the middle of it, the success of the collaboration will depend on how well you are prepared. We need to underline: If you go into collaboration unprepared, the likelihood of it failing is much greater. Pose questions and walk through the different scenarios that might happen during a process. Describe the ultimate disaster scenario and the ultimate success. Knowing this will help you navigate and hopefully avoid stupid mistakes. A valuable tip in the business is to always get a local colleague to walk you through the most important do’s and don’ts in the culture you are about to visit and collaborate with.” (34)

“It’s our experience that a “NO” is only dangerous if you have not managed expectations. You and your team need to be aware of what you expect and how dependent you are on a YES or NO in certain situation.” (35)

Even when one thinks there is clarity on the expectations at the start the project can still be torpedoed.

“...does feedback create value? The value we aim for? How do you make sure that feedback and evaluation serve a worthy purpose? For whom is it valuable?” (37)

See paragraph two.

“When feedback works, it provides opportunity to improve your impact, development and delivery.

Feedback takes time, and you are taking that time from others as well, to focus on a specific concern of yours. How do you secure an equal basis for a feedback conversation?

We wish you to step away from a hierarchical conversation, and focus on creating an equal conversation. A learning environment where you thrive, stay curious and develop.” (39)

This is where really knowing who you are working with, clarity of expectations, and what your own values, processes, and goals are is vital!

The ‘Tips On’ section (45 - 53) is best, summing up what was stated throughout the rest of the book.

Henk Borgdorff, Artistic Practices and Epistemic Things in Experimental Systems: Future Knowledge in Artistic Research

Henk Borgdorff, Artistic Practices and Epistemic Things in Experimental Systems: Future Knowledge in Artistic Research, ed Michael Schwab, (Leuven University Press, 2013)

“What does it mean to present art as research? What relationship exists between art—artworks, artistic practices—and the presentation of art as research in an academic context?”

The issues:

Standards of assessment
Institutional rights to award doctoral degrees
Funding criteria

How relevant are these issues to my personal situation/location. Standards of assessment are important as I am currently enrolled in this program; the same applies to institutional rights relative to the program I am enrolled in -at the same time not really relevant to my situation/location in terms of the rarity of such programs (in the visual arts) in the US. As for funding criteria, in general this is disappearing at a rapid pace in the US, almost no funding is available for this program, and I foresee no greater access to what little funding might still be available upon completion of this degree. Yet, despite all this, I am doing it in the hope that it will sometime, somewhere, someplace to someone be beneficial.

“Do the usual criteria for doing academic research (concerning research questions, methods, and justifications) automatically apply to this new field of research?”

To some extent I think yes. However, we are not the same field, therefore there will be differences that need to be taken into consideration. Furthermore it is up to this field to define what the criteria to be applied to it are relative to these differences. As artist-researchers part of what we are doing now is this. The questions that follow the quote above are asking this: define the differences (and similarities) and what that means to the criteria applied.

The fundamental question: what is the epistemological status of artworks and art practices as research?

This question hinges on the elusive nature of most artworks and art practices, making the very idea that they can be used to pin down knowledge -function as conduits of research- an odd one.

“...how can they function not just as objects of research but also as the entities in which and through which the research takes place—and in which and through which our knowledge, our understanding, and our experience can grow. What is the nature of such an “object of research,” particularly in terms of epistemology? What gives art the ability to generate new knowledge and understandings?”

“the philosophy of science—or more broadly, our understanding of what academia is—can be furthered by the things that take place in the emergent field of artistic research.”

I think this is part of what draws me to this undertaking; although I am not embedded in academia in the sense that I’ve made this my career these past 30 years - my career is painting - the idea that what I am undertaking here might impact not only how other painters might view what they make from a more scholarly perspective, but also how academia understands what is being made. In other words, it is about contributing to a multi-directional, paradigmatic shift.

It does seem to me that it is logical for Borgdorff to look to how the history and epistemology of experimentation in the life sciences developed and is study within the research field of the theory of science. Identifying the how and why of the development in that field can lend itself to identifying the how and why in this field. At the same time this approach could become problematic if/when recognition of the differences between the fields is lost.

“context of discovery” - “context of justification”, separate the two: “The goal is not only to understand the dynamics of scientific conduct but also to clarify the epistemology involved—that is, how knowledge is constituted in and through practices.”

Yes. That is what is important to the process of finding the relevance of the knowledge to a particular practice.

Husserl, Heidegger and the phenomenological tradition; late Wittgenstein and the pragmatist tradition - responsible for the turn towards practice in contemporary theory (ex. cognitive sciences, science and technology studies, cultural and social practices).

“As the context of discovery becomes liberated, practices and things take the places of theories and mental states. Embodied, situated, and enacted forms of cognition become more important to our understanding of research than world-mind representations and detached modes of rationality and objectivity.”

This does seem to be the stated goal of practice-led research. However, it often seems as if the practitioners are still, at times, too dependent upon theory, not just of those named in the paragraph above, and practice is made (reformed,even), intentionally or not, to model the theory instead of the other way around -which seems to me at least to be what those theorist had originally intended. I would see this as a potentially large pitfall that the researcher must be aware of and take steps to avoid in his/her practice-research.

“What is the epistemological status of art in artistic research? Are artworks or art practices capable of creating, articulating, and embodying knowledge and understanding? And, if so, what kinds of artworks and practices do this (what is the ontological status of art here?) and how do they do it (the methodological status)?”

With the third question I feel it would be limiting to identify only specific kinds of artworks and/or practices and methodologies; and I’m not really sure that is the intention of Borgdorff. As an artist-researcher I feel it is my duty to not only answer the second question in the affirmative, but to show why and how (answering the third question). I am interested in what Borgdorff has to say to the first question.

Rheinberger:

“ “experimental systems” are the centre and the motor of modern scientific research.”

artists’ experiments and experimental systems

experiments are more than just methodological means by which to test theories or hypotheses.
experiments produce new knowledge

Characteristics of experimental systems:

interplay/entwinement of “technical objects” (technical conditions) and “epistemic things” (objects of knowledge that emerge). For Rheinberger ‘thing’ represents indeterminacy, ‘object’ is solid (knowledge).
functional as opposed to material distinction between object/thing -place occupied in experiment determines this and can vary/change -the epistemic thing can become the technical object, maintaining system stability and making way for new knowledge (epistemic things) to enter the experiment; this works in both directions: “Rheinberger speaks in this context of a synchronic intertwinement of the epistemic and the technical, and of a diachronic intertwinement of difference and reproduction.6 “
“Systems must be “differentially reproducible,” Rheinberger argues, “if they are to still be arrangements where knowledge can be generated that lies beyond anything we could conceive or anticipate” (Rheinberger 2008, 19:28, my translation). “ This confirms my thoughts that with the third question Borgdorff is not limiting the what/why/how.
Open systems allowing for knowledge to emerge, therefore the methodologies cannot be too narrow or closed, because that would not allow for the unknown to develop. [serendipity, improvisation and intuition as important as stable, technical conditions within the experiment according to Rheinberger]
‘subsidiary awareness’ (nicht-fokale Aufmerksamkeit) prevents a fall into dualistic thinking and being, and is based on tacit knowledge -from the technical conditions of the experiment.

Borgdorff states that these hybrid forms of intertwined thinking and things are what comprise ‘Epistemic things’. Returning to the first question above, What is the epistemological status of art in artistic research? it does appear to me that the practice of making (and doing) artworks does resemble somewhat that of an experimental system, where the artwork emerges as an epistemic thing, and can become a technical object from which further epistemic things emerge. Yet, I agree with Borgdorff on this, they are analogous and not identical (equal).

“Kunst als epistemische Praxis” (Art as Epistemic Practice), Dieter Mersch (2009): distinguishes between artistic and scientific experiments in the practices of Cage, Stockhausen and Beuys, concluding artistic experiments:

not reproducible (in fact, this appears a requirement)
not intended to add to or supplement knowledge, rather to question perception instead of understanding through ‘experimental reflexivity’ See reading notes on diffraction...

Borgdorff states that Mersch’s view of what scientific experiments are based on his definition of what artistic experiments are not is limited and in opposition to the openness people such as Rheinberger identify as being part of scientific experiments (experimental systems). I do agree with this based on conversations I’ve had with scientist who state the over emphasis on the methods and lack of acknowledgement of the role chance does still play in the lab. As artists this is important to recognize and not fall prey to the myth of the scientific method as the standard above all standards. This is the point Borgdorff is making with the example/definition from Rheinberger. Experimental systems (scientific methods) allow for chance occurrences within a structure that is open.

Practice -similar in characteristics to Rheinberger’s experimental systems.

Experimental practice = Experimental system

Practice is more than routine, it is actions. “In and through practices, knowledge comes into being.” (Latour 1987) This applies to both scientific as well as artistic practices.

Borgdorff returns to the first question: What is the epistemological status of art in artistic research?

“An experimental system thus involves the realisation and articulation of epistemic things that derive their propelling force in the research from their very indeterminacy (we don’t know exactly what we don’t yet know [Rheinberger 2006b]). Similarly, within artistic practices, artworks are the hybrid objects, situations, or events—the epistemic things—that constitute the driving force in artistic research. To paraphrase Rheinberger (2010, 156), as long as artworks and their concepts remain vague, they generate a productive tension: in reaching out for the unknown, they become tools of research.11 In the context of artistic research, artworks are the generators of that which we do not yet know. They thereby invite us to think. Artistic research is the articulation of this unfinished thinking.”

“Artistic practices, like experimental systems, are “vehicles for materialising questions” (Rheinberger 2006a, 25/28).”

Artworks are never fully complete, transparent, they remain open questions -inconclusive!

“Art’s knowledge potential lies partly in the tacit knowledge embodied within it and partly in its ability to continuously open new perspectives and unfold new realities. I have elsewhere described this “knowing” as pre-reflective and non-conceptual (Borgdorff 2011, 59–61). I would now like to characterise it, with Rheinberger, as a productive not-yet-know- ing against the backdrop of an ever-receding knowledge horizon.”

I’m not quite sure here with the example Borgdorff is giving from Rheinberger which seems to equate the artwork -epistemic thing- as the embodiment of the question, and the reality being embedded in the question. Is this what is being stated? Borgdorff follows with:

“An artistic “fact,” like a scientific, social, or historical fact, is what we make real with our epistemological undertakings.”

Yet, this fact does not decline into a form of relativism -or become an illustration; mainly, it seems to me, the author is saying, because of the stated incompleteness/inconclusiveness of the ‘fact’ -the openness of the system/practice from which the thing emerges.

“Artistic and scientific research is about something real, while simultaneously transforming it into what it could be.”

“Moreover, it is quite possible, though perhaps not very common, that the meaning of certain words changes because their usage changes, either now or in the future. Often, in fact, the very history of what is denoted by those words, or at least our interpretation of that history, may change.”

I don’t agree that it is just ‘quite possible’ or ‘perhaps not very common’ that the meaning of words change because their usage (context) changes. It is what happens all the time, and it is what we need to argue for -the right to recognize new meaning of words within the context of artistic research -acknowledge the origins, state the similarities, but also argue for the differences brought to the term through artistic research.

Meeting the Universe Halfway, Chapter Two: Diffractions: Differences, Contingencies, and Entanglements That Matter

Karen Barad, Meeting the Universe Halfway, Duke University Press, 2007.

Chapter Two: Diffractions: Differences, Contingencies, and Entanglements That Matter

Moving from reflexivity/reflection -which goes nowhere- to diffraction -metaphor to how the knowledge and insight gained through reflexivity/reflection can be dispersed -diffracted- in a meaningful way so that it goes somewhere -becomes meaningful.

Words of Donna Haraway (Modest_Witnm@Second_Millennium.FemaleMan"'-Meets_OncoMouseTM ):

“diffraction can be a metaphor for another kind of critical consciousness ..., one committed to making a difference and not to repeating the Sacred Image of Same. . . . Diffraction is a narrative, graphic, psychological, spiritual, and political technology for making consequential meanings.”

Diffraction - from physics and philosophy of physics, signifies the bending of waves around obstacles and openings in opposition to refraction which signifies the change of direction -wave length and speed- of waves when encountering a change in medium, and reflection meaning the wave when encountering an obstacle -at the meeting point of two different mediums- changes direction and returns to the medium from which it came.

In terms of knowledge or insight gained the difference would seem to be in reflection knowledge stays within its point of origin or discovery; in refraction knowledge changes not only direction, moving beyond the original point of origin or discovery, but other defining factors are altered with this movement (meaning that it could become quite different from its point of origin/ initial form/); however, with diffraction knowledge remains consistent in its defining factors/form AND progresses beyond the point of origin or discovery. This seems logical, to desire a diffraction of knowledge and insight acquired through the research -to have it decimated beyond the point of origin while maintaining its defining factors. However, and I have not read further yet, so I am curious how the argument put forth by the author will progress, I am a bit skeptical if this is really a shift in point of view -from reflection/reflexivity to diffraction- or is it a shift in semantics? In other words, when the word reflection was(is) used to describe an approach to critical practice what was really being presented was diffraction. I am thinking of the examples in Schön’s The Reflective Practitioner as well as my own observations of a local florist, who has been in the business for 50+ years, bring a 20-ish person into the business, passing on knowledge in ways that would have been defined by Schön as reflection-in-action/reflection-on-action based on the examples he gives, but, in the case of the florist and his protege, probably aligns better with the word diffraction as stated in this text. When the florist’s knowledge encounters the protege it ‘bends’, becomes different through the encounter -perhaps the protege can apply the florists knowledge to new ways of working (ex. social media as opposed to print advertising) but at the same time hopefully maintains consistency -otherwise the knowledge of the florist is lost on the protege, either by not reaching the trainee because it is only reflected knowledge -bouncing off the protege and back to the florist, or is so distorted or scattered when it encounters the trainee that it is too different from the knowledge the florist wishes to impart.

According to the author, Haraway suggests together reflection and diffraction can be useful. The mirroring/sameness of the knowledge imparted through reflection and the patterns of difference imparted by diffraction.

“Haraway's point is that the methodology of reflexivity mirrors the geometrical optics of reflection, and that for all of the recent emphasis on reflexivity as a critical method of self-positioning it remains caught up in geometries of sameness; by contrast, diffractions are attuned to differences-differences that our knowledge-making practices make and the effects they have on the world.”

Maybe I was misunderstanding (or rather not misunderstanding) reflection. For me it seems reflection without diffraction would be pointless. Even if the obstacle around which the diffraction occurs is the self. After all, we are our own biggest/greatest obstacles.

“Haraway is interested in finding "a way to figure 'difference' as a 'critical difference within,' and not as special taxonomic marks grounding difference as apartheid" (Haraway, 1992, 299).“

"a diffraction pattern does not map where differences appear, but rather maps where the effects of differences appear" (ibid, 300).

In the example of the florist and his protege the diffraction pattern is not the difference in how the business is advertised, it is the shift in the demographics of the clientele reached by the change from print to social media. The knowledge/principles of advertising -from florists reflection- has not changed, but the diffraction that occurs - precipitated by the generational difference between florist and protege - produced the effect of a generational shift in clientele.

“diffraction patterns-as patterns of difference that make a difference-to be the fundamental constituents that make up the world.”

The author of this text is a physicist -so views the world thru that lens. She is only introducing diffraction in this chapter, reading the whole book is recommended to gain the complete picture.

“So while it is true that diffraction apparatuses measure the effects of difference, even more profoundly they highlight, exhibit, and make evident the entangled structure of the changing and contingent ontology of the world, including the ontology of knowing. In fact, diffraction not only brings the reality of entanglements to light, it is itself an entangled phenomenon. “

“a diffractive mode of analysis can be helpful in this regard if we learn to tune our analytical instruments (that is our diffraction apparatuses) in a way that is sufficiently attentive to the details of the phenomenon we want to understand. “

entangled effects differences make -

“I hope my exploration will make clear that entanglements are highly specific configurations and it is very hard work building apparatuses to study them, in part because they change with each intra-action. In fact it is not so much that they change from one moment to the next or from one place to another, but that space, time, and matter do not exist prior to the intra-actions that reconstitute entanglements. Hence, it is possible for entangled relationalities to make connections between entities that do not appear to be proximate in space and time. (More on this in chapter 7.) The point is that the specificity of entanglements is everything. The apparatuses must be tuned to the particularities of the entanglements at hand. The key question in each case is this: how to responsibly explore entanglements and the differences they make.“

superposition or interference of waves = diffraction

“From the perspective of classical physics, diffraction patterns are simply the result of differences in (the relative phase and amplitudes of) overlapping waves.

Some physicists insist on maintaining the historical distinction between interference and diffraction phenomena: they reserve the term "diffraction" for the apparent bending or spreading of waves upon encountering an obstacle and use "interference" to refer to what happens when waves overlap. However, the physics behind diffraction and interference phenomena is the same: both result from the superposition of waves. ”

“only waves produce diffraction patterns; particles do not (since they cannot occupy the same place at the same time).”

Davisson-Germer Experiment -addition, tells about the subject -the wave/particle

X-ray diffraction -working backward from known wavelength to determine the distance between the slits of diffraction grate. -deduction, tells about the object/grate/obstacle/interference

“Significantly, quantum mechanics is not a theory that applies only to small objects; rather, quantum mechanics is thought to be the correct theory of nature that applies at all scales. As far as we know, the universe is not broken up into two separate domains (i.e., the microscopic and the macroscopic) identified with different length scales with different sets of physical laws for each. “

“To mirror something is to provide an accurate image or representation that faithfully copies that which is being mirrored. “

I have a problem with the use of accurate and faithfully in this description of what mirrors do.

“Reflexivity is a proposed critical scholarly practice that aims to reflect on, and systematically take account of, the investigator's role as an instrument in the constitution of evidence. Reflexivity aims to acknowledge the tripartite arrangement between objects, representations, and knowers that produces knowledge, as opposed to less-reflexive modes of investigation that leave the knower out of the equation, focusing attention narrowly on the relationship between objects and their representations.”

knower=spectator/viewer (for me); I bring in Wollheim’s idea of artist-object-spectator as reflexivity with this tripartite arrangement. Perhaps this is why, for me at least, reflexivity extends beyond self-reflection and diffraction seems the logical, natural outcome.

As artists, whether or not we are making or doing, there is always this trinity of artist - object/action - audience/spectator (reader, listener, viewer…) therefore a narrow understanding of the purpose of (self) reflective methodologies -exclusion of the third party in the relationship- would seem to be unsuited to the practice one is reflecting on. The ‘knower’ is always a part of the practice. As Wollheim states, the artist must assume the stance/viewpoint of the spectator; I would understand this to mean that the reflection the artist analyzes is not only of the self but also the other -spectator. To align with this idea of diffraction, then in the case of the artist-as-spectator it is an analysis of diffraction she is undertaking.

Back to the florist and his protege. The triune relationship could be defined as florist - business - protege. The business is the object through which the relationship between florist and protege is formed. As the florist imparts his knowledge of the business - knowledge shaped or understood through his 50+ years of practice - the protege through her youth brings knowledge of current circumstances - diffraction pattern occurs when the knowledge of both florist and protege intersect - and the effect is observed in the business.

I think at this point in the chapter the difference between ‘science’ and ‘art’ in terms of understanding reflection/diffraction methodologies becomes apparent, to me at least. Whereas I find it quite natural to see the outcome of methods of reflection as a methodology of diffraction -even if it has not been previously termed as such -this might not be the case in other fields. This is why I believe as artist-researchers we need to make a case for the differentiation when we identify it as such, insisting upon our own definitions of terms if need be. It becomes a question of how often, when referring to their methodology as reflective, artists are implying the diffraction within the methodology. Is it necessary to change the term to align it to physics/hard sciences? Or can we insist that a ‘reflective methodology’ within artistic practice research means x - and x encompasses diffraction?

“Notably, feminist science studies scholars have offered poignant critiques of relativism and reflexivity from early on.”

Hmm...is this due to the ability (as feminists) to see beyond the binary relationship? In which case, as scientist it is natural to shift to the more fitting term of ‘diffraction’ because this is part and parcel of the scientific vocabulary -it isn’t borrowed from elsewhere, like art borrows it.

“In particular, feminist science studies scholars have argued that reflexivity has proved insufficient on at least two important grounds.23 First of all, for the most part, mainstream science studies (in all its various incarnations) has ignored crucial social factors such as gender, race, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and nationality. The irony is that while these scholars insist on the importance of tracking "science-in-the-making" by attending to specific laboratory practices, for the most part they continue to treat social variables such as gender as preformed categories ofthe social. That is, they fail to attend to "gender in-the-making"-the production of gender and other social variables as constituted through technoscientific practices.24 Thus, despite the fact that feminist science studies scholars have been arguing from the beginning for an understanding of gender-and-science-in-the-making, mainstream science studies accounts have neglected this crucial point. Significantly, to the degree that they fail to appreciate this fact, they underestimate the mutual constitution of the "social" and the "scientific," thus undermining their own project. Relatedly, mainstream science studies scholars seem to be unaware of the fact that the nature-culture dichotomy has been challenged vigorously on multiple grounds by feminist, poststructuralism, postcolonialism, queer, and other critical social theorists, and that attending to the issues they raise is an integral part of questioning the constitution of the nature culture dichotomy and the work it does: not only that it matters, but how it matters and for whom.”

Appears to be so.

“...reflexivity is based on the belief that practices of representing have no effect on the objects of investigation and that we have a kind of access to representations that we don't have to the objects themselves. “

I think this is the point that reflexivity in artistic practice research differs. We know that the object -whatever it may be- is effected by the practice of representation/reflection. However, I am not sure, but this might be where the poststructuralist conundrum enters the conversation…

“...reflexivity does nothing more than mirror mirroring. “

The object in the mirror is its ‘mirror image’ an inversion of reality...so the above sentence could imply a mirror mirroring is reality! If you want to see how you really look to others hold a mirror up to the mirror you are looking into… what you see is what others see.

“Mirrors upon mirrors, reflexivity entails the same old geometrical optics of reflections.”

The second mirror is/can be the diffraction grate, that is, so long as the second mirror is no longer the self (artist) but the other (spectator).

“... diffraction is not reflection raised to some higher power.25 It is not a self- referential glance back at oneself.”

And that is not the type of reflection the artist is doing if she positions herself also as the spectator.

“... important aspects of diffraction that make it a particularly effective tool for thinking about social natural practices in a performative rather than representationalist mode.”

The arts operate in a performative, not representational mode. Difference between a tool/method and the methodology. Why can’t diffraction be a tool within a reflective methodology, rather than reflection a tool/method within a diffractive methodology? Can both variants exist? How and why might they differ? If the reflective aspect has greater weight than the tool/method of diffraction then maybe I would say the methodology is reflective, and vice versa.

“...a way of understanding the world from within and as part of it, as a diffractive methodology requires.”

[See table in text.]

“onto-epistem-ology knowing is a material practice of engagement as part of the world in its differential becoming “

I find it ironic that a table such as this is being used to argue for the non-binary approach that is diffraction. I am not convinced that reflection excludes diffraction in the methodology; rather I think that the author is trying to apply a definition that does not work in this case. Words have multiple meanings, and that does not exclude the application of a word in a specific context simply because in another context it means something else.

“First and foremost, as Haraway suggests, a diffractive methodology is a critical practice for making a difference in the world. It is a commitment to understanding which differences matter, how they matter, and for whom. It is a critical practice of engagement, not a distance-learning practice of reflecting from afar.”

“Making knowledge is not simply about making facts but about making worlds, or rather, it is about making specific worldly configurations-not in the sense of making them up ex nihilo, or out of language, beliefs, or ideas, but in the sense of materially engaging as part of the world in giving it specific material form. And yet the fact that we make knowledge not from outside but as part of the world does not mean that knowledge is necessarily subjective (a notion that already presumes the pre existing distinction between object and subject that feeds representationalist thinking). At the same time, objectivity cannot be about producing undistorted representations from afar; rather, objectivity is about being accountable to the specific materializations of which we are a part. And this requires a methodology that is attentive to, and responsive/responsible to, the specificity of material entanglements in their agential becoming. The physical phenomenon of diffraction makes manifest the extraordinary liveliness of the world.27”

“... diffraction effects are attentive to fine detail. … Also consider the fact that the details of diffraction patterns depend on the details of the apparatus: …”

apparatus = researcher; the attention to fine detail is a must whether diffraction or reflection -the more slits the clearer the image- and the more likely the minutiae will also register!

“Attention to fine details is a crucial element of this methodology. The diffractive methodology that I use in thinking insights from scientific and social theories through one another differs from some of the more usual approaches in a significant fashion. … my approach is to place the understandings that are generated from different (inter)disciplinary practices in conversation with one another.29 “

“Importantly, it is crucial that in using a diffractive methodology one is attentive to fine details of different disciplinary approaches. What is needed are respectful engagements with different disciplinary practices, not coarse grained portrayals that make caricatures of another discipline from some position outside it. My aim in developing a diffractive methodology is to attempt to remain rigorously attentive to important details of specialized arguments within a given field without uncritically endorsing or unconditionally prioritizing one (inter)disciplinary approach over another.31

Hence the diffractive methodology that I propose enables a critical rethinking of science and the social in their relationality. What often appears as separate entities (and separate sets of concerns) with sharp edges does not actually entail a relation of absolute exteriority at all. Like the diffraction patterns illuminating the indefinite nature of boundaries-displaying shadows in "light" regions and bright spots in "dark" regions-the relation of the social and the scientific is a relation of "exteriority within" (see, for example, figure 2). “

I understand the point the author is making for the term diffractive methodology. However, I still wonder if it is necessary to change the terminology or simply a matter of clearly stating what the methodology is dependent upon -in other words, a reflective methodology is dependent upon diffractive methods as a means of producing a certain level of knowledge that reflective methods alone do not provide, and vice versa- the term used to describe the methodology should not exclude the other term from its methods.

“The drawing of analogies, … where specific causal linkages are suggested for the analogies, … can be very interesting. But these common modes of analysis are only of limited value, and insufficient for understanding the deeper philosophical issues at stake in learning how to "diffract the rays of technoscience [and other social practices] so that we get more promising interference patterns on the recording films of our lives and bodies" (Haraway 1997, r6). This diffractive methodology enables me to examine in detail important philosophical issues such as the conditions for the possibility of objectivity, the nature of measurement, the nature of nature and meaning making, the conditions for intelligibility, the nature of causality and identity, and the relationship between discursive practices and the material world. “

Agree. It does make sense for the author to use the term diffraction relative to the area of research -quantum physics. This raises the question for me, for artist-researchers who have in the past defined the methodology they used as ‘reflective’ do we assume that no diffractive methods were involved simply because they might not have officially defined a method as such? Going forward it makes sense to explicitly state the role of diffraction within any methodology that involves reflective methods -whether or not the methodology is defined as reflective.

“In fact, according to agential realism, the analysis of entangled practices requires a nonadditive approach that is attentive to the intra-action of multiple apparatuses of bodily production. “