Take a photo of a barcode or cover
gotdabooks's review against another edition
4.0
a book worth revisiting
excellently, albeit densely, written
feminism + quantum physics have a baby
excellently, albeit densely, written
feminism + quantum physics have a baby
benplatt's review against another edition
5.0
"I propose 'agential realism' as an epistemological-ontological-ethical framework that provides an understanding of the role of human AND nonhuman, material AND discursive, and natural AND cultural factors in scientific and other social-material practices, thereby moving such considerations beyond the well-worn debates that pit constructivism against realism, agency against structure, and idealism against materialism. Indeed, the new philosophical framework that I propose entails a rethinking of fundamental concepts that support such binary thinking, including the notions of matter, discourse, causality, agency, power, identity, embodiment, objectivity, space, and time" (26).
Well, you did it as well as anybody possibly could have.
Well, you did it as well as anybody possibly could have.
bluelilyleest's review against another edition
4.0
Karen Barad effortlessly discloses some of the complex concepts in quantum physics in a way that makes it easy for outsiders to follow. She reimagines our ideas about agengy and subject-object relations, and advocates an entangled world view. Inspiring book and definitely accessible for people like me without a decent background in science.
"Meeting each moment, being alive to the possibilities of becoming, is an ethical call, an invitation that is written into the very matter of all being and becoming. We need to meet the universe halfway, to take responsibility for the role that we play in the world's differential becoming." (last sentence)
"Meeting each moment, being alive to the possibilities of becoming, is an ethical call, an invitation that is written into the very matter of all being and becoming. We need to meet the universe halfway, to take responsibility for the role that we play in the world's differential becoming." (last sentence)
florisw's review
4.0
General impressions
Certainly one of the most challenging books I’ve read. That’s probably because it’s simultaneously a book about the fundamentals of (quantum) physics and philosophy and social science. In it, Barad put forward her model of “agential realism”, a way of seeing and studying the world that does not see separate objects interacting with each other, but rather “intra-acting” material-discursive agencies. If this seems complicated it’s because it pretty much is – doing social science or physics isn’t meant to be easy, she argues, but should be hard, sweaty work (hinting at Latour’s ANT-method). She doesn’t shy away from using very precise but also incredibly dense language either. At various points I couldn’t help but feel put-off by what felt like extremely abstruse definitions for things, or self-indulgent tangents on obscure interpretations. I’m sure a better physicist, philosopher, or social scientist would get more out of this work than I did, but even so, this is an undeniably impressive achievement. Yes, most pages are riddled with jargon, but by the end of the book I somehow didn’t notice that anymore. By the end of the book, I did feel like I learned something (read: many things), and as much as Barad’s agential realism theory is probably too sticky to apply in every situation moving forward, I certainly feel like I can see and study the world with a different perspective. That, more than anything, might be the biggest testament to this book’s success that I can give.
Chunk Notes To Refer Back To When I Need Them
Intro
In her Introduction Barad wants to understand the epistemological and ontological issues that quantum physics forces us to confront, like what it means to be objective, what the nature of measurement is, or the meaning of “making”(24). She says she wants to employ a “diffractive” method (25) in her study, reading insights from different social and scientific theories through each other. The ambition in this is evident, as she explicitly explains that her model of "agential realism" - her core theoretical framework – applies equally to the realm of physics as it does to the realm of social science ("new interpretation of quantum physics" (36), which initially I thought was pretty nuts). The “diffractive” in that methodology is inspired by the likes of Donna Haraway, who argue that we need to diffract rather than “reflect” in social science methodology (29 – there is a nice but slightly misleading table visualising this on pp. 89-90). A term that frequently reappears is "intra-action", which is Barad’s alternative to the common notion of interaction, which necessarily implies two separate entities bridging some kind of divide to affect one another (33). Instead, most of the phenomena she talks about in her book involve actions of matter/beings that cannot be “objectively” (in the traditional, Einsteinian sense of the word) be distinguished. These concepts of “diffraction”, “infra-action”, and “objectivity” reappear frequently throughout the book.
Chapter 1
Here Barad deals with different theories of the nature of nature (ontologies). She refers for example to Ian Hacking’s Representing and Intervening, in which he famously proclaimed that it’s not enough to just witness/“peer” at something to believe its existence, but you have to be able to intervene in/“interfere” with it. I like that she says she doesn't want to romanticise quantum physics, nor pretend that Bohr was a closet feminist by using his critique, and yet makes a very well-grounded reading of Bohr’s philosophy of physics.
Chapter 2
Here Barad explains how to develop a method (of critique) that responsibly explores entanglements and the differences they make (74). She spends a surprising amount of time talking about diffraction as a physical phenomenon, compared to the time she spends explaining how diffraction can be used in the social sciences. There are some interesting passages on the history of visual analogies for knowledge, and how commonplace they are. The previously mentioned table of diffractive vs reflective methodology (89-90) is both enlightening and very frustrating, I think because it takes the implication of binary relationships in “reflection” as a phenomenon (e.g. two rays and a mirror that separates them) and just applies it to everything, including nature-culture, social-natural, epistemological-ontological, etc. This didn’t seem particularly fair.
Chapter 3
Here Barad puts forward her reading of Bohr's philosophy of quantum physics. I found Bohr's conclusion that "bodies that define the experimental conditions" (the material apparatus, but also humans) interesting, as Barad explains that this means bodies are the start and end points of objective scientific practice (120). Bohr’s distinction between phenomena and objects is also a nice way of approaching the wave-particle duality of light: if they are considered phenomena then there’s no reason both can’t be found in the same object, hence, "a phenomenon is a specific intra-action of an 'object' and the 'measuring agencies'" (128). This is not a constructivist reading, because apparatuses are material things, and phenomena are real entities (129).
Chapter 4
This chapter includes a (to my eyes) brutal criticism of linguistic and cultural turns, on the basis that they all ignore the importance of matter (132). Barad's intervention is to emphasise the notion of performativity (intra-acting with things) rather than representationalism (words and symbols meaning things by themselves). This is quite clear and convincing (although I’m not sure if her definition of “apparatus” (142) can get any more obnoxious! That might be me though). Apparatuses are in Barad’s words the material conditions of possibility and impossibility (148). Her definition of “matter” (151) is perhaps even more obnoxious. I wonder whether it’s just my unfamiliarity with academic-philosophical language that makes me think that though. It could be that this reflex is caused by a kind of Occam's Razor instinct: surely a less complicated and abstruse definition for something so fundamental and mundane can be found? To her credit though, I do like the style of how Barad is introducing her little bits of the definition, frequently returning to her existing definition and adding little bits of information once we get them. I suppose I’m a little annoyed at how open-ended the definition is.
Chapter 5
Here Barad notes that physical and conceptual constraints of apparatuses are co-constitutive (196) - an apparatus with fixed parts necessarily excludes momentum form having meaning during the experiment, for example. She criticises Foucault's and Butler's theories for not being precise about how matter becomes matter, or rather, the nature of the relationship between discursive practices and material phenomena. In her model of agential realism, humans are also phenomena, and material-discursive apparatuses that intra-act.
Chapter 6
Took very few notes here. Barad mainly talks about Leela Fernandes' study of Indian jute mill workers and the perspectives of intersectionality/scale/apparatuses at play. This is by far the most “social science” chapter of the book.
Chapter 7
I hate to say this, but this Chapter was definitely the most readable and clearly explained. It’s also 100 pages. To say that the flow of the book as a whole is unusual is an understatement; the previous Chapter was only about 20 pages. But this one is more about concepts in quantum physics, and since Barad does not assume much existing knowledge, she is kind of forced to slow down and explain complicated concepts in understandable terms. The problems and thought experiments are nicely introduced, and it’s very impressive how much she manages to extract from them. Concepts like the distinction between Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and Bohr’s indeterminacy principle are made very clear (the first says measurement makes a disturbance which "collapses" the wave function, the second says that the very possibility for determining the properties of an object relies on the nature of the experimental arrangement - 302). Her argument that objectivity means being accountable and responsible to what is real (340), and that knowing is a material practice (342), are both very intuitively explained.
Chapter 8
This final chapter looks more towards the present (2000s) and the future. Barad begins with the famous IBM logo in atoms, then talks about the discovery that “brittlestars” are brainless beings whose entire bodies function as “eyes”/visualising systems. Her discussion of biomimicry as a sci-tech philosophy, as well as the future of quantum computing is quite sharp. Obviously, the latter has only become more prominent. But the notion of biomimicry feels like it gets less attention: that might be because it has become ingrained by now though. The titular phrase "meeting the universe halfway" is dropped in the final sentence of the book! It means taking more responsibility for things we might ordinarily consider separate from us. A lovely ending.
Certainly one of the most challenging books I’ve read. That’s probably because it’s simultaneously a book about the fundamentals of (quantum) physics and philosophy and social science. In it, Barad put forward her model of “agential realism”, a way of seeing and studying the world that does not see separate objects interacting with each other, but rather “intra-acting” material-discursive agencies. If this seems complicated it’s because it pretty much is – doing social science or physics isn’t meant to be easy, she argues, but should be hard, sweaty work (hinting at Latour’s ANT-method). She doesn’t shy away from using very precise but also incredibly dense language either. At various points I couldn’t help but feel put-off by what felt like extremely abstruse definitions for things, or self-indulgent tangents on obscure interpretations. I’m sure a better physicist, philosopher, or social scientist would get more out of this work than I did, but even so, this is an undeniably impressive achievement. Yes, most pages are riddled with jargon, but by the end of the book I somehow didn’t notice that anymore. By the end of the book, I did feel like I learned something (read: many things), and as much as Barad’s agential realism theory is probably too sticky to apply in every situation moving forward, I certainly feel like I can see and study the world with a different perspective. That, more than anything, might be the biggest testament to this book’s success that I can give.
Chunk Notes To Refer Back To When I Need Them
Intro
In her Introduction Barad wants to understand the epistemological and ontological issues that quantum physics forces us to confront, like what it means to be objective, what the nature of measurement is, or the meaning of “making”(24). She says she wants to employ a “diffractive” method (25) in her study, reading insights from different social and scientific theories through each other. The ambition in this is evident, as she explicitly explains that her model of "agential realism" - her core theoretical framework – applies equally to the realm of physics as it does to the realm of social science ("new interpretation of quantum physics" (36), which initially I thought was pretty nuts). The “diffractive” in that methodology is inspired by the likes of Donna Haraway, who argue that we need to diffract rather than “reflect” in social science methodology (29 – there is a nice but slightly misleading table visualising this on pp. 89-90). A term that frequently reappears is "intra-action", which is Barad’s alternative to the common notion of interaction, which necessarily implies two separate entities bridging some kind of divide to affect one another (33). Instead, most of the phenomena she talks about in her book involve actions of matter/beings that cannot be “objectively” (in the traditional, Einsteinian sense of the word) be distinguished. These concepts of “diffraction”, “infra-action”, and “objectivity” reappear frequently throughout the book.
Chapter 1
Here Barad deals with different theories of the nature of nature (ontologies). She refers for example to Ian Hacking’s Representing and Intervening, in which he famously proclaimed that it’s not enough to just witness/“peer” at something to believe its existence, but you have to be able to intervene in/“interfere” with it. I like that she says she doesn't want to romanticise quantum physics, nor pretend that Bohr was a closet feminist by using his critique, and yet makes a very well-grounded reading of Bohr’s philosophy of physics.
Chapter 2
Here Barad explains how to develop a method (of critique) that responsibly explores entanglements and the differences they make (74). She spends a surprising amount of time talking about diffraction as a physical phenomenon, compared to the time she spends explaining how diffraction can be used in the social sciences. There are some interesting passages on the history of visual analogies for knowledge, and how commonplace they are. The previously mentioned table of diffractive vs reflective methodology (89-90) is both enlightening and very frustrating, I think because it takes the implication of binary relationships in “reflection” as a phenomenon (e.g. two rays and a mirror that separates them) and just applies it to everything, including nature-culture, social-natural, epistemological-ontological, etc. This didn’t seem particularly fair.
Chapter 3
Here Barad puts forward her reading of Bohr's philosophy of quantum physics. I found Bohr's conclusion that "bodies that define the experimental conditions" (the material apparatus, but also humans) interesting, as Barad explains that this means bodies are the start and end points of objective scientific practice (120). Bohr’s distinction between phenomena and objects is also a nice way of approaching the wave-particle duality of light: if they are considered phenomena then there’s no reason both can’t be found in the same object, hence, "a phenomenon is a specific intra-action of an 'object' and the 'measuring agencies'" (128). This is not a constructivist reading, because apparatuses are material things, and phenomena are real entities (129).
Chapter 4
This chapter includes a (to my eyes) brutal criticism of linguistic and cultural turns, on the basis that they all ignore the importance of matter (132). Barad's intervention is to emphasise the notion of performativity (intra-acting with things) rather than representationalism (words and symbols meaning things by themselves). This is quite clear and convincing (although I’m not sure if her definition of “apparatus” (142) can get any more obnoxious! That might be me though). Apparatuses are in Barad’s words the material conditions of possibility and impossibility (148). Her definition of “matter” (151) is perhaps even more obnoxious. I wonder whether it’s just my unfamiliarity with academic-philosophical language that makes me think that though. It could be that this reflex is caused by a kind of Occam's Razor instinct: surely a less complicated and abstruse definition for something so fundamental and mundane can be found? To her credit though, I do like the style of how Barad is introducing her little bits of the definition, frequently returning to her existing definition and adding little bits of information once we get them. I suppose I’m a little annoyed at how open-ended the definition is.
Chapter 5
Here Barad notes that physical and conceptual constraints of apparatuses are co-constitutive (196) - an apparatus with fixed parts necessarily excludes momentum form having meaning during the experiment, for example. She criticises Foucault's and Butler's theories for not being precise about how matter becomes matter, or rather, the nature of the relationship between discursive practices and material phenomena. In her model of agential realism, humans are also phenomena, and material-discursive apparatuses that intra-act.
Chapter 6
Took very few notes here. Barad mainly talks about Leela Fernandes' study of Indian jute mill workers and the perspectives of intersectionality/scale/apparatuses at play. This is by far the most “social science” chapter of the book.
Chapter 7
I hate to say this, but this Chapter was definitely the most readable and clearly explained. It’s also 100 pages. To say that the flow of the book as a whole is unusual is an understatement; the previous Chapter was only about 20 pages. But this one is more about concepts in quantum physics, and since Barad does not assume much existing knowledge, she is kind of forced to slow down and explain complicated concepts in understandable terms. The problems and thought experiments are nicely introduced, and it’s very impressive how much she manages to extract from them. Concepts like the distinction between Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and Bohr’s indeterminacy principle are made very clear (the first says measurement makes a disturbance which "collapses" the wave function, the second says that the very possibility for determining the properties of an object relies on the nature of the experimental arrangement - 302). Her argument that objectivity means being accountable and responsible to what is real (340), and that knowing is a material practice (342), are both very intuitively explained.
Chapter 8
This final chapter looks more towards the present (2000s) and the future. Barad begins with the famous IBM logo in atoms, then talks about the discovery that “brittlestars” are brainless beings whose entire bodies function as “eyes”/visualising systems. Her discussion of biomimicry as a sci-tech philosophy, as well as the future of quantum computing is quite sharp. Obviously, the latter has only become more prominent. But the notion of biomimicry feels like it gets less attention: that might be because it has become ingrained by now though. The titular phrase "meeting the universe halfway" is dropped in the final sentence of the book! It means taking more responsibility for things we might ordinarily consider separate from us. A lovely ending.
qontfnns's review against another edition
4.0
Berat banget ya Allah. Aku suka bahasan agential realism dan ngambil analogi entanglementnya masuk. Not quite the book to read 5 books into philosophy tho *keringat darah*. Cuma ngerti secuil, harusnya baca 20 taun lagi.
stefhyena's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
medium-paced
5.0
I am surprised how many smart academic people have indicated to me that this book is hard going or difficult. I found it the opposite. Maybe this is because it took issue with the one thing from high school physics that actually grabbed me (light as a wave and/or a particle). I found Barad's careful explanations with examples crystal clear, surprisingly so and also very engaging. I raced through most of this (for a "hard" academic book I mean). I did have to slow down for some of the more complex bits and there will certainly be a need for me to revisit and keep thinking but that's part of the deal.
I already used the term ethico-onto-epistemology (did I get the order right?) in a conversation with my supervisors and they didn't tell me I did it wrong. I expected this book to make me think but I think I was expecting more tranphobic stuff to be angry about (based on arguments I have had with people where they cite this book in a way that I now think is not valid). So I wasn't expecting to really feel so positive all the way through. I often fight my way through theory with the machete of my bad attitude (probably not a good metaphor). This one surprisingly touched me in my spirituality as well as my brain.
I feel inclined to believe there is more mystery to the universe than the clinical and dead-eyed cynicism of liberal capitalism. God is not dead after all, but she may be a starfish. You don't have to agree with my spirituality to get a lot from this book, Barad keeps theology out of her metaphysics.
I already used the term ethico-onto-epistemology (did I get the order right?) in a conversation with my supervisors and they didn't tell me I did it wrong. I expected this book to make me think but I think I was expecting more tranphobic stuff to be angry about (based on arguments I have had with people where they cite this book in a way that I now think is not valid). So I wasn't expecting to really feel so positive all the way through. I often fight my way through theory with the machete of my bad attitude (probably not a good metaphor). This one surprisingly touched me in my spirituality as well as my brain.
I feel inclined to believe there is more mystery to the universe than the clinical and dead-eyed cynicism of liberal capitalism. God is not dead after all, but she may be a starfish. You don't have to agree with my spirituality to get a lot from this book, Barad keeps theology out of her metaphysics.