By Count and Diagram, Is the Indexicality of Spheres Diverse Enough?

  • Amanda WindleEmail author


A book’s indexicality (citations, bibliography, endnotes and references) matters because this is how ideas travel and authors become world-leading. Approached initially through counting, I evidence how Sloterdijk is primarily negligible through indexicality towards those who identify as female. What follows is a diagrammatic account of distortions in the Spheres index. This chapter’s design-in is diagrammatic, using the tropes of Spheres. I argue that visualising the disciplinary of Spheres should be done by choosing the Voronoi over the Venn diagram because of the prevalence of casual sexism implied recently to the Venn. By cautioning the optimism to create new digital tools for searching indexes, I contemplate how new data visualisations may reinforce, rather than reveal, the distortions present in Spheres.


Citation distortion Indexicality Matilda Effect Venn diagram Voronoi diagram 


  1. Ahmed, Sara. Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others. Durham: Duke University Press, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ———. Living a Feminist Life. Durham: Duke University Press, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates, Laura. 2012–. “Everyday Sexism Twitter Feed.” Accessed January 21, 2016.
  4. Battersby, Christine. The Phenomenal Woman: Feminist Metaphysics and the Patterns of Identity. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  5. Cambrosio, Alberto, Peter Keating, and Andrei Mogoutov. “Mapping Collaborative Work and Innovation in Biomedicine: A Computer-Assisted Analysis of Antibody Reagent Workshops.” Social Studies of Science 34, no. 3 (2004): 325–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cixous, Hélène. “The Laugh of the Medusa.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 1, no. 4 (1976): 875–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Couture, Jean-Pierre. Sloterdijk. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2016.Google Scholar
  8. Deleuze, Gilles, and Felix Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus; Capitalism and Schizophrenia. London: Althone Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  9. Dieter, Michael. “The Virtues of Critical Technical Practices.” Differences: A Journal of Feminist Culture 25, no. 1 (2014): 216–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elden, Stuart. Sloterdijk Now. Edited by Stuart Elden, 1–17. Cambridge: Polity, 2012.Google Scholar
  11. Elsevier. 2017. Gender in the Global Research Landscape. Accessed June 24, 2017.
  12. Frampton, Edith. “Fluid Objects: Kleinian Psychoanalytic Theory and Breastfeeding Narratives.” Australian Feminist Studies 19, no. 45 (2004). Scholar
  13. Gibbons, June. Pepsi-Cola Addict. New Horizon: Bognor Regis, 1982.Google Scholar
  14. Häsing, Helga. “Anthology.” In The Feminist Encyclopaedia of German Literature, edited by Friederike Eigler and Susanne Kord, 20, 1997.Google Scholar
  15. Häsing, Helga, and Ludwig Janus. Ungewollte Kinder (Unintended Pregnancy). Berlin: Rowohlt Taschenbuch, 1994.Google Scholar
  16. Hexham, Irving, and Karla O. Poewe. Understanding Cults and New Religions. Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1986.Google Scholar
  17. ––———. New Religions as Global Cultures. New York: Perseus, 1997.Google Scholar
  18. Houdart, Sophie. “Copying, Cutting and Pasting Social Spheres: Computer Designers’ Participation in Architectural Projects.” Science Technology Studies 21, no. 1 (2008): 47–63.Google Scholar
  19. Iso 999: 1996 Guidelines for the Content, Organization, and Presentation of Indexes. London: British Standards Institution (BSI).Google Scholar
  20. Jungnickel, Kat. Making Things to Make Sense of Things: DIY as Research and Practice. London: Goldsmiths University Press, 2018.Google Scholar
  21. Kang, Han. The Vegetarian. London: Portobello Books, 2007.Google Scholar
  22. Karow, Yvonne. Deutsches Opfer - Kultische Selbstausloschung Auf Den Reichsparteitagen Der Nsdap. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1997.Google Scholar
  23. Kerouac, Jack. On the Road. London: Penguin, 1957.Google Scholar
  24. Klein, Melanie. “Infantile Anxiety-Situations Reflected in a Work of Art and in the Creative Impulse.” International Journal of Psycho-analysis 10 (1929): 436–43.Google Scholar
  25. Lindström, Kristina, and Åsa Ståhl. “Working Patches.” Studies in Material Thinking 7, no. 4 (2012): 1–17. AUT University.
  26. MacLeod, Scott. 2016. “Global Trouble (Interview with Judith Butler).” Cairo Review. Accessed August 8, 2017.
  27. Marres, Noortje. “May the True Victim of Defacement Stand Up! On Reading the Network Configurations of Scandal on the Web.” In Making Things Public, edited by Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel, 486–89. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005.Google Scholar
  28. Marres, Noortje, and Richard Rogers. “Recipe for Tracing the Fate of Issues and Their Publics on the Web.” In Making Things Public, edited by Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel, 922–33. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005.Google Scholar
  29. Nussbaum, Martha C. Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  30. ––——. “Aristotelian Social Democracy.” In Liberalism and the Good, edited by R. Bruce Douglass, Gerald M. Mara, and Henry S. Richardson, 289. London: Routledge, 1990.Google Scholar
  31. Pérez-Bustos, Tania. “El tejido como conocimiento, el conocimiento como tejido: reflexiones feministas en torno a la agencia de las materialidades” (O tecido como conhecimento, o conhecimento como tecido: reflexões feministas sobre a agência das materialidades) [Weaving as Knowledge, Knowledge as Weaving: Feminist Reflections on the Agency of Materialities]. Revista Colombiana de Sociología 39, no. 2 (2016): 163–82.
  32. Poewe, Karla O. Universal Male Dominance: An Ethological Illusion. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1980.Google Scholar
  33. Raschke, Carl. “Peter Sloterdijk as First Philosopher of Globalization.” Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory 12, no. 3 (2013): 1–19.Google Scholar
  34. Rosner, Daniela. Critical Fabulation: Reworking the Methods and Margins of Design. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2018.Google Scholar
  35. Rossiter, Margaret W. “The Matthew Matilda Effect in Science.” Social Studies of Science 23, no. 2 (1993): 325–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sacks, Oliver. October 19, 1986. “Bound Together in Fiction and Crime.” New York Times. Accessed August 5, 2017.
  37. Sloterdijk, Peter. Spheres, Bubbles: Microspherology. Translated by Wieland Hoban. Vol. I. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e), 1998.Google Scholar
  38. Solnit, Rebecca. When Men Explain Things to Me. London: Haymarket Books, 2015.Google Scholar
  39. Stackelberg, Roderick. “Reviewed Work: Deutsches Opfer: Kultische Selbstauslöschung Auf Den Reichsparteitagen Der Nsdap by Yvonne Karow.” Central European History 32, no. 4 (1999): 493–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stengers, Isabelle. Power and Invention: Situating Science. Translated by P. Bains. Minneapolis: Minnesota Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  41. ———. “Introductory Notes on an Ecology of Practices.” Cultural Studies Review 11, no. 1 (2005a): 183–96.Google Scholar
  42. ———. “The Cosmopolitical Proposal.” In Making Things Public, edited by Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel, 994–1004. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005b.Google Scholar
  43. Teil, Genevieve, and Bruno Latour. 1995. “The Hume Machine: Can Association Networks Do More Than Formal Rules? Constructions of the Mind.” Accessed April 15, 2009.
  44. Treister, Suzanne. 2007–2008. “Alchemy Project.” Accessed January 21, 2016.
  45. Van Tuinen, Sjoerd. “Air Conditioning Spaceship Earth: Peter Sloterdijk’s Ethico-aesthetic Paradigm.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 27 (2009): 105–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. ––——. “A Thymotic Left? Peter Sloterdijk and the Psychopolitics of Ressentiment.” Symploke 18, no. 1–2 (2010): 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wakeford, Nina. 2011. “Replacing the Network Society with Social Foam: A Revolution for Corporate Ethnography.” Accessed August 8, 2017.
  48. Walker, Barbara. Women’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets. New York: HarperCollins, 1983.Google Scholar
  49. Wallace, Marjorie. The Silent Twins. Edited by Jon (Director) Amiel. British Broadcasting Corporation, 1986.Google Scholar
  50. Webb, Sharon. 2015. “Requirements and National Digital Infrastructures: Digital Preservation in the Humanities”. Accessed August 5, 2017.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.London College of CommunicationUniversity of the Arts LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations