Advertisement

The Fabrication of a New Materialisms Researcher Subjectivity

  • Hillevi Lenz Taguchi
Chapter

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to explore how to think about researcher subjectivity in another way informed by the feminist posthumanist philosophies of Rosi Braidotti, Claire Colebrook, Isabelle Stengers and the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. In contrast to subjectivity understood in the feminist poststructural sense as performative and discursively inscribed, researchers doing what presently is understood in terms of New Materialisms research (Åsberg et al. 2011; Dolphijn and van der Tuin 2012) can be seen to fabricate for themselves affectively engaged Bodies without Organs (BwOs) (Deleuze and Guattari 1987). Colebrook writes that the figuration of the BwO is counter-normative in relation to dominating views of subjectivity (2014, 23). It offers a reversal of the taken for granted organicist idea that bodies take on a function to become what they are meant to be in relation to a whole. Instead, a Body without Organs suggests that there can be a body without...

References

  1. Åsberg, Cecilia, Redi Koobak, and Ericka Johnson. 2011. Beyond the humanist imagination. NORA: Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research 19(4): 218–230.Google Scholar
  2. Braidotti, Rosi. 1994. Nomadic subjects. Embodiment and sexual difference in contemporary feminist theory. New York, NY: Colombia University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Braidotti, Rosi. 2006. Transpositions. On nomadic ethics. Cambridge, UK and Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  4. Braidotti, Rosi. 2012. Interview with Rosi Braidotti. In New materialism: Interviews and cartographies eds. Rick Dolphijn, and Iris van der Tuin, 19–37. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Library, Open Humanities Press.Google Scholar
  5. Braidotti, Rosi. 2013. The posthuman. Cambridge, UK and Malden, MA, USA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  6. Colebrook, Claire. 2014. Sex after life. Essays on extinction, vol. 2. Ann Arbor, MI: Open Humanities Press with Michigan Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cutler, Anna, and Iain MacKenzie. 2011. Bodies of learning. In Deleuze and the body eds. Laura Guillaume, and Joe Hughes, 53–72. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deleuze, Gilles. 1994. Difference and repetition. Trans. Paul Patton. New York: Colombia University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Deleuze, Gilles, and Felix Guattari 1987. A thousand plateaus. Capitalism and schizophrenia. Trans. Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  10. Deleuze, Gilles, and Felix Guattari. 1994. What is philosophy? Trans. Graham Burchell and Hugh Tomlinson. London, UK and New York, NY: Verso.Google Scholar
  11. Dolphijn, Rick, and Iris van der Tuin. 2012. New materialism: Interviews and cartographies. University of Michigan Library, Ann Arbor, MI: Open Humanities Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grosz, Elizabeth. 2005. Time travels. Feminism, nature, power. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lather, Patti. 2007. Getting lost: Feminist efforts toward a double(d) science. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  14. Lenz Taguchi, Hillevi. 2012. A diffractive and deleuzian approach to analyzing interview-data. Journal of Feminist Theory 13(3): 265–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lenz Taguchi, Hillevi. 2013a. Images of thinking in feminist materialisms: Ontological divergences and the production of researcher subjectivities. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 26(6): 706–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lenz Taguchi, Hillevi. 2013b. ‘Becoming molecular girl’: Transforming subjectivities in collaborative doctoral research studies as micro-politics in the academy. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 26(9): 1101–1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lenz Taguchi, Hillevi. 2016. ‘The concept as method’: Tracing-and-mapping the problem of the neuro(n) in the field of education. Cultural Studies <=> Critical Methodologies. Vol. 16(2) 213–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mazzei, Lisa A. 2013. A voice without organs: Interviewing in posthumanist research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 26(6): 732–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stengers, Isabelle. 2007. Diderot’s egg. Divorcing materialism from eliminativism. Radical Philosophy 144:7–15.Google Scholar
  20. St. Pierre, Elizabeth. 2011. Refusing human being in humanist qualitative inquiry. In Qualitative Inquiry and Global Crisis eds. Norman K. Denzin, and Michael D. Giardina, 40–55. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  21. Sullivan, Nikki. 2012. The somatechnics of perception and the matter of the non/human: A critical response to the new materialism. European Journal of Women’s studies 19(3): 299–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Child and Youth StudiesStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations