Is matter ethical? Is ethics material? An enquiry into the ethical dimension of Karen Barad’s ethico-onto-epistemological project

IF 0.7 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Małgorzata Kowalcze
{"title":"Is matter ethical? Is ethics material? An enquiry into the ethical dimension of Karen Barad’s ethico-onto-epistemological project","authors":"Małgorzata Kowalcze","doi":"10.1080/14735784.2023.2190903","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT New materialism posits a non-anthropocentric ontology which gives rise to expanding the definition of the ethical subject and ethical relation. According to Karen Barad, who is one of the most prominent researchers in the field, ethicality exceeds the human domain and enfolds the whole of existence. Her project of ethico-onto-epistemology grounds ethics in ontology, perceiving it not as a product of a ‘social contract’, but one of the properties of matter, a phenomenon emerging from meaningful ‘intra-actions’ between entities. This paper explores the possibility of viewing Barad’s ethical project in the context of conventional understanding of ethics. It also considers the practicality of the philosopher’s theory. Particular attention is given to the question of how the concepts of individual freedom and responsibility, which appear to be some of the fundamental notions of ‘traditional’ ethics, can be reconciled with Barad’s new materialistic notions of intra-activity, mattering and split agency which question the idea of radical individualism.","PeriodicalId":43943,"journal":{"name":"Culture Theory and Critique","volume":"108 1","pages":"14 - 25"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Culture Theory and Critique","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14735784.2023.2190903","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT New materialism posits a non-anthropocentric ontology which gives rise to expanding the definition of the ethical subject and ethical relation. According to Karen Barad, who is one of the most prominent researchers in the field, ethicality exceeds the human domain and enfolds the whole of existence. Her project of ethico-onto-epistemology grounds ethics in ontology, perceiving it not as a product of a ‘social contract’, but one of the properties of matter, a phenomenon emerging from meaningful ‘intra-actions’ between entities. This paper explores the possibility of viewing Barad’s ethical project in the context of conventional understanding of ethics. It also considers the practicality of the philosopher’s theory. Particular attention is given to the question of how the concepts of individual freedom and responsibility, which appear to be some of the fundamental notions of ‘traditional’ ethics, can be reconciled with Barad’s new materialistic notions of intra-activity, mattering and split agency which question the idea of radical individualism.
这件事合乎道德吗?伦理是材料吗?对卡伦·巴拉德的伦理-本体-认识论计划的伦理维度的探讨
新唯物主义提出了一种非人类中心主义的本体论,从而扩大了伦理主体和伦理关系的定义。该领域最杰出的研究人员之一凯伦·巴拉德(Karen Barad)认为,伦理超越了人类的领域,涵盖了整个存在。她的伦理-本体-认识论项目将伦理学建立在本体论的基础上,认为它不是“社会契约”的产物,而是物质的属性之一,是实体之间有意义的“内部行为”产生的现象。本文探讨了在传统伦理理解的背景下看待巴拉德伦理计划的可能性。它还考虑了哲学家理论的实用性。特别关注的问题是,个人自由和责任的概念,这些似乎是“传统”伦理的一些基本概念,如何与巴拉德的新唯物主义的内部活动,重要和分裂的机构的概念相协调,这些概念质疑激进个人主义的想法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Culture Theory and Critique
Culture Theory and Critique HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
25.00%
发文量
6
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信