question period: Stengers and Haraway on speculative realism

7:40 Stengers. Relevance is more important than novelty.

7:43 Nathan Brown from audience. You both used the term speculative realism in your talks. Speculative realism is generally thought of as a critique of correlationism and a possibility of thinking the absolute, which may be taken as incompatible with the situated knowledges that you both recommend. So, how can there be a situated objectivity, when these two words may seem in conflict?

7:45 Stengers. Latour and I both think that objectivity and situatedness are inseparable. Objectivity is produced, and it is more interesting the more it is produced. Objectivity is not a philosophical theme. Objectivity is always a “matter of concern.”

7:46. Haraway. Agrees with Latour that nothing should be allowed to explain anything else away. And certain forms of correlationism make precisely this error. [Haraway has clearly read Meillassoux.] Speculative realism is a term I’m still learning to use in a sentence, as if in a school assignment. Speculative realism is the new kid on the block that has adopted a label for itself, which may sound mean, but all kinds of interesting things are going on under that label and so she may want to live on the block. Not enough girls in speculative realism which makes her mad, but she’s still curious and seduced by it. [Note: Girls welcome!!!]

7:49. Haraway. Objectivity is a precious achievement. The last thing we need is some sort of anti-science feminism.

7:51. Haraway. Speculative realism is also an invitation, and that’s good.

7:52. Stengers. Curious about speculative realism. But is it still stuck in the “Can we know?” tradition of Kant? Is it accepting Kant and then trying to escape it? She prefers: “What do we know?”

8:01. Stengers. Neo-pagan witches are important, and she discusses them with her philosophy students.

8:04. Levi Bryant. Wants to challenge the notion that speculative realism wants to think the absolute, which merely invites a nature/culture distinction rather than a more Latourian position. Haraway and Stengers have both inspired Levi’s work. Excess of objects beyond knowledge, versus the scientistic versions of speculative realism. Haraway agrees.

Overall, Haraway a bit more condescending than necessary about speculative realism (most of us really like her stuff), but she does sound interested. Glad Nathan forced the issue with his question.