1. Scott, Seeing Like a State.
2. Stoler, “Intimidations of Empire,” 4.
3. Livingston and Puar, “Interspecies,” 4.
4. Bennett, Vibrant Matter; Haraway, When Species Meet, 2–4, 15–19. On bio-
sociality, see Rabinow, “Artificiality and Enlightenment.”
5. Karl Marx (Capital, 326–27n4) argues for a humanist history that tracks the
political-economic forces of mass society through the progressive development
of technologies. Unlike Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory, which Marx viewed
as an unscientific attempt to divine history from the surface of bodily forms, the
history of technology allowed deep access to the social organization of human
life underlying the mask of ideology. However, the rhetoric of this polemic and its
binary logic dividing human and natural histories disavows what Marx performs
throughout his chapter in the first volume of Capital titled “Machinery and Modern
Industry”: an account of how industrial technologies entangle human and inhuman
forces. Marx repeatedly recognizes that the energies of the laboring body, soil, draft
animals, wind, steam, and coal were harnessed through the technological adapta-
tion of labor processes during industrialization; technologies are thus man-made
“organs.” Marx tends to flatten the form of inhuman energies into mechanical force
for the machinery of capital, which begs the question of how his account of indus-
trialization might have been different if it had considered the ecological “limits to
capital” that would become central to Marxist environmentalisms since 1970. None-
theless, his approach opens, even if briefly, a recognition of the entanglement of
the human and its social relations in interspecies ecologies. I thus argue against too
strong a distinction of new materialisms from old ones, a distinction that merely
seeks to reverse the anthropocentrism of Marx’s division of human and natural his-
tory without anticipating the dialectical synthesis of those binary terms.
6. See Thrift, Non-representational Theory.
7. Berlant, Cruel Optimism, 18. Berlant builds on the brief sketches of lateral
forms of power/knowledge in Foucault’s descriptions of human capital, environ-
mental forces as transversal phenomena, and economics as a science. See Foucault,
The Birth of Biopolitics, 230–31, 261, 286.
8. Puar, Terrorist Assemblages, 35. See also Nast and McIntyre, “Bio(necro)polis”;
Ahuja, “Abu Zubaydah and the Caterpillar.”
Previous Page Next Page