Origin[edit]
The terms 'new materialisms'/'neo-materialisms' were independently coined by Manuel DeLanda and Rosi Braidotti, respectively, during the second half of the 1990s. Both sought to name an emerging cultural theory that intended to abandon the privilege of the human dimension of a dualist ontology, alternatively developing an analysis of how these oppositions – nature/culture; mind/matter; human/non-human – were historically and intellectually produced.[6] DeLanda and Braidotti shared their base on the work of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, which attempted to rescue from the marginality of history of philosophy the 'minor tradition' of materialism.[7]
Reception[edit]
As of 2024, new materialism has been well-received in a wide range of disciplines in contemporary academia, from environmental studies to philosophy. Frequently referenced works include Karen Barad's Meeting the Universe Halfway[8] and Jane Bennett's Vibrant Matter[9]. New Materialists emphasise how Cartesian binaries around human and nature have caused many issues in the world by ignoring social complexity.[10] New materialism been championed for its more integrated approach that considers material and immaterial, biological, and social aspects as interconnected processes rather than distinct entities.[10]
Criticism[edit]
Ecologist Andreas Malm has called New Materialism 'idealism of the most useless sort', stating that the approach has little use for climate action or changing our relationship with nature, since it denies distinctions between humanity and nature. Malm argues that this supports the status quo rather than challenging it.[11] He also expresses frustration with the writing style of many New Materialists, claiming that they resist distinctions between things, making their writing impenetrable.[11]