1

Notestowardsasurfacingoffeministtheoreticalturns

ContributiontoAustralianFeministStudies

RebeccaColeman,SociologyDepartment,Goldsmiths,UniversityofLondon

Abstract

Thisarticlesuggeststhatfeministtheoreticalturnsareilluminatingtostudy,asthey

makeexplicithowWesternfeministtheoryisinterestednotonlyinthecontentof

differenttheoreticalturns,butalso,relatedly,inhowtheseturnsmovefeministtheory

inparticulardirections.Exploringsomeofthecurrentandhistoricaldebateaboutturns

infeministtheory,Ipayparticularattentiontohowthesedebatesmightbeunderstood

intermsofawiderangeofworkonthenon-lineartemporalitiesoffeministtheory.I

suggestthatonewaytounderstandthenon-lineartemporalitiesevidentindebatesover

feministtheoreticalturnsisthrougha‘turntothesurface’.Toexplicatethissuggestion,I

offeraseriesoffiveindicativeissues,termsandideas,whichemergebothfromrecent

workonthesurfaceandfeministtheory,andfrommyattemptstothinkconceptually

aboutturns,surfaces,andtherelationsbetweenthem.Theseare:(i)reflexivity;(ii)

possibility;(iii)lines;(iv)knots;and(v)diagrams.Iconcludebyraisinganumberof

furtherpointsthatemergethroughanattempttoengageinthesurfacingoffeminist

theory.

Keywords

Feministtheoreticalturns;temporality;surfaces;reflexivity;possibility;lines;knots;

diagrams

2

Bio

RebeccaColemanisSeniorLecturerintheSociologyDepartment,Goldsmiths,University

ofLondon.Herresearchandteachingfocusesonsensorysociologyandaffect,bodies,

temporality(especiallyfuturesandpresents),surfaces,andinventivemethodologies.

Shehaspublishedwidelyintheseareasandiscurrentlydevelopinginterdisciplinary

projectsthatcutacrossthem.

3

Agooddealofdiscussioniscurrentlybeinghadontheturnstoaffectandthenew

materialism(s)inWesternfeministtheory.Suchdiscussionisnotnew;thecultural,

linguisticandpostmodernturnsinfeministtheoryinthe1980sand1990salso

generatedsimilardebate.Inquestioningwhatandwhoisincludedandexcludedin

thesetheoreticalshifts,thediscussiondemonstrateshowattentiontoissuesofaccess,

omissionandmarginalizationisvitaltofeministtheory,andmorewidelyhasbeen

crucialinpointingoutandinterveninginnormativepowerrelationsandknowledge

production.Italsodemonstratesthesignificanceofthedevelopment,advancementor

trajectoryoffeministtheorytofeministtheory.Thatis,feministtheoryisinterestednot

onlyinthecontentofdifferenttheoreticalturns,butalso,relatedly,inhowtheseturns

orientfeministtheoryinparticulardirections.Thereisdebate,then,overwhatisat

stakeinatheoreticalturn,howitcomestobeofconcernataparticularmoment,and

howcertainmattersofinterestcometomovefeministtheory.Turnsthusilluminate

(struggleover)thecontentandmovementsoffeministtheory;andtheyarealsoa

particularlyilluminatingfocusofstudyinthemselves,asthedebatearoundandabout

themmakeexplicitfeministtheoreticalmovementsandtrajectories.

Whilerecognisingthatthecontentandtrajectoriesoffeministtheorycannotbefully

separated,myaiminthisarticleistoconcentrateonthemovementsandtrajectoriesof

feministtheoreticalturns.Iaddressthreemainquestions:Howmightfeministtheorybe

understoodintermsofasurface?Whatmightaconceptionofthesurfacehavetooffer

understandingsofthetrajectoriesandmovementsoffeministtheory?And,more

specifically,howmightconceivingfeministtheoryintermsofasurfaceaccountforthe

waysinwhichthetemporalitiesoffeministtheoryareunderstoodinongoingdebates

abouttheoreticalturns?Asthesequestionsindicate,whileIdiscusssomeofthedebates

thatariseaboutspecificturns,myaimistofocusonturnsmoreabstractly,inorderto

thinkaboutthetemporalworkthattheyareunderstoodtodo1.Infocusingon

4

temporality,Iamdrawingonawiderangeoffeministworkonnarrativesandstories

(Hemmings2011),generation(vanderTuin2009,2015,McRobbie2008),the(non-

)reproductionand‘passingon’offeminism(Roof1997,Adkins2004,Skeggs2008),as

wellasonfeministhope(Spivak2002,ColemanandFerreday2011),optimism(Berlant

2011),futurity(Grosz1999,2000,Coleman2009),andtransformation(Ahmedetal

2000).Muchofthisworkchallengesthenotionoflineartemporalityasanadequate

meansthroughwhichtounderstandfeministtheory,arguingthatfeministtheorymoves

notsomuchthrough‘continuousgrowth,smoothunfolding,oraccretion’(Grosz1999:

28),butratherthroughstruggle,attrition,divisionanddifference(Grosz1999,Skeggs

2008,Spivak2002),reflexivity(Adkins2004),diffraction(Barad2007,Haraway1997,

vanderTuin2011),re-turns(Hemmings2011,HughesandLury2013),orintensive

time(Coleman2014).Idrawonthisworktoexplorethetemporalitiesoffeminist

theoreticalturns.

Todothis,Itakeupwhatiscalleda‘turntothesurface’inrecentculturalandsocial

theory(AdkinsandLury2009,Forsythetal2013,ColemanandOakley-Brown,in

preparation).Notingthatthisemergingareaofinterdisciplinaryresearchisitself

proposedasa‘turn’,Iexplorehowthesurfaceisunderstoodas‘aspace[andtime]of

possiblestates’(AdkinsandLury2009:18);asitethatis‘open,processual,non-linear

andconstantlyonthemove’(AdkinsandLury2009:18).Isuggestthatfeministturns

mightbeunderstoodintermsofsuchasurface.Inordertoexplicatethissuggestion,I

offeraseriesoffiveindicativeissues,termsandideas,whichemergebothfromrecent

workonthesurfaceandsomeofthefeministtheoryintroducedabove,andfrommy

attemptstothinkconceptuallyaboutturns,surfaces,andtherelationsbetweenthem.

Theseare:(i)reflexivity;(ii)possibility;(iii)lines;(iv)knots;and(v)diagrams.Iconclude

byraisinganumberoffurtherpointsthatemergethroughanattempttoengageinthe

surfacingoffeministtheory.

5

Debatingfeministtheoreticalturns

Incontemporaryfeminist,socialandculturaltheory,itisperhapstheaffectiveandnew

materialistturnsthataremostprominent,andhencecurrentlygeneratingmostdebate.

Bothoftheseturnsareinterdisciplinary,drawingscholars,theories,concepts,and

examplesfromacrossthesocialsciences,humanities,artsandsciences.2Giventhese

differenttraditionsofworkonandpositionsfromwhichtoapproachaffectandthenew

materialisms,itisunsurprisingthatthetermsoftheturnsareunderdebate.For

example,intheaffectiveturn,someofthesedebatesfocusontheveracity,effectiveness

andappropriatenessofapplyingconceptsdevelopedinonedisciplineordomainto

another(seeLeys2011,PapouliasandCallard2010,Wetherell2012,2015).Other

debatesattendtohowtheoristsarepositionedinrelationtotheturn.ClareHemmings

(2005)hasarguedthatwhilebothEveKofoskySedgwick(1995,2003)andBrian

Massumi(1995,2002)–twocentraltheoristsofaffectwhocomefromdifferent

traditionsandhavebeeninfluentialtofeministandqueertheory–notethataffectis

inherentlyneithergoodnorbad,theyneverthelessfocuson‘thegoodaffectthatundoes

thebad’(2005:551).Theeffect,Hemmingscontends,isforaffecttheoryto‘often

emerge…asarhetoricaldevicewhoseultimategoalistopersuade“paranoidtheorists”

intoamoreproductiveframeofmind’(2005:551);thatis,feministtheoryis

encouragedtobeaffirmativeratherthannegative.Thisapproachrisksignoringwhat

SianneNgai(2005)calls‘uglyfeelings’,whichinheranalysisoffilmandliteratureshe

arguesaremorereadilyassociatedwithpeopleofcolour;asSaidiyaV.Hartmanargues

‘[a]ffect,gesture,andavulnerabilitytoviolence’hashistorically‘constitutedblackness’

(1997:26).Assuch,formanywhoexpressconcernovertheaffectiveturn,thosewho

arepositionedas(focusingonthe)‘negative’areatoncealsopositionedas‘belong[ing]

tothepast,tothealreadydealtwith’(Hemmings2005:561).Itisnotablethatthose

6

positionedas‘past’areveryoftenthoseconcernedwith‘old’categoriesofrace,gender,

class–andindeed,asIdiscussbelow,withstructuralproblemssuchaspatriarchy.

Similardebatesarepresentinargumentsforandassessmentsofthe‘newmaterialist

turn’,which,whiledistinct,inmanywaysintersectswiththeaffectiveturninitsinterest

inmateriality,processandtheentanglementofnatureandculture.Pickinguponthe

waysthisdebateengageswiththemovementanddevelopmentoffeministtheory,itis

notablethatthe‘new’innewmaterialismsisoftenidentifiedasofparticularconcern.

SaraAhmed,forexample,arguesthatinproposinganewmaterialistapproachasnovel,

advocatestendtopresent‘afalseandreductivehistoryoffeministengagementwith

biology,scienceandmaterialism’(2008:24).Feminismhaslongexamined,interrogated

andcritiquedbiologyandscience,andthus‘weneedtoappreciatethefeministwork

thatcomesbeforeus,inallitscomplexity’(2008:36).AsPetaHintonandXinLiu(2015)

putit,Ahmed’sargumentisthatthenewmaterialismisa,

bodyofthoughtthatcontainsaprogressnarrativethataimstomovebeyond

pastfeministfailings,agesturethatenablesitsself-promotionasanovelbrand

andgenerationof(feminist)interventionweddedtoaparticularvisionof

matter’stransformativepotential(2015:128)3.

Iwillreturntotheissuesofprogressandhowfeministtheorymayaccountforboth

endorsementsandcritiquesofparticularturnsbelow.Here,Iwanttonotethatstruggles

overturnsinfeministtheoryarenotconfinedtoaffectandthenewmaterialisms.

Discussingthelinguisticturn,KathleenCanning(1994)arguesthat,althoughoften

overlooked,feministhistoryhadasimportantaroleastheworkofFoucault,Derrida

andLacan(1994:370)in‘[t]hedecenteringoftheWesternwhitemalesubjectandthe

reformulationofsubjectivityasasiteofunityandconflict’(1994:371).Similarly,froma

7

feministperspective,FrancesE.Mascia-Lees,PatriciaSharpeandColleenBallerino

Cohen(1989)cautionagainstthepostmodernistturninanthropology,arguingthat:

whatappeartobenewandexcitinginsightstothosenewpostmodernist

anthropologists–thatcultureiscomposedofseriouslycontestedcodesof

meaning,thatlanguageandpoliticsareinseparable,andthatconstructingthe

“other”entailsrelationsofdomination–areinsightsthathavereceivedrepeated

andrichexplorationinfeministtheoryforthepastfortyyears(1989:11).

InwaysthatresonatewithAhmed’sargument,then,bothCanningandMascia-Leesetal

seektore-assertthesignificanceofpreviousandseeminglydisregardedfeministwork

inestablishingatheoreticalturn,orinalreadyinquiringintotheissuesthatcometobe

posedas‘newandexciting’inaturn4.Furthermore,whatcanalsobediscernedintheir

argumentsareconnectionsbetweenwhatispositedas‘new’and‘old’,whatis

overlookedorsidelinedwithinaturn,andwhatmakesaturn‘controversial’(1994:

370)and‘uneasy’(1994:369)fromafeministperspective.5

Thetemporalitiesoffeministturns

Debatesaboutwhatis‘new’and‘old’inatheoreticalturncanbehelpfullyunderstoodin

termsofhowthetemporalitiesoffeministtheorymorewidelyarecomprehendedand

presentedwithinfeministwork.Indeed,the‘new’and‘old’mightbeunderstoodin

termsofthethreestructuresthatHemmings(2011)arguesdominatewhatandhow

storiesaboutWesternfeministtheoryaretold.Thesestories–whichoperateaccording

tonarrativesofprogress,lossandreturn–conceivethe‘new’and‘old’differently,in

partthroughhowfeministtheoreticalworkisunderstoodinrelationtothepast,present

andfuture.Brieflyput,progressandlossnarrativesworkthroughasimilar

chronologicaltemporalitybutdisagreeonhowtounderstandandrelatetothepastand

8

present.Inprogressnarratives,thepastis‘temporallysecured’intermsofsameness,

singularityandsimplicityincontrasttothepresentasdifference,multiplicityand

complexity(2011:36).Thistrajectoryoperatesthroughan‘emphasisonnewness,

transformation,andproliferation;thepresentisanexcitingtimeofpossibility,andwe

areinvitedtoexplorethis“newconceptualterrain”withappropriateattitude’(2011:

56)6.Lossnarrativesmaintainthesameapproachtothechronologyofthepastand

present(2011:61),butseektodemonstratethatfeministtheoryhasalwaysattendedto

difference,multiplicity,andhasalwaysbeencomplex–andinfactwasbetter(equipped,

oriented,organised)inthepast.

ThethirdstoryHemmingsidentifiesofferstoreconcilethefeministsubjectsofprogress

andlossnarrativesthroughareturntowhatisframedasanissueinthepastthat‘we’or

‘they’canallagreeisimportantandinneedofrevisiting:materialism.Interestinglyfor

myfocushere,Hemmingsexplainsthisnarrativewithreferencetotheculturalturn.

Prevalentlargelyfromthe2000sonwards(2011:99),thereturnnarrativeindicates

thatmaterialismmayeitherrefertoareturntosocialreality–namelysocialinequality

–ortoscience,biologyandthenon-human,aswiththenewmaterialisms;bothareasof

inquirythatproponentsofthereturnnarrativearguehavebeen(differently)occluded

bythe‘textualplay’oftheculturalturn.Ineithercase,Hemmingsarguesthatthe‘return

narrativeispredictedon,indeedenacts,atemporalityinwhichtheculturalturnis,or

mustbe,leftbehind’(2011:104);theculturalturnisover,and‘[w]oundedbutbrave

feministmaterialistsofbothkindscanthusemergetriumphanttogreetthenewdawn’

(2011:109).

Hemmingshighlightstheimportanceofchronologyineachofthesestructuresof

Westernfeministstorytelling.Insomeways,thesethreedistinctmodesofstorytelling

assumeandworkviaalineartemporality,inthatwhiletheyallhavedifferent

9

relationshipstothepast,presentandfutureoffeministtheory,thepast,presentand

futureneverthelessareseentounfoldintoeachother.Indeed,Hemmingsexplicates

thesethreestoriesthroughthewaysdifferenttheoreticalconcernsandstylesare

attributedtospecificdecades,whichfollowonfromeachother,albeitnotnecessarilyin

asmoothmanner(2011:5).However,thesethreestoriesmayalsobeunderstoodas

demonstratinghowthetemporalityoffeministtheoryisnotlinear,orstraightforward.

Whileanon-lineartemporalitymightbemostimmediatelyclearinthestoriesofloss

andreturn–inthatasstoriestheyhighlight,differently,thesalienceof‘thepast’of

feministtheoryandhencerequireidentificationwithorreturntoatemporalitythatis

notpresent–itisalsoevidentintheprogressnarrative.Theprogressstoryappearsto

workchronologically;butitalsoindicatesapotentialdisruptiontoatemporalitythat

advanceslinearlyfromthepasttopresenttofuture.Hemmingsarguesthatthe‘shiftsin

timeandapproach’oftheprogressstory‘transformratherthanmerelyaddstoexisting

approaches,deconstructsandmovesbeyondaswellasforward’(2011:35).In

transforming,deconstructingandmovingbeyondexistingapproaches,theprogress

narrativethereforedoesnot(only)involveasmoothevolution:whatthe‘new’,‘old’,

past,presentandfutureare,andhowtheyareunderstood,arenotinstablerelationsto

eachother,totheoreticalturns,ortofeministtheorists.

Suchanunderstandingofthenon-linearityofthedevelopmentoffeministtheorymay

beidentifiedinotherengagementswithandcritiquesoffeministprogress.Forexample,

argumentsthatfeminismhasbeensosuccessfulthatitisnow‘repudiated’andcastas

nolongerneeded(McRobbie2008),pointtoaneedtorevivefeministtheoryand/orto

maintainanattentiontohowitisstillneeded.Feministtheoryis,then,atthesametime,

‘over’,ongoing,andinneedofrefreshing.Analysingsomeofthesetemporalitiesof

feministtheory,LisaAdkins(2004)arguesthatfeministtheoryisoftenseentoworkvia

alogicofreproductionacrossgenerations,andidentifiesconcernwithhowthis

10

reproductionhasfailed,withyoungerwomenseenas‘refusingtoinherittheirfeminist

legacies’(2004:430).Shearguesthatthisnotionoffailurerelies‘onreproductive

narrativeswherebyalinearchronologicaltimeisassumed’(2004:428);‘becausethe

presentandthefuturearenotbeingshapedbythepast,feminismmust(andcanonly)

bedeclaredaspassedaway’(2004:429).Here,then,youngwomenarepositionedas

‘thenew’inaproblematicway.

However,AdkinstakesupquestionsposedbyJudithRoof:

Whatifweperceivedtimenotaslinearor[…]generationalbutas

multidirectional?Whatifweunderstandnarrativeasrepetition,alternation,

oscillation[…]?Whatifcauseandeffectcangobothways?Whatifactionand

thoughtareagiftthatexpectnoreturnandcreatenodebt?(Roof1997:87,cited

inAdkins2004:431).

Adkins’responsetothesequestionsistoseefeminismasinareflexiverelationshipwith

boththesocialandepistemological.Thatis,feminismisinadynamicandchanging

relationshipwiththesocialworld,whichitexaminesandintervenesin,andthe

theoreticalframeworksthroughwhichitsargumentsareproducedandcontextualized

(2004:434).Assuch,feminismisalsoinareflexiverelationshipwithtime;temporality

isitselfreflexiveandmultidirectionalratherthanlinear.Accordingtothisapproach,itis

onlypossibletosuggestthatfeminismhaspassed,andthatyoungwomen–as‘thenew’

–havefailedfeminism,iffeminismisunderstoodtooperateaccordingtoalinear

chronology.

Turnsandsurfaces,surfacingturns

11

Thepurposesoftheprevioussectionsweretoestablish,first,thatdebateoverfeminist

turnsisongoingandconcernsnotonlythecontentoftheturnbutalsothedirectionin

whichtheturnisseenastakingfeministtheory,andsecond,thatinexaminingand

tellingthestoriesofthetrajectoriesoffeministtheory,feministtheoryhaspointedto

theimportanceofunderstandingfeminismintermsofnon-lineartemporality.In

discussingthesevariouspositions,then,whatbecomesclearisthattherehasbeenand

thereremainsstrugglewithinfeministtheoryoverwhatfeministtheory‘is’,‘was’,might

orshouldbe.Suchstruggleisamplifiedinandthroughdebatesabouttheoreticalturns,

asturnshighlightmomentsatwhichfeministtheoryismovinginparticulardirections,

forgoodorforill.Itisonthesepointsaboutthemovementanddiversityoffeminist

theory–intensifiedindebateaboutfeministturns–thatIsuggestthataconceptionof

thesurfacemightbehelpfullyintroduced.

Asindicatedabove,withinsocialandculturaltheorythesurfaceiscurrentlybeing

proposedasameanstounderstandprocessandopen-endedness,non-linearityand

mobilities7.Suchworkchallengeshowthesurfacehasconventionallybeenopposedto,

andseenassuperficialinrelationto,depth(forexampleinsomecritiquesof

postmodernism;Jameson1984),andhaspositedthesurfaceasontological.For

example,IslaForsyth,HaydenLorimer,PeterMerrimanandJamesRobinsonarguethat

focusingonthesurface‘trouble[s]theontologicalprinciplethatwouldhavesurfacesas

primarilyconstitutiveofexternalformsandboundedstates’(2013:1018),andask

aboutthe‘ontologicalstatussurfacesareafforded’(2013:1013).AdkinsandCeliaLury

suggestthatinordertounderstandachangingsocialworld,thereis,

aneedtoredefinetherelationsbetweenontologyandepistemology,andin

particularaproblematisationofsurface-depthmodelsthatisarticulatedin

historicalunderstandingsofrepresentationinrelationto,forexample,

12

hermeneutics,translation,conceptformation,involvementofpublics,andsoon

(2009:15).

Inparticular,theypointouthowthesocialis(in)astateofbecoming(itis‘open,

processual,non-linear,andonthemove’)andthatthearrangementandco-ordinationof

thisnewsocial

doesnottakeplaceinrelationtoanexternallyfixedspace,thatisaspacein

whichepistemologyis‘above’,‘behind’or‘beyond’ontology,butinrelationtoa

surfaceinwhichtheco-ordinatingaxesorcategoriesofknowingareimplanted,

producingaspaceofpossiblestates(2009:18).

ForAdkinsandLuryandForsythetal,thesurfacebecomesameansofunderstanding

thesocial,spatialandtemporal8,andhowa‘spaceofpossiblestates’iscoordinated.Itis

inthesetwowaysthatIthinkthesurfacemightbehelpfulforexploringfeminist

theoreticalturns.Iwanttosuggestthataturnbeunderstoodintermsofasurface;or,

putslightlydifferently,thataturnbesurfaced.

Ifturnsareapproachedconceptually,theymightbeunderstoodastheevolutionor

progressionoffeministtheory.Liketheperhapsmorefamiliartropeoffeministwaves,

turnsmightbethoughtofasindicatingflowandevolution(thefirstwaverollingintothe

secondwave,forexample;theculturalturnflowingintotheaffectiveornewmaterialist

turn).However,whilewavescertainlysignalachangeoffocusandgenerate

contestationandstruggle,asIhavediscussed,forcriticsinparticular,turnsseemto

suggestaruptureorbreakinthecontentandtrajectoryoffeministtheory;aturning

awayfromormakingpastofcertainthings(histories,issues,politics,subjects)inthe

turntowardsotherthings.Indeed,ingeneraldictionarydefinitions,turnsareexplained

13

asachangeofdirection,thefollowingofadifferentcourse,orthealteringoffocus.9

However,Iwanttosuggestthatinsurfacingaturn,itispossibletounderstandthatturn

notsomuchasabreakorrupturebutrather,inAdkinsandLury’sterms,asasiteof

‘possiblestates’.

Therearetworeasonsforthissurfacingofaturn.Oneistoattempttotakeseriously

bothendorsementsandcritiquesoftheoreticalturns–thatis,toattendtodebatesabout

theoreticalturns.AsIhavesuggested,debateandstruggleiscrucialtothepoliticsand

ethicsoffeministtheory.Ifanaimoffeministtheoryisnottodampendebatebuttotake

it(ititselfandthepointsitraises)seriously,inwhatspiritmightthedifference

indicatedindebatesaboutfeministturnsbeapproachedandconceived?Drawing

throughAdkinsandLury’sconceptionofthesurfaceasasiteof‘possiblestates’,what

wouldbeinvolvedinseeingdebatesaboutafeministtheoreticalturnasanindicationof

thepossiblestatesoffeministtheory?Howmightdebatesaboutaturnoccupyone

surface?Thesecondreasonforsuggestingasurfacingoffeministtheoreticalturnsisto

takeseriouslythenon-linearityoffeministtheory.Ifneitherevolutionnorruptureisan

appropriatemeansofunderstandingthemovementanddevelopmentoffeminist

theory,howmightthesurfacebeabletoaccountforthetemporalitiesoffeministtheory

thatareinRoof’sterms,‘multidirectional’andinvolve‘repetition,alternation,

oscillation’?Howmightthevariouspasts,presentsandfuturesimaginedforfeminist

theorythatarehighlightedindebatesaboutturnsbeunderstood,mappedandco-

ordinated?

Toaddressthesequestionsandexplorethepotentialutilityofthesurfaceforconceiving

feministtheory,andfeministturnsmorespecifically,therestofthearticleisorganised

aroundaseriesoffiveindicativeissues,termsandideasthathavebeguntoemergein

thediscussionsofar:(i)reflexivity,or,areformulationoftherelationshipbetween

14

ontologyandepistemology;(ii)possibility,orthenon-lineartrajectoriesoffeminist

theory;(iii)lines,oraccountingforthenon-lineartrajectoriesoffeministtheory;(iv)

knots,orthetyingtogetherofnon-lineartrajectoriesinfeministtheory,andaccounting

forwhatofatheoreticalturnisseenasparticularlyimportant;and(iv)diagrams,or

accountingforthecoordinationofasurface.Whilethesesectionsinter-relate(or,better,

inKarenBarad’s(2007)terms,intra-act),theydonotnecessarilydevelopsmoothlyon

fromeachother.Rather,followingthroughtheconceptionoftemporalitydevelopedso

far,theyconnectinwaysthataremultidirectional,andtheytakeofffrom,repeat(with

difference)andoscillatebetweeneachother.

Reflexivity,orareformulationoftherelationshipbetweenontologyand

epistemology

OneofthecharacteristicsoftheturntothesurfacethatAdkinsandLurydescribeisa

reconfiguringoftherelationshipbetweenepistemologyandontology.ForAdkinsand

Lury,inordertounderstandopen-endedness,process,non-linearityandmovementor

mobility,itisnecessarytobothseethat,andtodevelopan,epistemology(that)isnot

‘“above”,“behind”or“beyond”ontology’butisembeddedor‘implanted’withinit.To

begintounpackthisidea,itishelpfultoreturntohowdebatesaboutfeministturns

highlightthatfeministtheoryisinterestednotonlyincontent,butalsoinhowturns

movefeministtheoryinparticulardirections.Inotherwords,feministtheoryis

concernednotonlywiththeworld(empiricalortextual,past,presentorfuture)thatis

somehow‘outthere’,butalsowithitself,withthemovementsandtrajectoriesof

feministtheory.InAdkins’terms,feminismistherefore‘shift[ing]fromaformof

politicalconsciousnessconstitutedbysubjectsreflectingonsocioempiricalobjects–a

politicalconsciousnessconstitutedbyanexternalreflexivity–toaself-consciousness

characterizedbyaselforinternalreflexivity’(2004:433).

15

Feministtheorymightthereforebeunderstoodintermsofthesurfaceinthatthereisa

changingrelationshipbetweenfeministtheory,knowledgeproduction,andthe

empirical(and/ortextual)world.TheshiftdocumentedbyAdkinsinthequotation

immediatelyabove,indicatesthatfeminismoperatesnotonlyintermsofarelationship

betweenepistemologyandontology,wherefeministtheoryisunderstoodas

epistemological,andthesocioempiricalasontological;thatis,feministtheoryisnotonly

interestedin‘socioempiricalobjects’.Instead,feministtheoryhasdevelopeda

relationshipwith,ora‘self-consciousness’about,itself,sothatfeministtheoryisboth

epistemologicalandontological.Moreover,toreturntoAdkins’argumentdiscussed

furtherabove,itisnotonlywithitselfthatfeministtheoryhasareflexiverelationship;it

isalsowiththe‘socioempirical’.AsAdkinsargues,‘ratherthanaspectator,feminismis

implicatedinandisco-determinouswiththerapidtransformationsofculturaland

sociallife’(2004:441),andthus‘adistinctionbetweenself-reflexivityandthesocialis

difficulttomaintain’(2004:434).Feministtheoryisnot(only)anepistemology–away

ofknowingtheworld–butisalsoontologicalinitsimbricationinthebecomingofthose

worlds.

Possibility,orthenon-lineartrajectoriesoffeministtheory

Inordertodevelopthisideaofthereflexivityofthesurface,itishelpfultoremember

thatinthedebatesaboutthemovementsthatfeministturnsindicateorgenerate,the

‘new’and‘old’or‘past’areseenasparticularlyproblematicorgenerative.Forcriticsof

particularturns,‘thenew’servestocastotherissues,positionsandpoliticsaspast,over

or‘alreadydealtwith’(Hemmings2005:561).Atthesametime,andoftenindirect

engagementwiththesedebatesaboutturns,arangeofperspectiveshavesoughtto

showhowalinearmodeloftemporalityisinappropriateinunderstandingthetrajectory

offeministtheory.Inmyreadingoftheseperspectives,feministtheorydoesnot

16

progresssmoothly,andiscapableofneitherreturningtoormovingonfrom/beyondan

agreeduponpast.Itcannotbereproducedorpassedonacrossorbetweengenerations

asifeitherthesegenerationsorfeminismitselfarestableentities.Indeed,respondingto

similarargumentsthatAdkinsidentifiesaboutthe‘passingaway’offeminism,Beverley

Skeggs(2008)refusesthe‘storyof“failedreproduction”’andinsteadpositsfeminist

theoryintermsofa‘dirtyhistory’(2008:684).Feministtheoryisnotlinearbutrather

isastoryof‘extraordinaryreplication’(2008:684);‘ofde-andre-inscription,ofde-and

re-territorialisation,ofastruggleoverthepoliticsofknowledge’(2008:684).Ina

differentmode,butengagingwithmanysimilarissues,IrisvanderTuinhascarefully

analysedagenerationallogicwithinfeministtheory,anddevelopedanotionofa

‘generationalfeminism’wherechangewithinandbetweenfeministtheories(for

examplebetweensecondandthirdwaves)isunderstoodinanon-conflictual,non-

dialectical,non-linearway;asgenerative,replicatingand/orjumping(2009,2015).

Feministtheorymaythereforebeunderstoodintermsof‘reflexivity’notonlyinitsself-

consciousnessandrelationshipwiththesocial,butalsointermsofitsnon-linear

trajectoriesandmovements.Thisisimportantintermsofthe‘reflexive’,‘non-linearand

non-Euclidean’logic(2009:16)thatAdkinsandLurysuggestcharacterisesthesurface.

Indeed,oneofthewaysAdkinsandLuryseethereconfigurationoftherelationship

betweenepistemologyandontologyisthat,throughthe‘implantation’of‘co-ordinating

axesorcategoriesofknowing’intoorontothesurface,‘aspaceofpossiblestates’is

produced(2009:18).Putanotherway,therelationshipbetweenepistemologyand

ontologyiscollapsedorblurredsothatratherthanbeingexternaltothatwhichitseeks

tounderstandandcreateknowledgeabout,epistemologyis‘implanted’intoontology.

Ontologyandepistemologyareonandofthesamesurface.AdkinsandLurydescribe

thissurfaceasa‘topologicalspaceofallthepossiblestatesthatasystemcanhave’

(2009:16).Topologyhererefersbothtothecapacityofasurfaceto‘contain’orinduce

17

‘allthepossiblestatesthatasystemcanhave’,and,inMikeMichaelandMarsha

Rosengarten’sterms,howasurfaceenablesan‘attempttocaptureheterogeneous

relationsandexchanges.Thingsthatareseeminglydistant[…]turnouttobefarmore

promiscuousandcanbeshowntobeinfarcloserproximitythanonemightinitially

imagine’(2012:104).

Asurfaceisthereforeasitecomposedthroughandonwhichmultipleandpotentially

diverseentitiesorstatesmay(be)assemble(d).Inthecaseoffeministtheoreticalturns,

asurfacemightbeasiteonwhich(variouspossibleversionsof)thepast,presentand

futureassembleandarearranged.Anunderstandingoffeministtheoreticalturnsin

termsofthesurfacemaythereforebeameanstotakeseriouslyproponentsand

opponentsofaparticularturn.Thatis,throughasurfacingoffeministtheoreticalturns,

debatesandstrugglesaboutthe‘possiblestates’offeministtheoryareorcanbe

assembledtogetherwithinorononesurface.Itmayalsobeameansofthinkingabout

the‘new’,‘old’,past,presentandfutureasnon-linear,multidirectionaltemporalities.

Thatis,ifthesurfaceisa‘promiscuous’sitewherenotonly‘heterogeneous’butalso

‘seeminglydistant’thingsmightbe‘infarcloserproximitythanonemightimagine’,it

followsthatwhatmightbedesignatedasfarapartinlinearmodelsoftimemightbe

contiguous.Conceivedassuch,afeministtheoreticalturnmightnotsomuchbea

movementawayfromsomeissuesandtowardsothers,butasurfaceonwhichdifferent

possibletemporalitiesexistatthesametime,andare(made)proximate–ornot.

Lines,oraccountingforthenon-lineartrajectoriesoffeministtheory

Inconceivingfeministtheoreticalturnsintermsofthesurface,anumberofquestions

areraised,includingwhichdebatesandstrugglesareparticularlyintensewithinaturn,

whichversionsoffeministpasts,presentsandfuturesbecomedominant,andhow

potentiallydivergentpositionsandargumentsarecoordinatedorarranged.Inseeinga

18

turnasasurfacethatcontainsand/orprovokes‘allthepossiblestates’ofthesystemof

feministtheory,atheoreticalturncanbeunderstoodasasurfaceonwhichdifferent

linesofargumentationbecomeassembled10.

Totakeoneexampleofananalysisofandinterventioninafeministtheoreticalturn,

inanarticletitled‘The(f)utilityofafeministturntoFoucault’,MoyaLloyd(1993)

pointsoutthatsomefeministtheoristsarguethat‘Foucauldiangenealogycannot

illuminatesystematicallyunequalpowerrelations’(1993:435).Throughhercareful

analysisofbothproponentsandopponentsofafeministFoucauldianturn,Lloydnotes

that‘powerisacontestedconceptwithinfeminism’and‘thattherelationofthesubject

topowerisproblematizedbyanyproposedrecoursetoFoucault’(1993:441);anissue

thatisseenas‘mostpressing’for‘theorisingpatriarchy’(1993:442).Lloydagreeswith

feministcriticsthatFoucaultdoesnotexplicitlyconsidersexedandgenderedpower,but

mobilisesFoucault’sconceptionofbio-powertoofferanunderstandingof‘patriarchyas

aparticularhistoricalconfigurationofpowerrelations,withoutcommonorigin’(1993:

444)and,intheprocess,‘tochallenge,orindeedprovoke,[…]aseriousreflectionupon,

andpotentialrethinkingof,themeaningof“patriarchy”’(1993:445).

Lloyd’sanalysisandargumentdemonstratehowlinesofargumentationconcernedwith

whatmightbetermedthe‘old’or‘alreadydealtwith’(Hemmings2005:561)exist

withinthefeministturntoFoucaultatthesametimeaslinesconcernedwithwhat

mightbetermed‘thenew’.Thatis,linesofargumentationthatarefocusedonhow

patriarchylocateswomeninunequalpowerrelationsare,forLloyd,atstakeinany

feministFoucauldianturnatthesametimeaslinesofargumentationthatseekto

‘challenge,orindeedprovoke’athinkingthroughofwhatpatriarchy,asacategory,

means.Indeed,Lloydremarksthat,‘whileadmittedlydisruptiveofcertainfeministways

oftheorizing’,aturntoFoucault‘couldalsobepositivetofeminism’,and‘intensely

19

provocativeandpotentiallyproductive’(1993:457).Here,Lloydtakesupapositionthat

mightbecharacterizedasonthesideof‘thenew’,inthatshearguesforarethinkingof

patriarchy(‘old’)throughFoucault’sconceptofbiopower(‘new’).However,this

rethinkingmightbeunderstoodnotsomuchasaturningawayfrompatriarchybut,asI

discussbelow,aturningoverofit.Thepointhereis,understoodintermsofasurface,in

thisparticulardiscussionofthefeministturntoFoucault,multiplelinesof

argumentation(past,present,‘old’,‘new’)existatthesametime,andthingsthatmight

becastasoveraccordingtoalinearmodeloftime(suchaspatriarchy),are(brought)

proximate(to)thingsthatare‘new’(biopower).

Knots,orthetyingtogetherofnon-lineartrajectoriesoffeministtheory,and

accountingforwhatofatheoreticalturnisseenasparticularlyimportant

Whilelinesindicatehowdiverseargumentsmayexistatthesametimeonasurface,

theymightalsobeahelpfulconceptualdevicetoexaminehowsomelinesofargument

becomeknotted,perhapsaroundaparticularproblem.Afterall,indebatesaboutaturn,

linesofargumentationnotonlyexistatthesametime,butgettiedtogetherinparticular

ways.SophieDay,CeliaLuryandNinaWakeforddescribeknotsascapableof‘hold[ing]

togetherallkindsofreciprocalrelationshipsandstories’(2014:142)andas‘involv[ing]

somekindofloopingbywhichfasteningisachievedwithinmovement’(2014:141).11

Knotsherethen,canrefertoatetheringtogether,inamoreorlesssecureway,ofmulti-

directional,changinganddiversefeministtrajectoriesinoraroundaparticularturn.At

thesametime,andperhaps(althoughnotalways),howlinesgettiedtogetherindicates

aparticularlysignificantissue;orwhatmightalsobereferredtoasa‘knottyproblem’.

Intheaboveexample,Lloyd’sconcernwithpatriarchymightbeseeninthisway.

Thefirstsenseoftheknotseekstoaccountforhowaturnsignalsaparticular

movementoffeministtheory.WhileIhavesuggestedthat,understoodintermsofa

20

surface,suchmovementsandalterationsindirectionarecapableofexistingatthesame

time‘within’aparticularsite(i.e.thatwhichmaybecastaspastaccordingtoalinear

modeloftimeexistsasa‘possiblestate’accordingtothenon-linearityofthesurface),it

isneverthelessimportanttoconsiderhowdebatesaboutturnsaredebatesaboutthe

orientationsanddirectionsoffeministtheory;theyarestrugglesoverwhatlinesof

argumentationarecarriedthrough,andwhatseemoflesssignificance.Whilean

understandingofturnsthroughalinearmodeloftimemightseemovementswithin

feministtheoryasevolutionorforgetting,intermsofthenon-linearunderstandingof

thetemporalitiesofturnsIamdevelopinghere,aturnindicatesatwisting,twirlingor

loopingofpotentiallydiverselinesofargumentation.

Indebatesabouttheaffectiveturn,forexample,thereisstruggleabouthowlinesof

argumentationdevelopedinspecificdisciplinarycontextsaretiedtogether;theseare

importantinbringingtoattentionthespecificitiesofparticularlinesofargumentation,

aswellastoathinkingthroughofwhetherandhowitispossibletosecureandstablise

(evenifonlytemporarily)potentiallydiverselinesofargumentationintheserviceof

anotherargument–andintheserviceofafeministpolitics.Forinstance,RuthLeys

arguesthatsomeculturaltheoriestakeup‘afalsepictureofhowthemindrelatestothe

body’(2011:456-7)thatisapparentinsomescientificworkonaffect,contributingto

whatsheseesasmisreadingsofscienceinculturaltheory.Herpositionwouldseemto

suggestthatlinesofargumentationdevelopedinscienceneedtobeseparatedfrom,or

attheveryleasttakenupwithgreatcautionin,culturaltheory.Inherworkonempathy

astransnationalaffectiverelations,CarolynPedwellarguesthat‘whentranslated

throughthelensofcriticaltheory,neuroscientificperspectivescanaddaproductive

element[…]toourunderstandingofempatheticengagementandrelatednetworksof

feeling’(2014:5).Tounderstandthecomplexwaysempathyoperatesasaffective

relations,arangeofapproachesarerequired.ForLeysandPedwell,then,howlinesof

21

argumentationdevelopedinscienceandculturaltheoryshouldbetakenupandtied

togetherdiffer;debateoverthecontentanddirectionoftheoreticalturnshighlights

whetherandhowlinesofargumentationbecomeknotted.Insuggestingthesurfacingof

feministturnsthen,Iamnotproposingtoflattenoutdebate;surfacesaretexturedand

patterned(HughesandLury2013),theypercolateandinvolverifts(Michaeland

Rosengarten2012)–theyareknotty.

Knotsarealsohelpfulintermsofthinkingaboutwhatisstruggledoverindebatesabout

theoreticalturns.Ihavealreadyindicatedhowthe‘new’and‘old’emergeasparticularly

evidentinthesedebates,andhowfeministtheorymovesanddevelopsinnon-linear

ways.Inheranalysisofthestoriesthataretoldoffeministtheory,forexample,

Hemmingsnotesthesignificanceofa‘return’narrative,which‘affirm[s]acommon

presentbyaffirm[ing]asharedpast’(2011:98).However,itisalsopossibletothinkofa

theoreticalturnasareturninanotherway.Intheirarticlethatproposesafeminist

ecologicalepistemology,ChristinaHughesandCeliaLury(2013)argueforareturnto

theconceptofsituatedknowledge,developedbyDonnaHaraway(1988)amongothers

inthe1980s,asameansof‘articulatingthedynamicintra-actionsbetweenhumanand

non-humanforces’(2013:786).Theyexplainareturntosituatedknowledgenotso

muchasagoingbacktothe1980s,noranattempttosynthesisedifferentlinesof

argumentation:

Ratherthanthecurrentlyubiquitousnarrativesof‘turns’withtheirendless

twists,rupturesandsuddenencounters,suchreturnsareproductsofrepetition,

ofcomingbacktopersistenttroublings;theyareturningsover.Insuchre-

turnings,thereisnosingularorunifiedprogressivehistoryorapproachto

discover.Rather,thereistheintensityofmulti-dimensionaltrajectories,as

conceptsarede-andre-contextualised(2013:787).

22

Aswiththefeministtheoriesdiscussedabove,HughesandLurytroublean

understandingoffeministtheoryaslinear,andinsteadpointtohowitischaracterized

byandconstitutedthrough‘multi-dimensionaltrajectories’and‘repetition’.Returnsare

a‘comingbacktopersistenttroublings’,a‘de-andre-contextualis[ation]’ofconceptsso

thatimportantanddifficultproblemscanbe‘turnedover’.Whattheconcernwiththe

‘new’and‘old’offeministtheoryindicates,then,isaconcernoverwhatisseenasa

‘persistenttroubling’,andwhatisbeing‘turnedover’.ThenotionofreturnthatHughes

andLurypropose,then,drawsthroughthenotionofknotsthatIhavesuggested:a

twistingortwirling;areturningtoandofaproblem.12

Italsosuggeststhetyingtogetherofdifferentlinesofargumentationarounda

particularlyknottyproblem.IntheexampleaboveofLloyd’sarticle,bothfeminist

theoryasithasbeenconcernedwithsocialrealityandfeministFoucauldiantheory

twistaroundthe‘persistentproblem’ofpowerandgenderinequality.Thisproblemacts

asanubaroundwhich‘old’and‘new’concepts–patriarchyandbio-power–are

broughttobear.Whilethisexamplefocusesonanargumentadvocatingforaturn,an

analysisofcriticalaccountsofafeministturnmayalsodemonstratethispoint.For

example,inAhmed’scritiqueofthenewmaterialism,itmaybethatmaterialismisa

persistentproblemthatisreturnedtoandturnedoverthroughdifferentlinesof

argumentation;inAhmed’scasebyareturnto‘older’feministtheoriesofbiology,

scienceandmatter,andinnewmaterialistfeministtheoriesby‘newer’theoriesofthis

issue.Understoodintermsofasurfacingofaturn,the‘old’and‘new’,supportiveand

critical,arebroughtintoproximityinaknotaroundan–unfortunately–enduring

problem.

Diagrams,oraccountingforthecoordinationofasurface

23

Intheirexplanationofthesurface,AdkinsandLurynotethesignificanceofaconcern

withitsarrangementororganisation,suggestingthatthe‘possiblestates’ofasurface

arenotonlyproducedbutalsocoordinatedinandthroughitsprocessualnatureandits

reformulationoftherelationshipbetweenepistemologyandontology(2009:18).The

notionsoflinesandknotshighlightthenon-linearityofthesurfaceinhowdifferentlines

ofargumentationbecometiedinknotsaroundparticularknottyproblems.Inthisway,

knotsindicatenubs,hubsorhotspotsonasurface,andsodrawattentiontothetexture

andpatterningofasurface–ortowhatmightalsobeunderstoodashowasurfaceis

arrangedandcoordinated.Accountingforthearrangementandcoordinationofa

surfaceiscrucialinordertomapwhichproblemsbecomeknots/knotty,whichconcepts

becomedrawnintoproximityaroundthem,whichlinesofargumentationaredrawn

through,andwhichfadeoraredropped.Thatis,anaccountofthearrangementand

coordinationofasurfaceistotakeseriouslydebatesaboutaturnandtomapthepower

relationsofthatsurface/surfacing.

Forexample,torevisitLloyd’s1993articleabouttheproductivenessofaFoucauldian

turnforfeministtheory,in2015itmayindeedseemthattheconceptofbio-power

becameparticularlyhelpfulinunderstandinggenderedinequalityandpowerrelations,

and,withtheculturalturnandthenewmaterialistturn,thattheconceptofpatriarchy,

withitsrootsinamaterialismbasedinandonsocialreality,becamelesshelpful.

Mappingthesurfaceofaturncanthereforetellachronologicalhistoryofthe

developmentoffeministtheory–whichtheoriesandconceptsbecomeimportantwhen,

andwithwhateffectsonothertheoriesandconcepts?Inthissense,mappingisaproject

oftrackingortracinglines,andtheircoagulationintoknots.However,mappingmay

haveamoredynamicsense.NannaVerhoeff,forexample,hasdesignatedaperformative

cartography–creative,evolvingandemergentthroughmovement(2012:145),where

‘timeandspaceunfoldinpracticesandconsequentlydonotworkalongpredetermined

24

lines’(2012:146).Verhoeff’sunderstandingofmappingisalsoechoedinJoeGerlach’s

(2014)conceptof‘vernacularmapping’,whichseekstoaccountfor‘thenearly-there

materialitiesofcartography;thenon-representationalcoordinatesofmaps;affectand

thevirtual’(2014:23).

Theconceptofthediagramisonemeansthroughwhichthismappingmightbe

achieved.Indeed,inexplainingDeleuze’sconceptionofthediagramanditsrelationwith

mapping,JakubZdebikarguesthatwhile‘tracing’or‘tracking’movementisoneofthe

necessaryfunctionsofthediagram,itisnotitsonlyone:

Tracing,althoughnecessary,cannotofferanythingnewtothoughtbecauseits

functionistocopyandrepresentwhatisalreadythere.Themapontheother

hand–andherethemapistakenawayfromtheclassicalmodel,butwithout

losingtheclassicalspiritthatinducedit–isanexplorationdevice,something

thatdoesnotimitatebutthatconstantlyexplorestheunknown(Zdebik2014:

34).

Mapping–ordiagramming–isinthissenseactive;transformational,emergent,

creative.Asan‘explorationdevice’,diagramsareameansofmappingnotonlywhatis,

butalsowhatmightbe:the‘possiblestates’thatmightexiston/asasurface.Intermsof

thesurfacingoffeministtheoreticalturns,thismightbetomakeconnectionsbetween

differentlinesofargumentation,andtobringintoproximityconceptsthatmight

otherwisebeplacedatmutuallyexclusivepositionsonalineartimeline.Accordingto

thesuggestionaboutsurfacingfeministtheoreticalturnsthatIhavemade,mappingthe

surfaceofaturnmayalsoenableanunderstandingandanalysisofthenon-linear

temporalitiesoffeministtheory.Forexample,areturningofdebatesaboutthe

Foucauldianturninfeministtheorymightdiagramthe‘old’issueofpatriarchyas

25

important,andhence,asI’vesuggested,mightbringpatriarchyintoproximitywiththe

‘new’conceptofbio-power.ThesurfaceoftheFoucauldianturnismappednotonly

linearlyand/orchronologically,butisalsocoordinatednon-linearlythroughlinesand

knots.

Further,AdkinsandLurypointtothediagramasanon-representationalsignwhere

calculationandindexationare‘nolongerdeterminedbyanexternal“set”[…]butbya

processofdeformationandmodificationofdiagramsthemselves’(2009:17).Of

significancehereisthecapacityofdiagramstobeself-determining,sothatepistemology

isnotexternaltothediagrambutthatthediagramisabletomodifyitself.Co-ordination

ofasurfaceisnotexternalbutreflexiveandwithinorimmanenttothesurface.Taking

upthisimmanenceandreflexivityofadiagram,thosewithinadebateaboutafeminist

turnareatonceinducingtheturnandlayingouttheircoordinatesofandforit.The

flexibilityofthediagramasamappingdevicesuggeststhatthecontours,lines,knots

and‘possiblestates’ofasurfacewilldiffer,orbespecifictotheparticularposition(s),

tradition(s)andtrajectory/iesafeministtheoryis‘in’.Importantly,thisisnottoseea

feministtheoristasinanexternal(orunreflexive)positiontothetheoreticalturn–nor

indeed,tonecessarilyprioritisethehumansubject13.AsHughesandLurynote,intheir

returntosituatedknowledge,‘situatedness’isunderstood‘notasapositionoran

identity,butasemergentinthediverseprocessesofdifferentiation,thepatternsof

movement,thatconstitutethemovingsurfaceorgroundoffiguresofknowledge’(2013:

792).Feministtheorists–andthehumanandnon-humanmaterialsthathelptocreate

hertheories–areembeddedwithinthe‘movingsurface’ofaturn.Asan‘exploration

device’,thediagramisthuscapableofmappingoutthecoordinationofthesurfaceofa

theoreticalturninvarious,situatedways,highlightingnon-lineartemporalitiesand

connectivities,andperformingandtransformingfeministtheoryintheprocess.

26

Surfacingfeministtheoreticalturns:Concludingcomments

Asthispapertakesupandisinvolvedinwhatiscalleda‘turntothesurface’,Iwantto

recognizethatthisturn,andtheindicativesuggestionsmadehere,maythemselves

generatetheirowndebate.Thatis,itisimportanttonotethatIaminsomesenses

proposinga(further)turnin,toandforfeministtheory–onethatattemptstoattendto

thesalienceofanddebatesaroundturnsthemselves.However,Ialsowanttopointout

thataturntothesurfaceisnotanattempttosettleongoingdebatesaboutepistemology

andontology,(non-)lineartemporalitiesandspatialities,orpersistenttroublings.

Rather,inHughesandLury’sterms,theturntothesurfacemaybeturnings-overof

theseissues;returnstodebatesaboutthem.

Moreparticularly,insuggestingthatfeministtheoreticalturnsbeunderstoodinterms

of(aturnto)thesurface,itisimportanttonotethatIamnotarguingthatthesurfaceis

ameanstoresolvethedebatesandstrugglesaboutfeministtheoreticalturns;sucha

taskwouldbemisguidedinignoringhowtherearefeminismsratherthanfeminism,and

how,asI’vediscussed,debateandstruggleareintegraltofeminism,andindeedany

politicalandethicalmovement.NoramIproposingthesurfaceasameansofnecessarily

ensuringgreaterinclusionwith/infeministtheory.Oneaspectofmyargumentisthata

surfaceiscapableofincorporatingmultipleandpotentiallydiversetheories–itisasite

of‘possiblestates’–andinthiswayitisameansofaccountingforpositionsthatcritics

ofparticularturnsargueareexcluded.However,atthesametime,Iammindfulofthe

potentialforinclusiontocollapseintowhat,intheiranalysisofkeyfeministarticlesand

specialissuesonintersectionality,MariaCarbinandSaraEdenheimpointoutisan

erasureofpowerrelations.CarbinandEdenheimproposethattheiranalysisshowsthat

the‘intersectionalturn’infeministtheoryischaracterizedbyalackofdebate.They

arguethat‘thereisnosuchcontestation[aboutintersectionality]goingon,itisonly

statedthatthereareconflicts,butwithoutanyreferencestosuchdebates’(2013:239-

27

240).Fortheseauthors,thislackofdebate,aswellasamoregeneral‘theoretical

vagueness’,hasledintersectionalitytheorytobea‘consensus-creatingsignifierthatnot

onlymadetheconcept[ofintersectionality]successfulbutalsoenabledan

institutionalizationofaliberal“all-inclusive”feminismbasedonadenialofpoweras

constitutiveforallsubjects(andnon-subjectsalike)’(2013:234)14.Inintroducinga

‘turntothesurface’,Iamsuggestingitneitherasaturnthatnecessarilysolvesthe

problemofexclusion,norpresentingitas,inCarbinandEdenheim’sterms,‘thefeminist

theory’(2013:245)where‘“everyone”feelsthatitfits“theirwayofdoingresearch”’

(2013:245).

Insuggestingthesurfaceasameanstounderstandthetemporalitiesoffeministtheory,

whatIamindicatingisthatasa‘space[andtime]ofpossiblestates’,nothingis

necessarilyprecludedon,in,orforasurface.However,itisalsotomap–

diagrammatically–thelinesandknotsofthesepossiblestatesinordertoattendtothe

powerrelationsofasurface.Thisistotakeseriouslylinesofargumentationthatboth

proposeandopposeaparticularturn.Intermsoftheissueofthe‘new’and‘old’,thisis

toattendtowhatis(moststronglyput)bothattractiveandrepellantaboutaturn.Itis

totakeupfeministargumentsaboutthenon-lineartemporalitiesoffeministtheories

andtoconsiderhowtheoreticalturnsseemtohighlightsuchnon-linearityespecially.To

paraphrase–orreturn–someofthequestionsposedbyRoof(citedinAdkins(2004:

431),itistoengagewiththe‘multidirectional’temporalitiesoffeministtheory,andto

seedebatesaboutfeministturnsasinvolvingnotsomuchprogressorloss,but

‘repetition,alternation,oscillation’.

Acknowledgements

28

ThankstoLisaAdkinsandMaryanneDeverfortheirencouragementinwritingthis

piece.ThanksalsotoAnnaHickey-Moodyforhercommentsonanearlierversion,andto

BevSkeggsforsuggestionsofsuitableliterature.

Bibliography

Adkins,Lisa(2004)‘Passingonfeminism:Fromconsciousnesstoreflexivity?’,European

JournalofWomen’sStudies,11(4):427-444.

Adkins,LisaandLury,Celia(2009)‘Whatistheempirical?’,EuropeanJournalofSocial

Theory,12(5):5-20.

Ahmed,Sara(2008),‘SomePreliminaryRemarksontheFoundingGesturesofthe“New

Materialism”’,EuropeanJournalofWomen’sStudies,15(1),pp.23-39.

Ahmed, Sara, Kilby, Jane, Lury, Celia, McNeil, Maureen and Skeggs, Bev (2000),

‘Introduction: Thinking through feminism’ in Ahmed, Sara, Kilby, Jane, Lury, Celia,

McNeil,Maureen and Skeggs, Bev (eds),Transformations:ThinkingThroughFeminism,

LondonandNewYork:Routledge.

Amato,JosephA.(2013)Surfaces:AHistory,BerkleyandLosAngeles:Universityof

CaliforniaPress.

Barad, Karen (2007), Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the

EntanglementofMatterandMeaning,DurhamandLondon:DukeUniversityPress.

Berlant,Lauren(2011)CruelOptimism,Durham,NCandLondon:DukeUniversityPress.

Canning,Kathleen(1994)‘FeministHistoryaftertheLinguisticTurn:Historicizing

DiscourseandExperience’,Signs,19(2):368-404.

Carbin,MariaandEdenheim,Sara(2013)‘Theintersectionalturninfeministtheory:A

dreamofacommonlanguage?’,EuropeanJournalofWomen’sStudies,20(3):233-248.

Coleman,Rebecca(2009)TheBecomingofBodies:Girls,Images,Experience,Manchester:

ManchesterUniversityPress.

29

Coleman,Rebecca(2014)‘Intensivefeministtheory:Representation,Materialityand

IntensiveTime’,Women:ACulturalReview,25(1):pp.27-45.

Coleman,Rebecca(inpreparation)‘Co-ordinatingtheSurface,EnactingtheSocial:Lines,

DiagramsandPotentialityinAmazon’sSpeculativeShipping’,Theory,Cultureand

Society.SubmittedJuly2015.

Coleman,RebeccaandFerreday,Debra(eds.)(2011)HopeandFeministTheory,London

andNewYork:Routledge.

Coleman,RebeccaandOakley-Brown,Liz(eds.)(inpreparation)‘TheorisingSurfaces’,

Theory,CultureandSociety.

Day,Sophie,Lury,andWakeford,Nina(2014)‘Numberecologies:Numbersand

numberingpractices’,Distinktion:ScandinavianJournalofSocialTheory,15(2):123-

154.

Forsyth,Isla,Lorimer,Hayden,Merriman,Peter,Robinson,James(2013)‘Whatare

surfaces?’,EnvironmentandPlanningA,45:1013-1020.

Gerlach,Joe(2014)‘Lines,contoursandlegends:Coordinatesforvernacularmapping’,

ProgressinHumanGeography,38(1):22–39.

Grosz,Elizabeth(1999)‘ThinkingtheNew:OfFuturesYetUnthought’inGrosz,

Elizabeth(ed.)Becomings:ExplorationsinTime,Memory,andFuturesIthacaand

London:CornellUniversityPress,pp.15–28.

Grosz,Elizabeth(2000)‘Deleuze’sBergson:Duration,theVirtualandaPoliticsofthe

Future’Buchanan,IanandColebrook,Claire(eds)DeleuzeandFeministTheory

Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,pp.214–234.

Haraway,Donna(1988)‘SituatedKnowledges:TheScienceQuestioninFeminismand

thePrivilegeofPartialPerspective’,FeministStudies14(3):575–599.

Haraway,Donna(1997)ModestWitness@SecondMillenium:FemaleManMeets

OncoMouse:FeminismandTechnoscience,London:Routledge.

30

Hartman,SaidiyaV.(1997)ScenesofSubjection:Terror,Slavery,andSelf-makingin

Nineteenth-centuryAmerica,OxfordandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Hemmings,Clare(2005)‘Invokingaffect’,CulturalStudies,19(5):548-567.

Hemmings,Clare(2011)WhyStoriesMatter:ThePoliticalGrammarofFeministTheory,

DurhamandLondon:DukeUniversityPress.

Hinton,PetaandLiu,Xin(2015)‘TheIm/PossibilityofAbandonmentinNewMaterialist

Ontologies’,AustralianFeministStudies,30(84):128-145.

Hughes,ChristinaandLury,Celia(2013)‘Re-turningfeministmethodologies:froma

socialtoanecologicalepistemology’,GenderandEducation,25(6):786-799.

Ingold,Tim(2007)Lines:ABriefHistoryLondon:Routledge.

Ingold,Tim(2010)‘Footprintsthroughtheweather-world:walking,breathing,

knowing’,JournaloftheRoyalAnthropologicalInstitute,16,IssueSupplements1:S121-

S139.

Jameson,Frederick(1984)‘Postmodernism,ortheculturallogicoflatecapitalism’,New

LeftReview,146(July-August):pp.59-92.

King,Katie(2012)Khipu:designaffections.For"KnottinginCommon,"Goldsmiths,

UniversityofLondon,Friday15June2012;at:http://affectdesign.blogspot.com/,

accessed12thAugust2015.

Leys,Ruth(2011)‘TheTurntoAffect:ACritique’,CriticalInquiry37(Spring2011):pp.

434-72.

Lloyd,Moya(1993)‘The(f)utilityofafeministturntoFoucault’,EconomyandSociety,2

(4):437-460.

McRobbie,Angela(2008),TheAftermathofFeminism:Gender,CultureandSocialChange,

London:Sage.

Mascia-Lees,FrancesE.,Sharpe,PatriciaandBallerinoCohen,Colleen(1989)‘The

PostmodernistTurninAnthropology:CautionsfromaFeministPerspective’,Signs,15

(1):7-33.

31

Massumi,Brian(1995)‘Theautonomyofaffect’,CulturalCritique,31(autumn1995):

pp.83-109.

Massumi,Brian(2002)ParablesfortheVirtual:Movement,Affect,Sensation,Durham,NC

andLondon:DukeUniversityPress.

Michael,MikeandRosengarten,Marsha(2012)‘HIV,GlobalizationandTopology:Of

PrepositionsandPropositions’,Theory,CultureandSociety,29(1-2):93-115.

Ngai,Sianne(2007)UglyFeelings,HarvardMA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Papoulias,ConstantinaandCallard,Felicity(2010)‘Biology’sGift:Interrogatingthe

TurntoAffect’,BodyandSociety,16(1):pp.29-56.

Pedwell,Carolyn(2014)AffectiveRelations:TheTransnationalPoliticsofEmpathy:

BasingstokeandNewYork:PalgraveMacmillan.

Roof,Judith(1997)‘GenerationalDifficulties;or,TheFearofaBarrenHistory’,inD.

LooserandE.A.Kaplan(eds)Generations:AcademicFeministsinDialogue.Minneapolis

andLondon:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,pp.69–87.

Sedgwick,EveKofoskyandFrank,Adam(1995)‘Shameinthecyberneticfold:reading

SilvanTomkins’,inSedgwick,EveKofoskyandFrank,Adam(eds)ShameandItsSisters:

ASilvanTomkinsReader,DurhamandLondon:DukeUniversityPress.

Sedgwick,EveKofosky(2003)TouchingFeeling:Affect,Pedagogy,Performativity,

DurhamandLondon:DukeUniversityPress.

Seigworth,Greg,J.andGregg,Melissa(2010)‘Aninventoryofshimmers’,inGregg,M.

andSeigworth,G.J.(eds)TheAffectTheoryReader,DurhamandLondon:Duke

UniversityPress.

Skeggs,Beverley(2008)‘Thedirtyhistoryoffeminismandsociology:Orthewarof

conceptualattrition’,TheSociologicalReview,56(4):670-690.

Spivak,Gayatri(2002)‘TheRestoftheWorld’,inZournazi,M.(ed.),Hope:New

PhilosophiesforChange,PlutoPress,Sydney,pp.172–191.

32

vanderTuin,Iris(2009).'JumpingGenerations:OnSecond-andThird-waveFeminist

Epistemology’,AustralianFeministStudies,24(59):17-31.

van der Tuin, Iris (2011) ‘“A Different Starting Point, a Different Method”: Reading

BergsonandBaradDiffractively’,Hypatia,26(1),pp.22-42

vanderTuin,Iris(2015)GenerationalFeminism-NewMaterialistIntroductiontoa

GenerativeApproach,Lanham,MD:Rowman&LittlefieldPublishers/LexingtonBooks.

vanderTuin,IrisandDolphijn,Rick(2012)NewMaterialism:Interviewsand

Cartographies,AnnArbor:OpenHumanitiesPress.

Verhoeff,Nanna(2012)MobileScreens:TheVisualRegimeofNavigation,Amsterdam:

AmsterdamUniversityPress,OpenAccess.

Wetherell,Margaret(2012)AffectandEmotion:ANewSocialScienceUnderstanding,

London:Sage.

Wetherell,Margaret(2015)‘Trendsintheturntoaffect:Asocialpsychologicalcritique’,

BodyandSociety,21(2):139-166.

Witz,Anne(2000)‘Whosebodymatters?Feministsociologyandthecorporealturnin

sociologyandfeminism’,BodyandSociety,6(2):1-124.

Zdebik,J.(2014)DeleuzeandtheDiagram:AestheticThreadsinVisualOrganization,

London:BloomsburyPress.

Notes

1Thisarticleextendsashortpaperpresentedat‘Orientingfeminism(s):Feminist

“turns”andthepoliticaleconomyofknowledgeproduction’,theCentrefortheStudyof

WomenandGender,UniversityofWarwick,28thFebruary2014.Iwishtoacknowledge

andthanktheorganisers,MariadoMarPereiraandKathrynMedien,aswellasthose

whoattendedandsubmittedquestions,forprovidingtheinspirationforthislonger

article(whichmaywellproposeanunderstandingofturnsdifferenttotheirown).

33

2Foroverviewsoftheaffectiveturn,seeforexampleSeigworthandGregg2010,andof

thenewmaterialistturn,vanderTuinandDolphijn2012.

3Foramoredetaileddiscussionofthenewmaterialismasaturninfeministtheory,see

Coleman(2014).

4SeeWitz(2000)foraslightlydifferentaccountofhowthebodyisconceptualizedin

feministsociologyandsociologyinthe‘corporealturn’.

5NotablehereisthatwhileCanningandMascia-Leesetalarekeentoassertthe

importanceoffeministtheorizingtoaturnthatishappeningintheirbroaderdisciplines

(i.e.theyarenotnecessarilyconcernedwithfeminismperse),Ahmed’sargumentis

addressedtofeministtheorists,whosheseesasoverlookingpreviousfeministwork.It

isalsonotablethatwhileCanningandMascia-Leesetal’sargumentsreassertthe

significanceoffeministtheorytoturnsintheirowndisciplines,manyofthecritiquesof

theaffectiveandnewmaterialistturnsimplyanuneasewithinterdisciplinarity,as

notedabove.

6Here,then,isalinktoHemmings’critiqueoftheaffectiveturnforitsencouragementof

an‘affirmative’frameofmind;seeabove.

7Onsurfaces,seealsoIngold(2007,2010),Amato(2013)andColemanandOakley-

Brown(inpreparation).

8WhileAdkinsandLurydescribethesurfaceasspatialhere,itisalsoatemporalsite,as

Igoontodiscuss.

9DefinitionstakenfromtheMicrosoftWorddictionary,12thAugust2015.Itisalso

worthnotingthatafurtherdefinitionis‘ontheturn’;‘onthepointofgoingsour’–a

definitionwhichmaybeappropriatetothepointsmadeinsomeofthedebatesabout

theoreticalturns!

10Forotheraccountsoftherelationshipbetweenlinesandthesurface,seeIngold

(2007)andColeman(inpreparation).

11Here,theyaredrawingonKatieKing’s(2012)analysisofkhipuknots.

34

12Indeed,itisimportanttonotethatHughesandLuryproposetheknotasonetermthat

is‘designedtoillustratepotentialpracticesfordevelopingsituatedknowledges’(2013:

786).

13SeeforexampleBarad(2007)onthesignificanceof‘cuts’withinpositionalityand

boundary-makingpractices;forfurtherdiscussionsofthis,seeforexample,Hughesand

Lury(2013),Coleman(2014).

14CarbinandEdenheim’sinvestigationdemonstratesthatsuchasituationisnotso

muchtheresultofindividual,orcollectivesof,feministtheoristsbutrathera

consequenceoftheturnitself.Thatis,itistheintersectionalturninfeministtheorythat

‘hascreatedaconsensusthatconcealsfruitfulandnecessaryconflictswithinfeminism’

(2013:233).