Good to know
I try to explain all the concepts I use in the text, but it will be easier if you know what epistemology and ontology means and know some basic ideas of feminist ethics, like structural injustices, agency and responsibility. If you already have heard of the quantum principles of super position and diffraction, it will be easier to understand, but I try to explain those.
Summarizing statement
The solution could be Karen Barads theory of agential realism, which states that objective reality is existent and accessible for us, but not pre-given. Instead it is enacted by the individual, the society
and nature.
Approaching Objectivity Via Barad’s Agential Realism
1 Introduction
In the following, I will elaborate on how the concept of objectivity in natural sciences and feminist ethics are connected and what the consequences for society are.Starting in the last century, the positivist approach to objectivity has been strongly criticized by social-constructivists, under whose realm many feminist ethics approaches are categorized. The positivist scientific approach emphasizes the importance of empirical observations and verifiable facts to generate knowledge while excluding speculative or unverifiable elements from the scope of scientific inquiry. In the positivist approach, the researcher should aim to be absolutely objective, and the context under which the knowledge in question is produced is mostly not considered in the results (Abrutyn, 2019). The critique from social-constructivists is that every experiment is embedded in a socio-cultural context and that nobody, including researchers, can free themselves from their beliefs and convictions, which influences the results generated by science, making absolute objectivity in principle inaccessible for researchers (Cristol, 2019). While this perspective opens up the possibility of reflecting on how scientific research could contribute to perpetuating structural injustices, if applied to its fullest extent, it could potentially paralyze the acquisition of knowledge and the application of scientific results in society. In their book Meeting the Universe Halfway, Karen Barad offers a possible solution for attaining objectivity while still taking societal context into account (Hollin et al., 2017).
First, I will describe principles of feminist ethics and what they imply in contrast to traditional understandings of objectivity. I will go on to explore the concept of new materialism in general and further examine the core concepts of Barad's theory of new materialism, namely entanglement, diffraction, and agential realism. Finally, I will elaborate on the significance of Barad's quantum mechanical approach to a new objectivity and its potential for aiding positive societal change.
Feminist Ethics
Feminist ethics critically examine existing power structures, where mostly masculine groups have dominance over others, often referred to as patriarchy (Hoagland, 1988). These other groups encompass not only humans but all living beings (Cuomo, 1998). Power structures can significantly influence science on a societal level, as those in power can decide what is perceived as reality, potentially leading to epistemic injustices—unjust practices in the way we acquire knowledge (Fricker, 2007).Social structures tend to privilege some groups over others, so to unveil structural inequalities within societies, it’s important to assess inequalities not just at the individual level; doing so risks the fallacy of attributing shortcomings to individual failure (Young, 2001). Instead, inequalities should be examined through the lens of social groups, as marginalized groups may face structural constraints beyond individual control, underscoring the need to address these inequalities at institutional and political levels rather than focusing solely on individuals (Young, 2001).
The approach to objectivity often practiced today in science and technology studies assumes that scientists’ perceptions are uninfluenced by social context and independent of the researcher’s identity. However, in light of structural inequalities and power dynamics, this assumption can bias results by systematically excluding certain groups and perspectives from scientific practice. To counteract this, ethics that focus on addressing oppression and exclusion become crucial for attaining objectivity in research.
Feminist ethics challenge traditional ethics, which typically lay universal principles as the foundation for individual moral choices. In feminist ethics, ethical issues should be considered in their specific contexts before applying moral principles, with these principles deriving their significance from circumstances rather than having intrinsic meaning (Hoagland, 1988), (Cuomo, 1998), (Fricker, 2007), (Brennan, 2012). Traditional ethics often rely on a model of moral agency that reinforces dominance over all living beings, excluding male humans (Hoagland, 1988). Instead, moral agency should not only be rational but also emotional, intuitive, and situated within a social context (Cuomo, 1998). This suggests there is no singular feminist ethics; cultural and historical perspectives must be considered, as varying cultural contexts might necessitate different actions to advance toward a more just society (Khader, 2017). With this contextual approach, universalism becomes unsustainable, making it more challenging to establish objective moral laws.
These ethical and societal perspectives gave rise to a social-constructivist movement that opposes deterministic and universalist views. Social-constructivism played a crucial role in deconstructing oppressive perceptions that were once seen as predetermined, objective truths. However, fully applying social-constructivist theories in scientific research might make it nearly impossible to produce usable results, as absolute objectivity would be elusive. To address this, new materialism emerged as a potential solution, bridging the gaps that neither scientific determinism nor social-constructivism could fill (Sencindiver, 2017).
New Materialism
As a post-constructivist movement, new materialism reintegrates materialist ontologies and questions the prominence of language and representation within social-constructivism. This critique argues that the focus on discourse has overshadowed the investigation of physical reality outside of these representations. New materialism shifts attention to matter and its objective assessment while considering how materialization processes are intertwined with discursive practices (Sencindiver, 2017). Consequently, new materialism also challenges the way objectivity and reproducibility are often approached in science and technology studies, as these fields sometimes continue naive positivist perspectives, where experimental results are perceived as unaffected by both the observer and the context. Instead, new materialism suggests that phenomena emerge through practice, implying that entities with specific properties do not exist independently of measurement (Hollin et al., 2017). I will elaborate on this principle below.1.1 Barad's quantum mechanical approach to a new objectivity
Barad tries to create an onto-epistemological approach that provides a basis for science and technology studies that is testable and trustworthy, while avoiding a naive positivist view of objectivity (Barad, 2007). In essence, Barad argues that objects, entities, and phenomena are instantiated within and through material practices, which are performatively produced in concrete situations (Barad, 2007). By engaging with the material world, which includes the social context, this approach can ground political action and carries distinct ethical implications (Hollin et al., 2017).Barad's ethical considerations are rooted in quantum mechanics, not merely as a metaphor, but as an understanding of how the material world is brought into being. Their argument is based on the continuity of quantum and macro scales (Hollin et al., 2017). Barad asserts that scale construction is always a social process, meaning that scales are not only real but also emerge alongside the phenomena they describe (Barad, 2007). With this perspective, Barad shifts focus from the size and shape of classical geometric scales to questions of boundaries, connectivity, interiority, and exteriority (Hollin et al., 2017). This entanglement of scales and social processes suggests that nature and culture are intertwined in all that we examine. Although the observer is always a productive force in observation, Barad argues that objectivity remains achievable (Barad, 2007). Simultaneously, the approach challenges classical mechanistic models, with their positivist certainties, discrete objects, and pre-existing measurable forces. Barad’s rehabilitated concept of objectivity relies on the quantum principles of indeterminacy, paradox, and complementary states (Hollin et al., 2017). It is defined by the reproducibility and communicability of results: if the same entities constitute the measurement, the same outcome will result (Barad, 2007). This perspective offers stability in the scientific and societal realms, facilitating constructive outcomes (Hollin et al., 2017).
One core element in assessing the predictability of an outcome is diffraction (Hollin et al., 2017).
1.2 Diffraction
The principle of diffraction was proposed as a critique of reflexivity (Barad, 2007). Reflexivity involves reflecting on how a researcher influences the research project, challenging the classical positivist view that a researcher is neutral and uninfluential in experiment outcomes. In reflexive practice, the outer world of phenomena is seen as part of personal consciousness, making observations inter-subjectively true but not objective (Hollin et al., 2017). Barad criticizes reflexivity for its inability to bridge the gap between the knower and the known, as it maintains a distance between subject and object, thereby reinforcing concepts of sameness and otherness. Reflexivity supports the idea of discrete objects with distinct properties, consistent with classical scientific approaches. By contrast, Barad’s principle of diffraction emphasizes the interconnectedness of all entities involved in an experiment (Barad, 2007). Diffraction, a concept from wave physics, describes how waves can occupy the same space simultaneously, forming a distinct pattern that reflects the properties of both initial waves. By studying diffraction patterns, insights can be gained into the properties of the waves causing them (Born & Wolf, 1999). In this framework, the focus is not on the sameness or otherness of objects but rather on interpreting insights through their emergent differences and understanding how they matter (Barad, 2007).Both naive scientific realism and social-constructivism view objects as separate from their representations. Realism assumes that measurement tools are independent of both the objects measured and the resulting data. Some constructivists, however, argue that objective investigation is impossible because everything is merely a representation, limiting inquiry to discourse (Hollin et al., 2017). Using the principle of diffraction, Barad asserts that objects and their representations do not exist independently but emerge together through the process of constructing the world via measurement (Barad, 2007). In this view, measurement devices, observers, objects, and context are entangled, so matter and discourse, as well as objects and their representations, co-constitute one another. Consequently, Barad suggests that the epistemic uncertainty principle should be replaced with the ontic indeterminacy principle (Barad, 2007). The classical uncertainty principle asserts that measuring one trait of an object disrupts it, preventing simultaneous measurement of other traits in the same place and time (Heisenberg, 1927). This implies that entities exist with fixed properties before measurement. In contrast, the indeterminacy principle posits that measurement interactions and apparatuses shape the properties of emergent phenomena rather than merely observing pre-existing traits (Barad, 2007). These apparatuses include not only scientific instruments but also broader, more-than-human phenomena, without intrinsic boundaries; instead, boundaries emerge through the inclusions and exclusions made in measurement, termed “agential cuts,” enacted by specific agents (Barad, 2007). Accordingly, Barad views reality as enacted rather than pre-given, which is further elaborated through intra-actions in their theory of agential realism (Hollin et al., 2017).
1.2.1 Agential realism
The idea of intra-action is based on the principle that agency—our capacity to act—emerges from within relationships, rather than being external to them. Thus, individuals and entities materialize through intra-actions and are not pre-existent to them (Barad, 2007). An object’s existence is contingent upon the more fundamental phenomenon of which it is a (non-preexistent) part. This phenomenon, in turn, emerges from the intra-actions among humans, nature, and technology. Consequently, in Karen Barad’s agential realism, phenomena are entangled material-discursive practices that shape reality (Barad, 2007). These phenomena bring us together and temporarily separate us into different groups and entities. Studying intra-actions reveals how distinctions are created and dissolved. Even without direct interaction with an entity, we may still intra-act with the phenomenon, which distributes some of the responsibility for issues connected to that phenomenon onto us (Barad, 2007).The principle of complementarity states that the creation of one reality through intra-action necessarily excludes another equally feasible reality. While separations among words, things, and knowers are real, these separations arise from particular ways of engaging with the world. The boundary between subject and object is neither intrinsic nor nonexistent but is produced through agential cuts (Barad, 2007). We have some degree of control over this boundary-making process, which carries with it an ethical responsibility concerning the inclusions and exclusions involved (Barad, 2007). The consequences of specific agential cuts are difficult to reverse, particularly when they are instantiated within vast socio-technical networks (Hollin et al., 2017). Barad emphasizes the agency of more-than-human entities, arguing that we are shaped by our interactions with other agencies. Since agency is not separate but emerges through intra-action, the concept of individual agency is an illusion. Responsibility is thus distributed among constitutive entities, with certain responsibilities potentially being predetermined by successive agential cuts (Barad, 2007).
This perspective implies that Barad is not describing multiple ontologies but rather the stability of matter after it has emerged, given that the same apparatus under the same circumstances will consistently produce the same outcome (Hollin et al., 2017). The ethical implication extends beyond the possibility of alternate results to the ontological realm, requiring a consideration of the precise moments when things became what they are by examining the emergence of their properties and the exclusion of other possible realities in that process. This shifts the ethical questions surrounding responsibility and the definition of objectivity (Hollin et al., 2017).
Conclusion
Karen Barad's quantum mechanical approach to objectivity relates to feminist ethics in that the principles of emergence and intra-actions acknowledge the interconnectedness of humans, nature, and technology. This perspective suggests that moral agency encompasses not only rational analysis but also emotions, intuitions, and situational context, aspects often overlooked in classical ethics. In Baradian terms, it can be said that an agential cut excludes these aspects of contextuality and non-rationality from moral considerations. This shift reflects Barad's departure from classical ethics, where moral agency is situated within the individual and guided by universal rules. While Barad does not entirely reject universal principles, as matter is not arbitrary, the universalism found in classical ethics is absent. Classical ethics presupposes that agents with inherent traits exist prior to interaction and are solely responsible for their actions. In contrast, the principles of indeterminacy and emergence imply that moral agents are brought into existence through relationships with other entities, lacking inherent properties. Thus, agency is a product of its relationships with other agencies. Through diffraction, responsibility in agential realism is distributed among all agents and entities involved in the phenomenon. This aligns agential realism more closely with feminist ethics on responsibility, which is crucial when examining inequalities within society and science. From a feminist perspective, structural inequalities—akin to a succession of agential cuts in Barad’s framework—can limit individual actions beyond one’s control. Consequently, responsibility for actions is connected to other people and the embedded social structure, echoing the conclusion drawn by both Young and Barad that structural inequalities must be addressed at a political level (Barad, 2007).The cultural and historical context advocated by Khader is often unconsciously embedded within the apparatus of observation but can also be intentionally incorporated. This approach is vital, as current agential cuts frequently exclude these perspectives to formulate universally applicable principles in science, societal processes, and even feminist ethics (Khader, 2017).
In the author’s view, the complete abandonment of objectivity, as seen in some social-constructivist frameworks, is counterproductive in scientific research. A certain degree of generalization is necessary for the applicability of findings. Agential realism provides a way to maintain objectivity while acknowledging its contextual embeddedness.
Questioning the classical notion of objectivity is essential, especially considering science’s role in society. Science shapes societal perspectives and what is considered objective truth. The claim that something is scientifically proven often implies objective reality in public discourse. Without recognizing the marginalization and exclusion of certain groups (e.g., through epistemic testimonial injustice) and adhering to a naive positivist approach to objectivity, science can reinforce structures of oppression by perpetuating particular realities. Understanding that scientific findings emerge through intra-actions among humans, culture, technology, and nature can foster awareness of the structures influencing results without succumbing to non-materialist social constructivism. Recognizing exclusions occurring through agential cuts before and during experiments can reveal oppressive structures and offer a path to counteract them. Given science’s role as a cornerstone of knowledge and reality creation, it is essential to remain vigilant against potential power structures within the scientific realm, as these can jeopardize the pursuit of equity within societies (Hollin et al., 2017).
References
Abrutyn, S. B. (2019, September 30). Positivism. Oxford Bibliographies. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780199756384/obo-9780199756384-0142.xml.
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press.
Born, M., & Wolf, E. (1999). Principles of optics: Electromagnetic theory of propagation, interference and diffraction of light. Cambridge University Press.
Brennan, S. (2012). The Routledge companion to ethics. Routledge.
Cristol, J. (2019, October 30). Constructivism. Oxford Bibliographies. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780199743292/obo-9780199743292-0061.xml.
Cuomo, C. (1998). Feminism and ecological communities. Routledge.
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice – Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.
Heisenberg, W. (1927). Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik. Zeitschrift für Physik, 43(3-4), 172–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01397280.
Hoagland, S. L. (1988). Lesbian ethics. Pergamon Press, 11(6), 531–544.
Hollin, G., Forsyth, I., Giraud, E., & Potts, T. (2017). (Dis)entangling Barad: Materialism and ethics. SAGE, 47(6), 918–941. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312717728344.
Khader, S. J. (2017). Transnational feminism, non-ideal theory, and “other” women’s power. Feminist Philosophy Quarterly, 3(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.5206/fpq/2016.3.1.
Sencindiver, S. Y. (2017, July 26). New materialism. Oxford University Press. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780190221911/obo-9780190221911-0016.xml.
Young, I. M. (2001). Equality of whom? Social groups and judgments of injustice. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 9(1), 1–18.
Research question
How does Karen Barads Theory of agential realism offer a possible solution for the fallacy of scientific objectivity between social-constructivistic and positivistic approaches?
