Materiality, Meaning, Social Practices: Remarks on New Materialism

  • Robert SchmidtEmail author


What consequences derive from New Materialism for analytical conceptualizations of sociality? In light of this question the paper critically traces the turn to ontology that New Materialism has expedited. Following from this, several praxeological concepts that aim at analyzing sociomateriality are introduced. As it is shown, these concepts also provide an epistemological perspective to ‚ontographically’ investigate ontological controversies that are argued out on the object level. They allow for replacing New Materialism’s ontological speculations with an empirical and analytical approach to participant’s ontological reasoning.


Practice theory Turn to ontology Sociomateriality Affordances Rule-following Wittgenstein 


  1. Barad, K. 2003. Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28 (3): 801–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barad, Karen. 2012. Agentieller Realismus. Über die Bedeutung materiell–diskursiver Praktiken. Berlin: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett, Jane. 2010. Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, Jane. 2012. Powers of the Hoard: Further Notes on Material Agency. In Animal, Vegetable, Mineral: Ethics and Objects, ed. Jeffrey Jerome Cohen, p. 237–269. New York: Oliphaunt Books.Google Scholar
  5. Callon, Michel. 1986. Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?, ed. John Law, p. 196–223. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dolphijn, Rick and I. van der Tuin. 2012. New Materialism: Interviews and Cartographies. University of Michigan: Open Humanity Press.Google Scholar
  7. Folkerts, Andreas. 2013. Was ist neu am neuen Materialismus? Von der Praxis zum Ereignis. In Critical Matter. Diskussionen eines neuen Materialismus, eds. Tobias Goll, D. Keil, and T. Telios, p. 17–35. Münster: edition assemblage.Google Scholar
  8. Garfinkel, H., and H. Sacks. 1970. On Formal Structures of Practical Action. In Theoretical Sociology: Perspectives and Developments, eds. C. McKinney and E.A. Tiryakian, p. 338–366. New York: Appleton–Century–Crofts.Google Scholar
  9. Gibson, James J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  10. Heidegger, Martin. 1967. Sein und Zeit. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
  11. Hirschauer, Stefan. 2004. Praktiken und ihre Körper. Über materielle Partizipanden des Tuns. In Doing Culture. Neue Positionen zum Verhältnis von Kultur und sozialer Praxis, eds. Karl H. Hörning, and J. Reuter, p. 73–91. Bielefeld: Transcript.Google Scholar
  12. Kneer, Georg. 2010. Die Debatte über Konstruktivismus und Postkonstruktivismus. In Soziologische Kontroversen. Beiträge zu einer anderen Geschichte der Wissenschaft vom Sozialen, eds. Georg Kneer, and S. Moebius, p. 314–341. Berlin: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  13. Latour, B. 1994. Pragmatogonies: A Mythical Account of How Humans and Nonhumans Swap Properties. American Behavioral Scientist 37 (6): 791–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Latour, B. 1996. On Interobjectivity. Mind, Culture, and Activity 3 (4): 228–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Latour, Bruno. 1999. Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor–Network–Theory. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lynch, M. 1996. DeKanting Agency: Comments on Bruno Latour’s ‘On Interobjectivity’. Mind, Culture, and Activity 3 (4): 246–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lynch, M. 2013. Ontography: Investigating the Production of Things, Deflating Ontology. Social Studies of Science 43 (3): 444–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Preda, A. 2000. Order with Things? Humans, Artifacts, and the Sociological Problem of Rule–Following. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 30 (3): 269–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Puhl, Klaus. 2002. Die List der Regel. In Institutionen und Regelfolgen, eds. Ulrich Baltzer, and G. Schönrich, p. 81–100. Paderborn: Mentis.Google Scholar
  21. Rouse, J. 2007. Social Practices and Normativity. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 37 (1): 46–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schatzki, Theodore. 2017. Multiplicity in Social Theory and Practice Ontology. In Praxeological Political Analysis, eds. Michael Jonas, and B. Littig, p. 17–34. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Schmidt, Robert. 2012. Soziologie der Praktiken. Konzeptionelle Studien und empirische Analysen. Berlin: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  24. Schmidt, R. 2017. Soziale Praktiken als öffentliche Sinnzusammenhänge. Phänomenologische Forschungen 2: 159–172.Google Scholar
  25. Schmidt, R., and J. Volbers. 2011. Siting Praxeology. The Methodological Significance of ‘Public’ in Theories of Social Practices. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 41: 419–440.Google Scholar
  26. Stengers, Isabell. 2008. Spekulativer Konstruktivismus. Berlin: Merve.Google Scholar
  27. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1967. Philosophische Untersuchungen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Catholic University of Eichstätt-IngolstadtEichstättGermany

Personalised recommendations