Dmitrii V. Kataev, Dr. Sc. (Sociology), Professor of the Department of Sociology and Social Education, Lipetsk State Pedagogical University named after P.P. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky, e-mail: dmitrikataev@rambler.ru
Aleksandr O. Epifanov, Master of the Department of Sociology and Social Education, Lipetsk State Pedagogical University named after P.P. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky, e-mail: h5ohh@mail.ru
Article explores the methodological foundations of the ‘turn to the material’ in the social sciences, emphasizing the active role of material objects in social interactions and urban spaces. Approaches such as actor-network theory and the concept of material agency are reviewed, which offer new ways of analyzing the interrelationships between people and things. The focus is on a reconsideration of the decentralization of the subject, where the emphasis shifts from humans as the main actor to networks that include both people and objects. Particular attention is paid to the concepts of the agency of things, Bruno Latour’s actor-network theory, Jane Bennett’s vitalism and John Law’s critical approaches. The contribution of these theories to the deconstruction of anthropocentrism and the revision of subject-object relations is analyzed. The limitations of the approach, including its tendency towards reductionism and universalization, are examined and critiqued. Particular emphasis is placed on discussing the decentralization of the subject in the context of urban studies, as well as the tensions between local contexts and global concepts. The article offers new tools for exploring urban environments through the lens of hybrid networks that include both tangible and intangible elements.
Keywords: Material turn, agency, decentralisation, urban space, social interactions, critical urbanism
References
1. Bennett, J. Pulsating Matter: The Political Ecology of Things. Perm: Gile Press, 2018. 220 p. (In Rus.)
2. Vitushko, M.V. Immaterialism of Graham Harman as a methodology of substantiation of object-oriented ontology. Humanities Accent. 2019. No. 2. P. 24–28. (In Rus.)
3. Gritsanov, A.A. History of Philosophy: Encyclopedia. Minsk: Interpresservice, Book House, 2002. P. 1374. (In Rus.)
4. De Castro, E.V. Cannibal Metaphysics. Rubezhi poststructural’naya anthropologiya. Мoscow, 2017. 404 p. (In Rus.)
5. Law, John. After method: disorder and social science / translated from English by S. Gavrilenko, A. Pisarev and P. Hanova. Editorial translation by S. Gavrilenko. Moscow: Gaidar Institute Publishing House, 2015. 352 p. (In Rus.)
6. Ingold, T. Immersing things in life: creative entanglements in the world of materials. Untouchable Stock. Debates on politics and culture. 2021. No. 2 (136). P. 31–49. (In Rus.)
7. Kolesnik, I.I. ‘Fascination with things’ as a turn in intellectual history. Electronic scientific and educational journal “History”. 2013. Vol. 4. Iss. 2 (18). P. 177–197. (In Rus.)
8. Krutkin, V.L. ‘Material turn’ in social research and ‘intangible cultural heritage’. Vestnik of Udmurt University. Sociology. Political science. International relations. 2017. No. 2. P. 141–149. (In Rus.)
9. Latour, B. Reassembling the Social: Introduction to Actor-Network Theory / translated from Eng. by I. Polonskaya; ed. by S. Gavrilenko. Gavrilenko. Moscow: Publishing House of the Higher School of Economics, 2014. P. 384. (In Rus.)
10. Latour, B. Pasteur: War and the World of Microbes, with an appendix of “Nesvodimogo” / per. from Fr. A.B. Dyakov. Dyakov. St. Petersburg: Publishing House of the European University in St. Petersburg, 2015. С. 316. (In Rus.)
11. Lefebvre, H. The Production of Space / per. from Fr. I. Staf. Moscow: Streike Press, 2015. P. 432. (In Rus.)
12. Meillassoux, Q. After finitude: Essays on the necessity of contingency / per. L. Medvedeva. Yekaterinburg; Moscow: Cabinet Scientist, 2015. 196 p. (In Rus.)
13. Rudenko, N.I. Networks, knowledge and reality: the problematics of social topology in the concept of John Law. Sociology of Power. 2012. No. 6-7. P. 38–51. (In Rus.)
14. Starikova, E.V. Materiality of freedom: to live or to work? Vestnik of Tomsk State University. Philosophy. Sociology. Political science. 2021. No. 59. P. 263–277. (In Rus.)
15. Harman, G. Immaterialism. Objects and social theory / translated from Eng. by A. Pisarev. Moscow: Gaidar Institute Publishing House, 2018. P. 152. (In Rus.)
16. Amin, A., Thrift, N. (2002) Cities: Reimagining the Urban, Cambridge, Oxford: Polity. 192 p. (In Eng.)
17. Brenner, N., Schmid, C. (2015). Towards a new epistemology of the urban? City, Taylor & Francis Journals. Vol. 19 (2-3), pp. 151–182, June. (In Eng.)
18. Farias, I. Introduction: Decentring the Object of Urban Studies. London; New York: Routledge, pp. 1–24. (In Eng.)
19. Fraser, N. (2008) Abnormal Justice, Critical Inquiry, no. 3, pp. 393–422. (In Eng.)
20. Graham, S., Marvin, S. (2001) Splintering Urbanism: Networked Infrastructures, Technological Mobilities and the Urban Condition. Psychology Press, Hove. 512 p. (In Eng.)
21. Mbembe, A. (2019). Necropolitics. Duke University Press, 225 p. (In Eng.)
22. Mbembe, A. (2001). On the Postcolony. University of California Press, 274 p.
23. Watson, S. (2006). City Publics: The (Dis)enchantments of Urban Encounters, Routledge, 208 p. (In Eng.)
.png)
