In E-Co-Affectivity, Marjolein Oele presents a comprehensive philosophical account of pathos. Analyzing distinct, yet interconnected spheres of affectivity, she persuasively argues that pathic phenomena or experiences underlie and enable the emergence, existence, and individuation of living beings as well as the (trans)formation of communal constellations between them. In my commentary, I first raise questions concerning interpretive and argumentative strategies employed by Oele. Subsequently, I comment on some of the political implications and limitations of Oele’s study: in particular, on the underlying (...) assumption that pathos has an equalizing effect on affective communality; and on the resulting relative lack of discussion of unequal degrees and kinds of vulnerability among those who are affected due to differences in social-political status and positionality. (shrink)

My book seeks to carve out a new way to examine affectivity, by using interdisciplinary methods for scholarship of affectivity, and by focusing on specific, concrete, material interfaces: in plants, birds, placentas, human skin, and, finally, soil. In my response to Florian Grosser, Jea Sophia Oh, and Miguel José Paley, I emphasize this focus on local material e-co-affectivity because it explains in large part why I, strategically, (1) have or have not used certain sources or ideas in Aristotle and Heidegger, (...) and (2) how I see my new research developing and addressing some of the concerns of the respondents regarding the need to tend to the inequities of vulnerability. Moreover, I will try to address (3) questions regarding post-human agency, as well as (4) cross-cultural comparisons with the Chinese concept of wuwei and the Korean concept of jeong (emotions or feeling). I conclude (5) by addressing concerns regarding the meaning of temporality as it is lived on the skin. (shrink)

In this Précis I provide a brief overview of my monograph E-Co-Affectivity, which combines biology, phenomenology, Ancient Greek thought, new materialisms, environmental philosophy, and affect studies. I briefly outline central concepts such as affectivity, interface, community, and the middle voice.

In E-Co-Affectivity, Marjolein Oele explores the deep connectivity and relational entanglements of plants, animals, humans, and the soil as elemental components of a co-affective community. Her deconstructive reading of the Aristotelian conception of degrees of three souls, with such hierarchy of humans-animals-vegetables via what she calls "categorical contamination,” is a brilliant example of how re-reading the western canon can cast important interpretive light upon contemporary ethico-political questions. Oele’s work shows how it is crucial to foreground (eco)feminist re-interpretations of the writings (...) of major figures in the western philosophical traditions. It is reconstruction and construction of feminist hermeneutics so that it is not a mere interpretation, but a transformation of old traditions into planetary cosmo-centric new-becomings. Through my reading of E-Co-Affectivity, I focus on the coherence of the crucial themes of the middle voice, precarity, and e-co-affectivity, from my comparative ecofeminist perspective. The Korean concept of jeong, which can be a healing mechanism in the midst of our planetary crises, I will suggest, resonates profoundly with e-co-affectivity. (shrink)

This commentary explores the issues of separation and continuity in Marjolein Oele’s E-Co-Affectivity. I begin by providing a summary of what makes the book unique and its important achievements before moving on to a critical discussion of Oele’s concept of temporality. There, I claim that an overemphasis on the continuity between an organic being and the material interfaces that constitute it might be responsible for essential confusions in the understanding of time. My commentary begins by using Bergson’s philosophy to distinguish (...) two common views on time and then argues that in several instances, Oele’s descriptions of temporality are in fact describing space rather than time. As Bergson shows us, affect and emotion must be understood as qualities of experience rather than quantitative forms of presence. I then conclude by arguing that E-Co-Affectivity might benefit from further thinking about separation and auto-affectivity as essential features in the process of affectivity. (shrink)