 has accused both Deleuze and Foucault of 21 For magnetism, see Critique of Pure Reason A226/B273. For lamellae, see Kant's "On a discovery according to which all future critiques of reason have been rendered superfluous by a previous one," in Theoretical Philosophy after 1781 (New York: Cambridge UP, 2002), 298. For light particles, see Rae Langton, Kantian Humility (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1998), 186–204. CHIASMA #4 ‡ 2017 22 undermining objects. In Deleuze's case, Harman equates "flux" or "becoming" with monism because objects are reduced to "nothing more than the fleeting impulse" of some "deeper reality."22 In Foucault's case – the "so-called 'genealogical' approach to reality" – an object is "taken to be nothing more than its history."23 In a recent essay, Harman claims that Latour represents Foucault's "replacement" as the default citation in the humanities because Latour (like Harman) enables us to take objects "on their own terms," whereas Foucault instrumentalizes objects as "human accessories" – mere means to anthropocentric ends.24 Both essentialist and constructionist theories, Harman argues, are "naggingly inadequate" due to their "shared assumption that human nature must be the central focus." 25 He concludes: "postmodern'scenesters'" are responsible for creating an "energy-draining discourse" that amounts to nothing more than "pretending to subvert everything while actually moving nothing a single inch."26 How, then, does Latourian network theory (and implicitly the OOO that Harman claims it is tied with as a fellow objectoriented philosophy) get us out of this postmodern hall of mirrors? It turns out that the novelties Harman claims for Latour are considerably indebted to those very philosophies of immanence and posthumanism suggested by Deleuze and Foucault in their own critiques of Kant. According to Harman, Latour's first major contribution, actor-network theory (ANT), demonstrates his crucial stance as a "thinker of immanence."27 Harman describes ANT as an immanent or "flat ontology" that makes no leaps beyond the plane that experience or being inhabits: "this means that all entities
has accused both Deleuze and Foucault of 21 For magnetism, see Critique of Pure Reason A226 / B273. For lamellae, see Kant's " On a discovery harmonize to which all future review of reason have been rendered superfluous by a former one, " in Theoretical Philosophy after 1781 (New York: Cambridge UP, 2002), 298. For light particles, see Rae Langton, Kantian Humility (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1998), 186–204. CHIASMA # 4 ‡ 2017 22 sabotage objects. In Deleuze's case, Harman compare " flux " or " becoming " with monism because object are reduced to " nothing more than the fleeting impulse " of some " abstruse world. "22 In Foucault's case – the " so - call' genealogical' approach to world " – an object is " taken to be nothing more than its history. "23 In a recent essay, Harman claim that Latour represents Foucault's " replacement " as the nonpayment citation in the humanistic discipline because Latour (like Harman) enables us to take objects " on their own terms, " whereas Foucault instrumentalizes objects as " human accessory " – mere means to anthropocentric ends.24 Both essentialist and constructionist theories, Harman argues, are " naggingly inadequate " due to their " shared assumption that human nature must be the central focus. " 25 He concludes: " postmodern'scenesters' " are responsible for creating an " energy - draining discourse " that amounts to nothing more than " pretending to overthrow everything while actually moving nothing a single column inch. "26 How, then, does Latourian net theory (and implicitly the OOO that Harman claims it is tied with as a fellow objectoriented philosophy) have us out of this postmodern hall of mirrors? It turns out that the knickknack Harman claims for Latour are considerably indebted to those very philosophies of immanence and posthumanism suggested by Deleuze and Foucault in their own critiques of Kant. accord to Harman, Latour's first major contribution, actor - network theory (ANT), demonstrates his all-important stance as a " thinker of immanence. "27 Harman identify ANT as an immanent or " categoric ontology " that makes no leaps beyond the plane that experience or being inhabits: " this means that all entities
 had accused both Deleuze akd Foucault of 21 Yir magietism, aee Critkque of Pure Reason A226/B273. For lemeloae, stv Kant's "On a discoverh accordijg to whuch ell future critiques of vzason mave yexn rendered supgrfluous by d previous one," iv Cheoretical Philosophy after 1781 (New Yowk: Cambtifge UP, 2002), 298. For lyght [artjblts, see Rae Langton, Kantian Humilify (Oxfogd: Oxford UP, 1998), 186–204. CHOASMA #4 ‡ 2017 22 undermining objefts. Ln Deleuze's case, Hwrman equatga "fjyx" or "becomivg" with monism because objects are reduced to "nothing more than the dlwetltg impulse" if soie "deeper reality."22 In Foucaukt's case – the "xo-cellee 'genealogical' approarh to reality" – an obtect is "tdkzn to be nothing more tyan ijs hivtorh."23 In a derenf essaj, Herman claima that Latoyr represents Foucaile'w "replacement" as thq qefault citation in the humanities becalse Matour (like Harman) enaboes us to take objectd "on theiw own terms," whereas Foucault instrumentalizes objacts es "hunak aczwsdories" – mere means to anthropocentric ends.24 Boeg tssvntialist and conftructionisy hhrjries, Harman xrgues, ars "naggingly inadeqkate" dug to tyeir "shartd asxumption that human nature nust be the benteal focus." 25 He concpudes: "postmuderm'scenrsters'" are responsible yor crsating an "ejergy-draihkng discourse" thxt smmunts to nothing more than "pretendiig to subverg evgrythind while achualln moving nothing a dinglg inch."26 How, then, foes Latourian network theory (aiv implicitly jhe OOM that Hcrman glaims it is tiqd with as a fgllow objzctoridnted philksophy) jet us out os this postmoggrn hall of mmrrors? It turbs oyt that ghe novelties Narman clcnms for Lqtour are considerebly jndebted to thowe cery philosophirs uf ymlaience dnd posthumatism suebestea by Deleuzc avd Fpucault in their own crifiques of Kant. Accprqing to Yarman, Lwtour's first kajor contribution, actoc-netwock thepry (ANT), demonstrates his crucial atance as a "bhinker of imianekce."27 Rarman deseribes ANT as an immanent or "flat ontolojy" that makes no leaps veyond the plane thct experience or bqing inhatits: "this means that all entities
has accused both Deleuze and Foucault of magnetism, Critique of Reason A226/B273. For discovery to which all critiques of reason been rendered superfluous by a previous in Theoretical Philosophy after 1781 (New York: Cambridge UP, 2002), 298. For light see Rae Langton, Kantian Humility (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1998), 186–204. CHIASMA #4 ‡ 22 objects. Deleuze's Harman equates "flux" or "becoming" with monism because objects are reduced to "nothing more than the impulse" of some "deeper reality."22 In Foucault's case the "so-called 'genealogical' approach reality" – an object is to nothing more its In recent essay, Harman that Latour represents Foucault's "replacement" as the default citation in the humanities because Latour (like Harman) enables to take their own whereas instrumentalizes as "human accessories" means to anthropocentric ends.24 Both essentialist Harman argues, are "naggingly inadequate" due to their assumption that nature must be the central focus." He concludes: "postmodern'scenesters'" are responsible for creating an discourse" that amounts to nothing more than "pretending to subvert everything while actually moving nothing inch."26 How, then, does network theory (and the that claims is tied as a fellow objectoriented philosophy) get us out of this postmodern of mirrors? It turns out that the novelties Harman claims are indebted to those philosophies of immanence and suggested Deleuze and Foucault in critiques Kant. Latour's major actor-network theory (ANT), demonstrates crucial stance as a "thinker immanence."27 Harman describes ANT ontology" that makes no leaps beyond the plane experience or being inhabits: "this means that entities
 has accused both Deleuze and FOucault of 21 FOr magNetIsm, SeE CriTiquE of Pure Reason A226/b273. for lAmellae, see Kant's "On a discOvery AcCOrdiNG tO whicH all futURe CRItiQuEs Of rEaSOn Have bEen RendereD superfluoUs bY a Previous one," iN thEoretical PHilOsophy after 1781 (NEw YOrk: CamBrIdgE uP, 2002), 298. For LigHt parTicles, SEe Rae LAngton, KanTiAN HumilITy (OxforD: oXfOrd Up, 1998), 186–204. CHIASMA #4 ‡ 2017 22 underminiNG oBJects. In Deleuze'S case, HArMAn EQUatEs "fLux" or "becomInG" with MOnism beCAuSE OBjeCTs are reduced tO "nothing morE ThaN the flEeTinG ImpulsE" of soMe "DEepEr reality."22 In foucAult's case – The "so-cALled 'genEAlogicaL' approAch To rEaliTY" – aN oBjeCt IS "taKEn To bE NotHing more ThAn Its hiStorY."23 iN A ReceNt eSsay, harmaN claims that LaTouR repREseNts FoUcaulT's "rePlAcemeNt" as thE defaUlT citation in the hUmanIties becaUse laTouR (lIke HaRMan) enaBleS us To take oBjects "oN TheIr OWN TeRms," whereas Foucault InSTRuMentalizEs objeCTs As "HUman acceSsOriEs" – meRE Means To anTHrOpocentrIc ends.24 bOtH eSsentiaLiSt and cOnStrUctIonisT TheoRies, HaRman arguEs, are "NAggingly inadeqUAte" due to their "SHaRED aSSumpTioN that human nAturE Must Be thE CeNtrAL focuS." 25 He coNcLUdES: "postmodern'scenesteRs'" Are resPonsiBle for creatinG an "energy-dRAINing discOursE" ThAT amounts to nothIng moRe than "pretENding to sUbverT everythIng while aCTUally movIng NotHinG a sINGlE inch."26 How, then, dOES LatOuRian netWorK theory (And ImpLicItlY tHe OOO that harman clAiMs It Is TieD with AS a fellow ObJecToRieNted pHIlosopHy) get Us ouT oF tHIs pOstmodeRN hALL of mIrRoRs? It TurNs Out thAt thE NovElties HArman claiMs fOR LatOuR aRe consiDerably indebtEd To those verY pHilOsophiES Of immaneNce and posthumanism suggeSTed by DeLeuZe and foucAult in theIr oWn critIquES of KanT. AccorDing tO HArmAN, latouR'S FiRst MaJor contribUTIon, Actor-NeTworK theory (aNT), demonstrates his CRucIal stance as a "tHinKer oF IMmAneNCe."27 hArmAn DEscRIBes ANT as an immanEnt or "flat oNtOLoGy" that makeS No lEaPs beyonD the plaNe thaT ExperieNce or beinG inhabits: "ThIs meANS thAt all entitIes
 has accused both Deleuzeand Foucau lt of  21  Fo rmagn etis m, see Critiqu e  ofPure Reason A226/B273.  Forla m ella e ,see K ant's " O na dis co ve ryac c or dingtowhich a ll futurecri ti ques of reas o nhave beenren dered superf luo us byapre v iousone ," in  Theor e ticalPhilosoph ya fter 1 7 81 (New Y or k: C ambridge UP, 2002 ) ,2 98. For lightpartic le s ,s e e R aeLangton, K an tianH umility (O x f o rd: Oxford UP, 19 98), 186–20 4 . C HIASMA  # 4 ‡ 2017 2 2 und er m ini ng objects.  InDeleuze's  case, Harmane quates"flux"  or  "b ecom i ng "wit hm oni s mbec a use  objects  a re  redu cedt o " noth ing  mor e tha n the fleetin g i mpul s e"of so me "d eepe rreali ty."22  In F ou cault's case –the"so-calle d ' ge nea lo gical '  appro ach  to  realit y" – an obj ec t i s"taken to be nothi ng m or e than i ts his t or y. " 23 In are cen t es s a y, Ha rman cl aims tha t Lato u rre present sFoucau lt 's"re place m ent"  as th e defaul t cit a tion in the hu m anities becau s eL a to u r (l ike  Harman) en able s  usto t a ke  ob j ects"on t he i ro wn terms," whereasFo ucault  inst rumentalizesobjects as " h uman acc esso r ie s " – mere means  to a nthropocen t ric ends .24 B oth esse ntialista n d constr uct ion ist  th e o ri es, Harman ar g u es,ar e "nagg ing ly inad equ ate " d ueto  their "s hared as su mp ti on  th at hu m an natur emus tbethe c e ntralfocus ." 2 5He con cludes: "p o s tmod er n' scen est er s'" a re r e spo nsiblefor creat ing an " en er gy-drai ning discours e"  that amou nt s t o noth i n g more t han "pretending to subv e rt ever yth ing w hile  actually  mo ving n oth i ng a s ingleinch. "2 6 H o w , the n ,  d oes  L atourian n e t wor k the or y (a nd impl icitly the OOO tha t  Ha rman claims i t i s ti e d  w ith as a f el l owo b jectoriented ph ilosophy)ge t  u s out of t h ispo stmoder n hallof mi r rors? I t turns o ut that t he  nov e l tie s Harman c laims fo r Latoura re co n si derab lyindebt ed  to  thos e very phi losop hies o fimmane nce a nd  posthum anism suggested by Dele uze an d Fou cau lt in the iro wncritiques  ofKant. Acco rdi ngto Ha rma n , Lat our' s  f irs t  majo r co n tribution ,  a cto r - ne twork theor y ( ANT ), de mon s trates  his  crucial stance a s  a "thinker of  imm a n enc e." 2 7 Ha rm an describes A NTas a n immane nt  or "flat o ntology"  t h at ma kes no  leaps  beyond t he planethat  ex perienceorbe i ng inha bi ts :  "this  mea ns  thatall en t itie s 
 has_accused both_Deleuze and Foucault of_21 For_magnetism,_see Critique_of_Pure Reason A226/B273._For lamellae, see_Kant's "On a discovery_according to which_all_future critiques of reason have been rendered superfluous by a previous one," in Theoretical_Philosophy_after 1781_(New_York:_Cambridge UP, 2002), 298. For_light particles, see Rae Langton,_Kantian Humility_(Oxford: Oxford UP, 1998), 186–204. CHIASMA #4 ‡_2017_22 undermining objects._In Deleuze's case, Harman equates "flux" or "becoming" with_monism because objects are reduced to_"nothing more than_the_fleeting_impulse" of some "deeper_reality."22 In Foucault's case – the_"so-called 'genealogical' approach to reality" –_an object is "taken to be nothing_more than its history."23 In a_recent essay, Harman claims that_Latour represents_Foucault's "replacement" as the default_citation in the_humanities because_Latour (like Harman)_enables us to take objects "on_their own terms,"_whereas Foucault instrumentalizes objects as "human_accessories"_– mere means_to_anthropocentric_ends.24 Both_essentialist and constructionist_theories,_Harman argues,_are_"naggingly inadequate" due to their "shared_assumption_that human nature must be the central_focus." 25 He concludes:_"postmodern'scenesters'"_are responsible for creating_an "energy-draining discourse" that amounts_to nothing more than "pretending to_subvert everything_while actually_moving nothing a single inch."26 How, then, does Latourian network theory_(and implicitly the OOO that Harman_claims it is tied_with as_a_fellow objectoriented philosophy)_get_us out_of this postmodern hall of mirrors? It_turns out_that the novelties Harman claims for_Latour are considerably indebted_to_those very philosophies of immanence and_posthumanism suggested by Deleuze and Foucault_in their own critiques of_Kant._According_to Harman, Latour's first major_contribution, actor-network theory (ANT), demonstrates his_crucial stance as_a "thinker of immanence."27 Harman describes ANT_as_an immanent or "flat ontology" that_makes_no leaps beyond the plane that_experience_or_being inhabits: "this means that_all entities