“Material-semiotic is one word for me.”
Donna Haraway, “Morphing in the Order: Flexible Strategies, Feminist Science Studies, and Primate Revisions”

Ming Smith, Cascading Light (1981)
The criticism directed at new materialism that revolves around its assumed tendency towards repetition or reduction to “sameness” within its frameworks: by prioritising the centrality of materiality over language and/or representation, NM risks becoming the very thing it seeks to challenge, reinforcing the binary it aims to disrupt. (Does feminist new materialism remain in the phallo-anthropocentric, classifixationist, representationalist, hierarchical paradigm?)
In fact, Barad, Kirby, Alaimo, and other FNM theorists, following Haraway, problematize a dichotomous understanding of nature and culture, engaging with the concept of the material-semiotic, and with the idea that material and social cannot be understood within the framework of negativity, as if they are separate and/or opposites –instead they are deeply intertwined, mutually shaping and informing one another.
“Material-semiotic is one word,” as Haraway writes, a continuum that does not accentuate or over-invest in “material” on one side and “semiotic” on the other.
Michel Serres: “An idea opposed to another idea is always the same idea, albeit affected by the negative sign. The more you oppose one another, the more you remain in the same framework of thought.”1
The idea is not to destroy but affirm, not to produce sameness but difference, and engage in boundary-making practices that allow differences to flourish and stand out in their uniqueness.
- Michel Serres and Bruno Latour, Conversations On Science, Culture, and Time – Michel Serres with Bruno Latour, trans. Roxanne Lapidus (The University of Michigan Press, 1995), 7. ↩︎