The Plastic Turn

THE PLASTIC TURN

RANJAN GHOSH

CORNELL UNIVERSITY PRESS

ITHACA AND LONDON

For Mahinder

CONTENTS

List of Illustrations

Acknowledgments

Turn to …

1. The Plastic Turn

2. Plastic Literary

3. Plastic Touch

4. Plastic Literature

5. Plastic Affect

Turn on …

Bibliography

Index

ILLUSTRATIONS

1. Three-dimensional polymer structure

2. Polyethylene zigzag structure

3. Babel, 2001

4. Malhas da Liberdade—versão III by Cildo Meireles, 1977

5. Illustration of lubricity theory in relation to The Waste Land

6. Illustration of gel theory in relation to The Waste Land

7. Sculptures from Frutti di Mare, an installation by Tuula Närhinen, 2008

8. Baltic Sea Plastique: Analytical Drawings (Coral 1) by Tuula Närhinen, 2013

9. Plastic Horizon, from Impressions Plastiques, an installation by Tuula Närhinen, 2016

10. Soleil Levant and Soleil Couchant, from Impressions Plastiques, an installation by Tuula Närhinen, 2016

11 and 12. Skeleton and Love Hand by Richard Lang and Judith Selby Lang, 2015

13 and 14. Dinosaur and Lamb by Richard Lang and Judith Selby Lang, 2015

15. Bedford Blue by Richard Lang and Judith Selby Lang, 2011

16. Known Quantity–Combs by Richard Lang and Judith Selby Lang, 2011

17. Floating Artifacts, #8 by Evelyn Rydz, 2014

18. Gyre 1 by John Dahlsen, 2020

19. From Plastiglomerates, 2013

20. From Plastiglomerates, 2013

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The book has been a trial, and a fun and limit-stretching experience—a happy product in the end that owes a lot to a bunch of vibrant people who contributed in a variety of ways to its taking off, unfolding, and eventual polish and finish. It began as an idea four years ago and tested waters with insightful responses in the mini-seminar series that I was invited to deliver at the Critical Theory Institute, University of California, Irvine, in 2018. My host, Professor James Steintrager, the director of CTI, was splendid as was Dean Emeritus Georges Van Den Abbeele and Professor R. Radhakrishnan: Jim, Georges, and Radha, I cherish your friendship and the great conversations that we have had! The talk generated a lot of debate and instilled a fair proportion of intellectual struggle as plastic turn turned and twisted, wrote and rewrote itself for the next two years to become what it is now. In between, the trial continued as ideas and readings meshed and conflicted to produce Plastic Literature for the University of Toronto Quarterly 88.2 (2019): 277–291, Plastic Controversy in Critical Inquiry’s ‘In the Moment’ portal (2021), Desiring-Material: Plastic-Art and Affect-ability, for the minnesota review 97 (2021): 53–76, and The Plastic Turn (2022) for the Turn II special number of Diacritics, 49.1 (2021): 67–87 (printed with permission from University of Toronto Press, Duke University Press, and Johns Hopkins University Press, respectively). A very special thank you to Andrea Bachner and Carlos Roja; Haun Saussy—always there with his support and thoughts. Thank you Bill Brown, Janell Watson, Ming Xie, and Jonathan Hart.

Wonderful and meaningful support came steadily from Daniel O’ Hara (here and always for many things that we do together, my next door neighbor), Georges Van Den Abbeele (insightful and empathetic always), Claire Colebrook (brilliant and warm, exuding intellectual energy in everything we have done and have been doing), Catherine Malabou (generosity and erudition combined), Sidney Homan (blithe spirit, to say the least), Emily Apter (strong and supportive as ever), Caroline Rooney (always a colleague I can depend on), John Michael (sharp and soulful), Karen Pinkus (scholarship apart, how can I forget your assistance with research assistants?), Ethan Kleinberg (my true comrade), Heather Yeung (your book and our thoughts exchanged over Kafka, plasticity, and plastic literature), Marina Zurkow (Petroleum Manga connected us and continues to connect), and Rob Wilson (our friendship saw new wordlings always). This book brought me in close contact with outstanding artists with whom I investigated several areas of plastic material art. I owe you all a huge thank you: Tuula Närhinen, Judith Selby, Richard Lang, John Dahlsen, Evelyn Rydz, and Kelly Jazvac.

The brilliance and contribution of my research assistants—Madison Keele and Ecem Sarıçayır—changed the horizons of research that went into the book, canvassing readings and rare documents from the Cornell University Library and other sites. Beyond their research assistance, they stayed as my sustained support in formatting the book and preparing the index (Madison) and the bibliography in particular (Ecem), which, I must admit, just went out of hand through four years of intensive reading and research.

My editor at Cornell University Press, Mahinder Kingra (incidentally, the editorial director), was fantastic and relentless in his support for the project and the idea of the plastic turn. Insightful and critical, forthright and sharp, he steered the book throughout. Our many discussions over images, content, rewriting, and structuring of the project were remarkably productive, plasticizing the book to its final form.

The year 2020 has been a very distressful and difficult year with the COVID-19 pandemic changing our ways, habits, and values of living. Caught between two compelling forces, where the responsibilities as the head of the English Department, often, did not shake hands well with the joyous trial of finishing the book, I benefited immensely from the exemplary support of my colleagues: Pradipta Shyam Choudhury, Kaushani Mondal, Sumit Ray, and Binayak Roy. I cannot thank you enough for providing me the time and space to wrap the book up, and allowing me to focus on my writing when I needed it the most. Here I cannot miss mentioning Sukhendu Das for being so eager and generous with his assistance.

And, finally, I owe thanks to Sumana, always my first reader, for what most writers would not like to experience: hard criticism and parsimonious praise. I seriously start doubting the merit of my work when she signs off with an innocent and well collected good. The manuscript went past her gate, this time, with a nod that I could not make much meaning of. This augurs well, I presume.

TURN TO …

To elaborate (travailler) a concept is to vary both its extension and its intelligibility. It is to generalize it by incorporating its exceptions. It is to export it outside its original domain, to use it as a model or conversely to find it a model, in short it is to give to it, bit by bit, through ordered transformations, the function of a form.

—CATHERINE MALABOU

How can a thing—through its performance and operation, its poetics and politics of circulation—become an analogical and metaphorical axis for critical reflection and for thinking across disciplines and subjects not strictly related to the thing itself? It is on a note of relationality that an object may stimulate a theoretical formulation. Stefan Helmreich, for instance, borrows from Peter Galison, a historian of science, the concept of a theory machine to argue that mundane objects, under appropriate circumstances, can help generate complex theoretical structures. Among other examples, Helmreich notes that for physicist Sadi Carnot water was a theory machine.¹ Zygmunt Bauman sees molecular and scalar properties of water in modernity. Peter Sloterdijk looks at globalization as foam. Hydrographic formations help the framing of ideas around a community, introduce issues of constructionism and mutability, and inspire dialectics between state, flux, and flow in identity formations. For instance, thinking with water encourages relational thinking, as theories based on notions of fluidity, viscosity, and porosity reveal. Veronica Strang argues that the metaphoricity of water in hydrological thinking is inspired by relations that are decidedly material. Water, she argues, "is a matter of relation and connection. Waters literally flow between and within bodies, across space and through time, in a planetary circulation system that challenges pretensions to discrete individuality. Watery places and bodies are connected to other places and bodies in relations of gift, transfer, theft, and debt. Such relationality inaugurates new life, and also the infinite possibility of new communities."²

Mielle Chandler and Astrida Neimanis see in water a mode of being called gestationality—a flow of thought that dismantles binary, defies the either/or structure of activity and passivity, is neither active nor passive, and yet both active and passive. Here, water as theory machine is seen to have a gestational orientation that brings into existence that which is not yet. Gestationality, thus, challenges sovereign ontology, promoting protoethical material phenomenon and an unpredictable plurality to flourish—a kind of aqueaous thinking.³

Surfing can also be seen in its metaphoricity and relationality. Deeply analogical to our critical thinking–ways across cultures, politics and traditions, wave riding—being intrinsically dependent on a host of forces (swell, wind, tide, sea-current, sand bar, weather system, pressure)—is an entangled and well-factored phenomenon but also unreliable, inconsistent, and unstable. It argues out the notion of convergence and agencement representing a place that is in the state of becoming—webbed, meshed, and interactive.⁴ Surfing, in its reconstitutive matrices, offers us a good critical-representational theorization of geopolitical culture and performatics of how we understand the place-space phenomena in contemporary discourses on globality.⁵ So the surfed wave is interpreted as a relational space, as assemblage and convergence, and as a kind of theorizing from the sea.⁶ Helmreich notes that scientific descriptions of water’s form, molecular and molar, have become prevalent in figuring social, political, and economic forces and dynamics. He argues that seawater has moved from an implicit to an explicit figure for anthropological and social theorizing, especially in the age of globalization, which is so often described in terms of currents, flows, and circulations, and in the light of such tropes he suggests that globalization might also be called oceanization.⁷ Proposing his athwart theory, Helmreich points out how theory can neither be set as above the empirical nor as simply deriving from it but, as crossing the empirical transversely.⁸ Theory (and, for that matter, seawater and, here, for me, plastic) is an abstraction, a materialization, and a thing in the world. Theories constantly cut across and complicate our descriptive paths as we navigate forward in the real world. Be it water, surfing, or plastic, we are in the midst of trying to decipher the syntax of materiality. So how athwart is plastic?

The analogical predication around a thing or an event (whether plastic or surfing or water) builds with certain properties and attributions. Here, if plastic is the word, plasticity is the enclosure scheme: it is about seeing how plastic concatenated the enclosure schemes of plasticity, plastic movements, and plastic formations as found in critical-creative thinking in particular and arts in general. It is the poesis of plastic-analogy. The plastic, in its materiality, both within and outside the laboratory, builds a somewhat equivocative substitution, differentiations in expressions and distinctive conditions of understanding in relation to how the arts and thinking around man-material interface develop and ramify. Analogical coevalness and co-occurrences are the relevant points of concern and connect. They help us to distinguish between the symmetrically analogous (by proportionality and denomination) and the asymmetrically analogous (metaphors).⁹ It is the latter that deepens the framework of my arguments.

Classically, analogy works through two classes—denominative analogy (relational analogy) and analogy of proportionality (based upon the relations of relations). The relational matrices within the context of my understanding work on the scale and axis that brings x (say, material) and y (say, the aesthetic) not through a direct symmetry or equivalence, but, through intraschematism; x and y start to contrast each other, make sense and meaning out of their asymmetricities into separate meaning-enclosures in the form of xy (the material overlapping the aesthetic, one substituting the other) and x-y (the material relationalizing the aesthetic without either of them losing their distinctive identities). Riding on equivocals (analogy is not about being analogous on all points of contrast because discriminative overlaps are always in order), relational analogy brings into the intrascheme contrast plastic as a material (x) and plastic as an aesthetic in itself (y). It is out of the asymmetry (plastic sea as against world literature or plastic polymerization as against modernist intertextuality, x-y) that meaning-relevance emerges, building on the conceptual and performative predication of each other.

Theory machine works on such meaning-relevance and asymmetrical metaphoric meaning-making. The material and aesthetic (plastic polymerization corresponding with artistic intertextuality), the matter and mattering (micro plastic-behavior analogized with literary materialization), and the object and the poetics of object-behavior (microplastic dissemination and its invasive ways gridded on to the complexities of world literature across nationalist and cultural borders), are implicative, associatively contrastive, and analytic. The material-aesthetic builds its own contexts for intrascheme enclosures of understanding. Explaining through denominative analogy, James F. Ross looks at the variation that representational denomination brings where x represents y and x functions like y and x is a picture of y. Plastic and thinking around the arts analogize on the coordinates of formation, processing, structure, behavior, and properties. There is a transposition of content—the material plastic with its content (x) asymmetrically contraposed with doing literature and arts (y) that have their distinct content-processing (x-y)—and indications, mostly hidden, generated through a certain line of perception, chain of association, and understanding.¹⁰ The denominative (x as y), deductive (y drawn from x), representational (x like y), and (a)symmetrical (x-y and xy) are all part of the figural and metaphorical.

The turn for me hinges on the x-y and xy, where the hyphenation in particular brings about the analogical or metaphorical motor: plastic behavior (x) in its materiality, material formation, and mutation builds a productive hyphen with literary behavior and orientation (y), resulting in the material and the aesthetic conjoining through a vestibule of meaningful exchange as represented through a hyphen (x-y): the material-aesthetic. This inhabitation in the hyphen opens up our thought-boxes—the supplementaries—beyond the mere simplistic post-Goethean understanding of plasticity as generative, transformative, and creative.

Plastic, in this book, is a discourse, at once conceptual and material, and it is an aesthetic figure that emerges from the material. As a material and material-problematic, plastic has its own structure of representations and meanings; however, as a discourse, it builds an oppositional network of concepts and signifiers. Adi Efal observes that

plastically speaking, when one uses the term figure, one usually refers to a situation in which exists a synchronous delineation of two surfaces, one containing, surrounding, enveloping or carrying the other, as in the following scheme: A figural situation denotes a gesture of framing, cutting out, a distinction of an outline of a surface or a platform, which implies necessarily the containment of one form by another form. Therefore, the figural dynamics contains a bilateral movement from a form to a platform and back from the platform to a form.¹¹

The material-figural plastic, as part of a bilateral movement in which plastic keeps revising its status as a form and a platform, builds a plexus of oppositional thinking that routes and orients itself across its heterogenous existence within the laboratory and outside it. In a figural dynamics wherein the material contains the aesthetic and the aesthetic enframes the material, plastic demonstrates a coexistence within identities of different orders (chemo-eco-cultural) and within an incommensurability of emotions ranging from love and enthusiasm to shock and annoyance to helplessness and habituality. It is a thought and also continuity in thinking. Plastic, in this book, is a material form, discourse, representation, and negation of understanding, in both its materiality and its aesthetics of materialization. In its material presence, plastic becomes referential, designatory, and significatory. By radicalizing the material through the aesthetic and the aesthetic through the material and its characteral conditions, plastic exists as an event through the book: visible, haptic, diagrammatic or geometric, referential, structural, curvilinear, differential, and hence, figural.

Plastics in their materiality—whether as microplastics in the sea or plastic mineralization through the landfill or plastic in a variety of forms washed up on the seashore—are loaned a language in forms that are semiotic and aesthetic. Working through Deleuze’s enoncable or signaletic material, we find that the material-plastic can be made utterable through images and discourses that are affective, rhythmic, kinetic, and sensory.¹² Language conditions the non-language material (plastic) through the construction of an aesthetic; plastic, in the pages of this book, becomes significatory and articulative through metacommentaries on world literature, comparative literature, creative thinking, reflections on geo-formations, and various other discourses. It is here that the material-aesthetic (with the hyphen) emerges and takes a complicated life of its own: the material-signifier, the materiality of the signifier, and the material as signifier come together to form their discursive formations. In such a dialectic between the nonlanguage material and language as conditioning the expressive potential of the material, plastic becomes both the line and the letter, as well as a resonance, a material marker, and a code.

This dialectic also makes plastic a material metaphor where the axis of transference gets built between the material and sign-concept. The material plastic transforms itself to generate certain notions of materiality, which then produce their levels of conceptual-aesthetic signifying power.¹³ Plastic figurality combines an interiority of its function and existence in forms that we can express through formulas and diagrams (as chapter 2 demonstrates) and an exteriority that complicates and diversifies representation and understanding of presence and operation (as enunciated in chapters 3, 4, and 5). The signification and meaning in both states of expression call for what I argue to be the Plastic Turn, where the focus and emphasis is never outside the plastic, both in its voluble presence (in sight) and in its absence (out of sight). Plastic talks as a material in its material formations, in modes of structuration, and in metaphoric figurality that imports excess signification into our aesthetic understanding and critical thinking. My arguments in the book continually connect the first and the second order levels of meaning into a reciprocal space of negotiation where the material-plastic is argued to contribute to poetic plasticity—the material-metaphoricity. This is not smooth substitution of one with the other in a kind of master discourse. If plastic polymerization is interpreted as modernist and postmodernist intertextuality (chapter 2), one must not forget the differentiality of intertextuality as a strategy or phenomenon in literary-comparative studies. Hence, polymerization is commensurate with intertextuality, but also builds its points of discontinuity (the material-aesthetic as discriminative overlap; a discriminative relationality). It is on this point that plastic exceeds its materiality as a signifier (the material as code) to deliver or produce an excess, which I term plasticity (following the codes available for transgression and supplementation). Matter and mattering are not terms of simple equivalence and direct points of correspondence. Plasticity, therefore, for this book, is not a pre-materialistic phenomenon but a material-figural event that comes after the discovery of plastic; our consciousness is never without the plastic-material.

The material, in communication with an aesthetic, and the aesthetic, articulating a fresh understanding of the material, announce a synthetic movement that binds one concept to the materiality of the matter and allows an explication of the material-aesthetic. For instance, plastic polymerization can explain comparative intertextual literary practice (chapter 2) or a world and transcultural-transcontinental understanding of literature as it is figuralized in relation to the travel of microplastic in the sea within a compelling material-aesthetic that I call Plastic Literature (chapter 4). This synthetic movement is about plastic’s implicative complexes with different frames and foci—plastic becomes an emphatic metaphor.¹⁴ The relationality and resonance of plastic metaphoricity generate implicative system(s). The matter—the elementality and mattering—has its optic and the semiotic, discursivity, and the haptic, product and the process, t(h)ere and not-(t)here, bringing out varied modes of utterance in literature, arts, cultures of thought, and eco-political circles of living and survival. Plastic, thus, entangles different kinds of conceptual relations.¹⁵ With different motives for metaphor, we begin to think with and through plastic.

Figuring his limits of fabrication, Nathan Brown argues that both material science and materialist poetics engage the boundaries of formal invention and material construction in their respective fields. These fields are, to say the least, markedly different. But they are nevertheless related insofar as their boundary work draws them into a common terrain of formal, constructive, and ideological problems attendant upon experimental practices of making.¹⁶ More about figuration and analogical-metaphorization than fabrication, this book reads into plastic behavior, its properties and structures, complexities of polymerization, chemo-poetics and aesthetics of chemistry, the impact and indulgence of plasticizers, microplastic dissemination and contamination and various other material issues to configure how we might start to read and experience poetry and paintings, anthropocenic and Earth art, world-comparative literature, the poetics of globalization and other critical concerns. It is plastico-poesis—not an undifferentiated poetics of plasticity—invested in the material, materialization, and mattering, and in their aesthetic potentializations and figurality. The plastic is both a phenomenon inside the laboratory and outside it—as a material, as and how it matters, its materialization, corresponding with how we think, write, reflect, and react. How can we in the Plastic Turn overturn issues from their conventional embeddings into vexed pathways of thinking when plastic as theory is about looking on and contemplation and a seeing through? Having its own object-features and behavioralities, plastic becomes wholesome enough to offer a culture of engagement, thinking, and discursivity. I qualify this as quantum theorization where an object, in its materiality, culturality, and metaphoricity, manifests conceptual and theoretical refigurations: a state of receptionist unfixation and an emergence that unhinges its own understanding. It is here that relationality matters—the poetics of transformative correspondences and ungroundedness. Relationality is configuring lines of mattering as they intersect, entangle, constellate, and trajectorize. The theory machine functions in relational mattering: provisionality, permanence, plurality, and the precarity of plastic. Plastic as theory machine is inseparable from the diffractive, meaning-making potency of matter. It has heterogenous history, presence, and it exists as a narrative: a weave, a nonliving potenza, an entanglement. Does plastic approximate (to use Karen Barad’s term) trans/materialities—the literary-philosophical extensions and entanglements?¹⁷ How do plastic-properties—the more-than-human liveliness and potency—become synonymous with literary-philosophical performativity? Plastic then is both theory and theorization.

This book is neither exclusively on plastic nor a philosophical elaboration on the principles of plasticity. As part of our petromodernity, plastic fixes and unfixes the energy regimes that expose us to certain conditions of materiality, sociocultural conditions of consumption, the politics of garbology, commodification, and desire, and a unique globalization of need and disposability. As extraction and extrusion, material acculturation and submission, egalitarian utility and waste-power, plastic (as oil-detritus) speaks in the language of profit and loss, a petrochemical living, survival, sacrifice, and extinction zone. Plastic, within certain eco-techno-cultural systems, builds its material points of expression, and, with them, generates new forms of value-making. So the denominative and inevitable narratives emerging out of the proposal for a plastic turn bring an obvious and expected retinue of issues that have been explored elsewhere in a variety of books and papers: the philosophy of plasticity, the cultural history of the material plastic and its impact, plastic pollution as it harms our physiological systems, transforming sexualities across species, and changing our clinical identities, the fall-outs of climate change and anthropocenic setbacks, disastrous marine pollution, and the plastic economy as it brings its own discourses on capitalism, precarity, and global capital flow. The Plastic Turn is not about these issues; nor is it about ecological activism, anti-plastic campaigns and forms of globalization as revealed through capital generation, exploitation, and peripheral zones of sustenance within a labyrinthine petro-culture. None of these is the turn to plastic for the book.

What kind of plastic does the book turn to? What is the Plastic Turn that it declares? I propose a plastic turn that does not emphasize the formal quality of plasticity but takes inspiration from the materiality of plastic itself. It is on the form of plastic and the material-aesthetic platform of plasticity and non-plasticity of plastic. The turn is plastic on two counts: first, plastic came into being as a material for ready and daily use, with an extraordinary reach, variety, and efficacy. And second, most importantly, I argue that the emergence of plastic