      read on!  But as Harman points out here, the point isn’t
whether Butler personally believes in the existence of mind- and
culture- independent nonhuman actants contributing to the
configurations our social world takes; the question is whether
or not she adequately theorizes the role of these actants in
social assemblages.  Is there a tendency to treat them as mere
screens for cultural inscriptions, or are they full-blown
actants?  I would argue that if the latter, she would have to
significantly revise her claims and theoretical framework.  And
here I hasten to add that this wouldn’t involve abandoning all
her claims– I think there’s much in her work that is right on
–but would involve significantly restructuring that theory. 
Hegel makes a point similar to Harman’s towards the beginning of
his lectures on aesthetics.  Referring to Chrysippus’s (I think,
memory is foggy) refutation of Zeno’s philosophical
demonstration that motion is impossible, Chrysippus gets up and
silently walks across the room.  Ac