In this paper, I develop what I call, following Steven Shaviro, Merleau-Ponty’s “cautious anthropomorphism.” Rather than defending Merleau-Ponty against the accusation of anthropomorphism, I show the role this anthropomorphism plays in Merleau-Ponty’s critique of the Cartesian-Sartrian ontology of the object. If the thing is always “clothed with human characteristics,” as Merleau-Ponty says in the Causeries, it is not so that it can be reduced to a powerless object that can easily be assimilated but rather to ensure its own resistance or adversity – and even, paradoxically, its inhumanity. After developing Sartre’s and Merleau-Ponty’s views of things, focusing on their respective reading of Ponge in “Man and Things” and the Causeries, I put Merleau-Ponty in conversation with Jeffrey Cohen’s book Stone to push for a non-humanistic reading of Merleau-Ponty’s anthropomorphism.

Although Merleau-Ponty never directly addressed the question of technics, over the past three decades, some of the core concepts of his philosophy have profoundly informed digital media discourse, especially in the field of media arts. The problem of embodiment, in particular, represents a keystone for the understanding of the relationship between bodies and technology. This paper seeks to examine the ways in which some of the French philosopher’s key concepts– embodiment, body schema, presence, intertwining, and flesh – have been employed and re-elaborated in the context of media art theory and practice. The purpose of this study is to shed light on the main conceptual entanglements between Merleau-Pontian philosophy and digital arts and performances. Thus, four topics will be discussed: the virtual body, prosthetics, virtual presence, and digital intertwining of flesh. In the conclusion, I question these concepts and their possibility/ability to pave the way for a Merleau-Pontian philosophy of technology based on the wider paradigm of virtual embodiment.

In the Sorbonne lectures on the philosophical and psychological inquiry of child development, Merleau-Ponty offers a fundamental insight about imitation. Denying the representation-based explanation of imitation, he proposes that gestures occur without representation through the body-object relation, such as “precommunication” based on the works of body schema. Merleau-Ponty’s thought could be examined by way of more practical examples of body techniques. This paper describes the experience of object manipulation, in particular, Bunraku puppetry. Because three puppeteers manipulate a single puppet together in Bunraku, this example might be a challenge to an ordinary assumption that a body is owned by an individual and that inner thoughts control the body. Merleau-Ponty’s insight suggests that the puppeteers share another type of body schema that is not internalized to their individual bodies but emerges afresh in each performance through collaborative movement.

Phenomenologists have always been concerned with the relationships between their methods and the life that sustains and instructs them, and which are, in turn, instructed by it. In its most general form, it is a question of relationships between philosophy and non-philosophy. Maurice Merleau-Ponty conceives of these connections in terms of a reversible inside-outside dynamic from at least Phenomenology of Perception to his unpublished manuscripts. No philosopher better illustrates this dialectic of life and ideas than Michel de Montaigne, whose life and work are the subject of “Reading Montaigne” in Signs. This paper consists of a critical analysis of that essay, and thus forms a meta-inside/outside relationship in reading Merleau-Ponty reading his predecessor. The essay examines, among other things, how Montaigne’s writing provides an instructive example of the intertwining of life and ideas as Merleau-Ponty understood it as well as a puzzle about why he did not connect “Reading Montaigne” with the two chapters of Signs that concern language.

The notion of sense is central to Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s entire phenomenological project but it remains conspicuously absent from contemporary discussions of perceptual normativity. My intervention in this paper addresses this gap and contributes an account of perceptual norms as embodied orientations towards sense. To begin, I distinguish between two conceptions of norms: in contradistinction with Sean D. Kelly’s and Hubert Dreyfus’s accounts, I argue with Merleau-Ponty that perceptual norms emerge at the intersection of inherently labile, fallible, and temporally thick body-world entwinements with existential significance. Because it makes clear that our body’s orientation in the world is labile and dynamic, Merleau-Ponty’s notion of ‘levels’ helps me formulate this view. I introduce Merleau-Ponty’s description of spatial levels as a theoretical exemplar for perceptual normativity in the Phenomenology of Perception (1945) and his analysis of love as a level in the later Passivity lectures (1954-1955). By shedding light on the ecstatic temporality of levels of embodiment that allow us to orientate ourselves in the intersubjective lifeworld, Merleau-Ponty’s account of sense also forcefully reminds us of the disorientations that singularly transform the world of our experience.

The title of this paper makes an obvious reference to Pippin’s book Modernism as a Philosophical Problem. The paper is divided into three parts. The first part presents Pippin’s conception of Modernity, why it is a philosophical problem, and how two philosophers have responded to it, namely, Kant and Hegel whose position in an attenuated manner Pippin supports. The second part evokes dimensions of Merleau-Ponty’s thought which contest Pippin’s Hegelianism. The third part of the paper offers a different conception of Modernity drawn from the work of Claude Lefort. Lefort’s understanding of Modernity avails itself of aspects of Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy, in particular: Hyper-reflection and Institution.

The article examines the main features of Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy of nature and, more specifically, the reasons that led it to some consonance with that of the young Simondon. At the center of this recognition, the question of processuality and the pre-Socratic suggestions about a philosophy of the elements. The aim is to derive a need, which, if it remained unfulfilled in Merleau-Ponty, was instead expressed in Simondon and in many contemporary philosophies of nature, e.g. that of Bruno Latour, to whom some space is devoted. That is, the need to bring into focus that substantial indiscernibility between nature and technique, which becomes an evidence if one enters into the idea of process. It is to the ethical and political consequences of this indiscernibility that the article’s conclusions are dedicated. More precisely, these conclusions suggest that only a thought of the indiscernibility between nature and technology has ethical and political consequences, i.e. allows the design of a system of regulations capable of concretely and sustainably modulating the human impact on the planet.

Although the Anthropocene is a problematic concept in both its popular reception and its scientific deployment, it nevertheless makes salient the challenge of understanding the relation between human time and “deep” geological time. For postcolonial historian Dipesh Chakrabarty, the Anthropocene marks the breaching of these two distinct temporal registers: “The geologic now of the Anthropocene has become entangled with the now of human history.” Following the lead of speculative realism, Chakrabarty denies that phenomenology can offer any insights into deep time or grant the human species its place within the evolutionary history of life. I challenge these claims by drawing on insights from Merleau-Ponty’s final course notes. I argue that Chakrabarty’s binarism of chronologies fails to capture the plexity of our embodied temporal experience. Making sense of our entanglement in planetary and evolutionary temporal scales requires both a phenomenology of deep time and, in parallel, an appreciation of the ontological memory of the world. In the context of evolution, this opens onto a richly diacritical understanding of life. A phenomenology of deep time reopens the question of the relation between the planet, as one cosmic body among many, and the earth as the archive of elemental and evolutionary memory.

In the essay “Cézanne’s Doubt”, Merleau-Ponty explores the relationship between Paul Cézanne’s art and his embodiment. The doubt in question is ultimately about the meaning of Cézanne’s art in light of his disabilities. Should his disabilities or impairments shape how we interpret his art or should they instead be treated as incidental, as mere biographical data? Although Merleau-Ponty’s essay isn’t intended to be phenomenological, its line of questioning is as much about lived experience as it is about art, art history, and aesthetics. I here offer a reading of “Cézanne’s Doubt” as an exploration of one of the more fundamental issues for phenomenological methodology: the relationship between normality and the normate. I first defend this phenomenological and disability-centric or crip reading of the essay. I then argue that insofar as one takes oneself to be “normal” and insofar as doing so underwrites phenomenological inquiry, the problematic of the normate, not just that of normality, is central to phenomenology.

This article advances a critical phenomenology of the meaning of aging embodiment. Its broad aim is to profoundly challenge an idealized view of aging as foremost and fundamentally a natural or normative procession of “ready-made” stages pre-set “in” time (i.e., infancy, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and “old age”) or pre-given units of time that unfurl along a timeline (i.e., chronological age), from past to present to future. Combining, defending, and adapting resources from Merleau-Ponty’s Phenomenology of Perception with a reading of the concept of institution (Stiftung) via the phenomenon of puberty in Institution and Passivity: Course Notes from the Collège de France (1954-1955) as well as insights from critical gerontology, I argue that the phenomenon of aging embodiment demands to be understood in terms of transitions, that is, as an intensive reorientation in relationality, sociality, and the style in which one has a past rather than as changes along a timeline.

One of the strongest critiques against Fanon’s work centers on the idea that Fanon leaves black subjects caught in slavish regard of whites. Such a depiction of the black subject does not explain Fanon’s own life and his ability to escape slavish regard of whites and become a formative intellectual. Such slavish regard of whites, in other words, the idea of an inferiority complex has been challenged by notable current black philosophers, including Lucius Outlaw. In autobiographical references within Fanon and Outlaw’s work, the two scholars share similar childhood experiences but draw very different conclusions on the development of an inferiority complex. I argue that this estrangement in slavish regard of whites occurs when reading Fanon’s work only through a dialectic framework. A phenomenological reading of Fanon’s work illuminates the ambiguous possibilities of experience. In a phenomenological reading of experience, admitting inferiority complexes does not necessarily debilitate and trap subjects in perpetuity.

“You need to listen better to your body!” is a common prescription in contemporary health discourse. From a phenomenological perspective, we can say that the ability to hear your body implies body awareness. In this paper, I will provide a phenomenological analysis of the different ways in which the “audible body” can appear, and how this is related to health, drawing on the work of Merleau-Ponty, Shusterman, Leder, and Nancy. In Merleau-Ponty’s early work, so I explain, the “lived body” emerges as an “audible” body, but it is only faintly audible and only so on the surface. Moreover, we find no explicit clues in his work for the injunction to learn to listen to the audible body. Shusterman, on the other hand, claims that we should train and increase somatic attention, and thus better listen to our bodies in order to cure bad bodily habits such as poor bodily posture. Subsequently, I describe how Leder argues that phenomenological analyses of the body should not only involve the surface body and its motor-sensory capacities. They should also involve the recessive, inner body. According to him it is healthy to increase one’s capacity for introception in order to increase “inside insights.” In the final part of this paper, I explain, on the basis of Nancy’s work, that listening to one’s body might become unhealthy when this listening goes hand in hand with amplifying the strangeness of one’s own body.

In this essay, I draw on Merleau-Ponty’s Institution Course Notes to clarify Patrick Wolfe’s claim that, for settler colonialism, “invasion is a structure, not an event.” I also engage critically with colonial assumptions in Merleau-Ponty’s own work, including his Eurocentric response to questions such as: “[I]s there a field of world history or universal history? Is there an intended accomplishment? A closure on itself? A true society?” In this essay, I ask different questions – with Merleau-Ponty, against him, and beyond him. I neither defend Merleau-Ponty against his own worst self nor disown him as “bad” philosophical kin. Rather, I learn what I can from Merleau-Ponty for a critical phenomenology of settler colonialism and for amplifying movements to transform and abolish settler colonial structures at the level of thought, being, and politics.

Drawing from Frantz Fanon’s writings on racialized alienation and psychopathology, this paper argues that Fanon’s engagement with phenomenology shaped his framing of the sociogenic origins of racialized perceptions of criminality in French psychiatry and that such a novel etiology reflects a commitment to political transformation. First, I trace Fanon’s notion of sociogeny as it develops both in his early writings, and in secondary scholarship on Fanon that highlights the phenomenological dimensions of sociogeny. In the second section, I turn specifically to racialized conceptions of criminality within French colonial medicine and Fanon’s writings on psychiatry to trace some complicated aspects of his critique of colonization and its relationship to medical institutions, including the forced confinement of psychiatric patients. I then conclude by briefly returning to how Fanon’s conception of sociogeny functions in a phenomenological register, and I propose that Fanon’s interests in Merleau-Ponty are based on important shared political and sociological commitments across their respective writings. However, I propose that Fanon’s interventions in phenomenology during the mid-twentieth century contain core critical insights, not shared by his predecessor, that remain relevant for critical phenomenologists today.