Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T13:59:06.182Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Entangled security: Science, co-production, and intra-active insecurity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2019

Stefan Elbe Open the ORCID record for Stefan Elbe [Opens in a new window]  and
Gemma Buckland-Merrett
Stefan Elbe*
Affiliation:
Department of International Relations, University of Sussex
Gemma Buckland-Merrett
Affiliation:
Centre for Global Health Policy, University of Sussex
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article advances a new account of security as an intensely relational and ontologically entangled phenomenon that does not exist prior to, nor independently of, its intra-action with other phenomena and agencies. Security's ‘entanglement’ is demonstrated through an analysis of the protracted security concerns engendered by ‘dangerous’ scientific experiments performed with lethal H5N1 flu viruses. Utilising methodological approaches recently developed in the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS), the article explicates the intensely ‘co-productive’ dynamics at play between security and science in those experiments, and which ultimately reveal security to be a deeply relational phenomenon continuously emerging out of its engagement with other agencies. Recovering this deeper ontological entanglement, the article argues, necessitates a different approach to the study of security that does not commence by fixing the meaning and boundaries of security in advance. Rather, such an approach needs to analyse the diverse sites, dynamics, and processes through which security and insecurity come to intra-actively materialise in international relations. It also demands a fundamental reconsideration of many of the discipline's most prominent security theories. They are not merely conceptual tools for studying security, but crucial participants in its intra-active materialisation.

Keywords

ScienceSecurityCo-ProductionIntra-ActionH5N1
Type
Research Article
Information
European Journal of International Security , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , June 2019 , pp. 123 - 141
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Barad, Karen, Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2007), p. ixCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Van Munster, Rens and Sylvest, Casper, Nuclear Realism: Global Political Thought during the Thermonuclear Revolution (London: Routledge, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Youde, Jeremy, ‘Safe for humanity: Taming biological research through norm awareness’, Contemporary Security Policy, 34:2 (2013), pp. 258–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rappert, Brian, ‘Why has not there been more research of concern?’, Frontiers in Public Health, 2:74 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rychnovská, Dagmar, ‘Governing dual-use knowledge: From the politics of responsible science to the ethicalization of security’, Security Dialogue, 47:4 (2016), pp. 310–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Atlas, Ronald M. and Dando, Malcolm, ‘The dual-use dilemma for the life sciences: perspectives, conundrums, and global solutions’, Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Srategy, Practice, and Science, 4:3 (2006), pp. 276–86CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Suk, Jonathan E., Zmorzynska, Anna, Hunger, Iris et al. , ‘Dual-use research and technological diffusion: Reconsidering the bioterrorism threat spectrum’, PLoS Pathogens, 7:1 (2011), e1001253CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Tucker, Jonathan, Innovation, Dual Use and Security: Managing the Risks of Emerging Biological and Chemical Technologies (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012)Google Scholar.

5 ‘Governance of Dual Use Research in the Life Sciences: Advancing Global Consensus on Research Oversight: Proceedings of a Workshop’, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018), available at: {https://doi.org/10.17226/25154} accessed 27 February 2019.

6 Edwards, Brett, Revill, James, and Bezuidenhout, Louise, ‘From cases to capacity? A critical reflection on the role of “ethical dilemmas” in the development of dual-use governance’, Science and Engineering Ethics, 20 (2014), pp. 571–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 WHO, ‘FAQs: H5N1 Influenza’, available at: {http://www.who.int/influenza/human_animal_interface/avian_influenza/h5n1_research/faqs/en/} accessed 27 February 2019.

8 Martin Enserink, ‘Controversial studies give a deadly flu virus wings’, Science (2 December 2011).

9 Maher, B., ‘Bird-flu research: the biosecurity oversight’, Nature, 485 (2012), pp. 431–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

10 Waltz, Kenneth, Theory of International Politics (Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 1997)Google Scholar.

11 Matthias Leese, ‘How (Not) To Talk About Technology: IR Theory and the Search for Agency’, paper presented at the Annual Convention of the European International Studies Association, Barcelona (13–16 September 2017), p. 3.

12 Buzan, Barry, Wæver, Ole, and de Wilde, Jaap, Security: A New Framework for Analysis (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1998), p. 72Google Scholar.

13 Berling, Trine Villumsen, ‘Science and securitization: Objectivation, the authority of the speaker and mobilization of scientific facts’, Security Dialogue, 42:4–5 (2011), p. 385Google Scholar; see also Rychnovská, ‘Governing dual-use knowledge’.

14 Wæver, Ole, ‘Politics, security, theory’, Security Dialogue, 42:5 (2011), p. 474CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Barad, Meeting the Universe Halfway, p. ix.

16 Barad, Karen, ‘Meeting the universe halfway: Realism and social constructivism without contradiction’, in Nelson, Lynn Hankinson and Nelson, Jack (eds), Feminism, Science, and the Philosophy of Science (Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer Press 1996), p. 172Google Scholar.

17 Barad, Meeting the Universe Halfway, p. 135.

18 Ibid., p. 141.

19 Ibid., p. 33.

20 Ibid.

21 Barad, Karen, ‘Intra-action: an interview with Adam Kleinman’, Mousse, 34 (2012)Google Scholar, available at: {http://moussemagazine.it/product/mousse-34/} accessed 27 February 2019.

22 Barad, Meeting the Universe Halfway, p. 33.

23 Ibid., p. 28.

24 See, for example, Aradau, Claudia, ‘Security that matters: Critical infrastructure and objects of protection’, Security Dialogue, 41:5 (2010), pp. 491–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Squire, Vicki, ‘Reshaping critical geopolitics? The materialist challenge’, Review of International Studies, 41:1 (2015), pp. 139–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Barad, Meeting the Universe Halfway, p. 139.

26 Jasanoff, Sheila, States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order (London: Routledge, 2004), p. 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Ibid., pp. 2–3.

28 For pioneering exceptions, see Law, John and Callon, Michel, ‘The life and death of an aircraft: a network analysis of technical change’, in Bijker, Wiebe E. and Law, John (eds), Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992), pp. 21–52Google Scholar; Hurt, Shelley, ‘The military's hidden hand: Examining the dual-use origins of biotechnology in the American context, 1969–1972’, in Block, Fred and Keller, Mathew (eds), State of Innovation: The US Government's Role in Technology Development (Boulder: Paradigm Publishers, 2011)Google Scholar; Hester, Rebecca, ‘Biology as opportunity: Hybrid rule from a molecular perspective’, in Hurt, Shelley and Lipschutz, Ronnie (eds), Hybrid Rule and State Formation: Public-Private Power in the 21st Century (New York: Routledge, 2016), pp. 175–202Google Scholar; and Howell, Alison, ‘Neuroscience and war: Human enhancement, soldier rehabilitation, and the ethical limits of dual-use frameworks’, Millennium, 45:2 (2017), pp. 133–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Rappert, Brian, Balmer, Brian, and Stone, John, ‘Science, technology, and the military: Priorities, preoccupations, and possibilities’, in Hackett, Edward J., Amsterdamska, Olga, Lynch, Michael, and Wajcman, Judy (eds), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2008), p. 732Google Scholar.

30 Caduff, Carlo, The Pandemic Perhaps: Dramatic Events in a Public Culture of Danger (Oakland: University of California Press, 2015)Google Scholar; Lakoff, Andrew, Unprepared: Global Health in a Time of Emergency (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2017)Google Scholar; Elbe, Stefan, Pandemics, Pills and Politics: Governing Global Health Security (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018)Google Scholar.

31 Katherine Harmon, ‘What really happened in Malta this September when contagious bird flu was first announced?’, Scientific American (30 December 2011), available at: {https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-really-happened-in-malta-this-september-when-contagious-bird-flu-was-first-announced} accessed 24 March 2017.

32 Selgelid, Michael J., ‘Gain-of-function research: Ethical analysis’, Science and Engineering Ethics, 22:4 (2016), pp. 923–64CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

33 Martin Enserink, ‘Scientists brace for media storm around controversial flu studies’, Science (20 November 2011), available at: {http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/11/scientists-brace-media-storm-around-controversial-flu-studies} accessed 24 March 2017.

34 Enemark, Christian, Biosecurity Dilemmas: Dreaded Diseases, Ethical Responses, and the Health of Nations (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2017), p. 63Google Scholar.

35 Ebright, quoted in Enserink, ‘Controversial studies give a deadly flu virus wings’.

36 National Institutes of Health, ‘ Press Statement on the NSABB Review of H5N1 Research’ (20 December 2011), available at: {https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/press-statement-nsabb-review-h5n1-research} accessed 18 May 2017.

37 Quoted in Enserink, ‘Controversial studies give a deadly flu virus wings’.

38 Youde, ‘Safe for humanity’.

39 Fouchier, Ron A. et al. , ‘Pause on avian flu transmission research’, Science, 335 (2012), pp. 400–01CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

40 WHO, ‘Report on Technical Consultation on H5N1 Research Issues’ (16–17 February 2012), available at: {http://www.who.int/influenza/human_animal_interface/mtg_report_h5n1.pdf?ua=1}, accessed 18 May 2017.

41 Shaw, Robert, ‘Export controls and the life sciences: Controversy or opportunity’, Science & Society, 17:4 (2016), pp. 474–80Google ScholarPubMed; Enemark, Biosecurity Dilemmas, pp. 82–3.

42 Enemark, Christian, ‘Influenza virus research and EU export regulations: Publication, proliferation, and pandemic risks’, Medical Law Review, 25:2 (2017), pp. 293–313Google ScholarPubMed.

43 National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, ‘Statement about March 29–30, 2012 Meeting of the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity to Review Revised Manuscripts on Transmissibility of A/H5N1 Influenza Virus’, available at: {http://www.virology.ws/NSABB_statement_march_2012.pdf} accessed 17 May 2017.

44 Bryan Walsh, ‘H5N1 paper published: Deadly, transmissible bird flu could be closer than thought’, Time (3 May 2012).

45 Fouchier, Ron A. M., García-Sastre, Adolfo, Kawaoka, Yoshihiro et al. , ‘H5N1 virus: Transmission studies resume for avian flu’, Nature, 493 (2013)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

46 Buchanan, Allen and Kelley, Maureen C., ‘Biodefence and the production of knowledge: Rethinking the problem’, Journal of Medical Ethics, 39:4 (2013), pp. 195–204CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Rappert, ‘Why has not there been more research of concern?’.

47 Enemark, Christian, ‘Life science research as a security risk’, in Rushton, Simon and Youde, Jeremy (eds), Routledge Handbook of Global Health Security (London: Routledge, 2014), pp. 130–40Google Scholar; Smith, Frank L. III, American Biodefense: How Dangerous Ideas About Biological Weapons Shape National Security (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 Martin Enserink, ‘Dutch appeals court dodges decision on hotly debated H5N1 papers’, Science (16 July 2015); Lakoff, Andrew, ‘The risks of preparedness: Mutant bird flu’, Public Culture, 24:3:68 (2012), pp. 457–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rappert, ‘Why has not there been more research of concern?’, p. 4.

49 Hurlbut, J. Benjamin, ‘A science that knows no country: Pandemic preparedness, global risk, sovereign science’, Big Data & Society, 4:2 (2017), p. 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 Rappert, ‘Why has not there been more research of concern?’, p. 2.

51 Hurt, ‘The military's hidden hand’, p. 52.

52 Kay, Lily, Who Wrote the Book of Life? A History of the Genetic Code (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000), p. 10Google Scholar.

53 Vettel, Eric, Biotech: The Counterculture Origins of an Industry (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006)Google Scholar.

54 Kay, Who Wrote the Book of Life?, p. 13.

55 Bartfai, Tamas and Lees, Graham, The Future of Drug Discovery: Who Decides Which Diseases to Treat (London: Academic Press, 2013), p. 173Google Scholar.

56 Hurt, ‘The military's hidden hand’; Shelley Hurt, ‘What's at stake in the privatization debate?’, in Hurt and Lipschutz (eds), Hybrid Rule and State Formation; Hester, ‘Biology as opportunity’.

57 Kay, Lily, The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Rise of the New Biology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993)Google Scholar; Kay, Who Wrote the Book of Life?; Vettel, Biotech.

58 Kenney, Martin, Biotechnology: The University-Industrial Complex (Yale: Yale University Press, 1986), p. 241CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

59 Weiss, Linda, America Inc.?: Innovation and Enterprise in the National Security State (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2014)Google Scholar.

60 Mukerji, Chandra, A Fragile Power: Scientists and the State (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989), p. 4Google Scholar.

61 Elbe, Stefan, Virus Alert: Security, Governmentality, and the AIDS Pandemic (Columbia: Columbia University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Elbe, Stefan, Security and Global Health: Towards the Medicalization of Insecurity (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2010)Google Scholar; Kamradt-Scott, Adam and McInnes, Colin, ‘The securitisation of pandemic influenza: Framing, security and public policy’, Global Public Health, 7:2 (2012), pp. 95–110CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

62 King, Nicholas, ‘Security, disease, commerce: Ideologies of postcolonial global health’, Social Studies of Science, 32:5–6 (2002), pp. 766–7Google Scholar; King, Nicholas, ‘The scale politics of emerging diseases’, Osiris, 19 (2004), pp. 62–76CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Lakoff, Andrew, ‘From population to vital system: National security and the changing object of public health’, in Lakoff, Andrew and Collier, Stephen J. (eds), Biosecurity Interventions: Global Health and Security in Question (Columbia: Columbia University Press, 2008), pp. 33–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63 Elbe, Security and Global Health; Rushton and Youde (eds), Routledge Handbook of Global Health Security.

64 Bennett, Gaymon, ‘The malicious and the uncertain: Biosecurity, self-justification, and the arts of living’, in Samimian-Darash, Limor and Rabinow, Paul (eds), Modes of Uncertainty: Anthropological Cases (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015), pp. 123–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65 Lakoff, Andrew, ‘A fragile assemblage: Mutant bird flu and the limits of risk assessment’, Social Studies of Science, 47:3 (2016), pp. 376–97CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

66 Herfst, Sander, Schrauwen, Eefje, Linster, Martin et al. , ‘Airborne transmission of Influenza A/H5N1 virus between ferrets’, Science, 336 (2012), p. 1535CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; see also Imai, Masaki, Watanabe, Tokiko, Hatta, Masato et al. , ‘Experimental adaptation of an influenza H5HA reassortment H5 HA/H1N1 virus in ferrets’, Nature, 486 (2012), pp. 420–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

67 Herfst et al., ‘Airborne transmission of Influenza A/H5N1’, p. 1541.

68 Imai et al., ‘Experimental adaptation of an influenza H5HA reassortment’, pp. 427, 420.

69 Harmon, ‘What really happened in Malta this September’.

70 Davis, Mike, The Monster at our Door: The Global Threat of Avian Influenza (New York and London: The New Press, 2005)Google Scholar.

71 See also Everts, Jonathan, ‘Announcing swine flu and the interpretation of pandemic anxiety’, Antipode, 45:4 (2013), pp. 809–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

72 King, Nicholas B., ‘The influence of anxiety: September 11, bioterrorism, and American public health’, Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, 58:4 (2003), pp. 433–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

73 Franz, David and Zajtchuk, Russ, ‘Biological terrorism: Understanding the threat, preparation, and medical response’, Disease-a-Month, 48:8 (2002), pp. 493–564CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

74 Quoted in Enserink, ‘Scientists brace for media storm’.

75 Caduff, The Pandemic Perhaps, p. 110

76 Vogel, Kathleen, ‘Expert knowledge in intelligence assessments: Bird flu and bioterrorism’, International Security, 38:3 (2013), pp. 40–1Google Scholar.

77 Enemark, Biosecurity Dilemmas, p. 51.

78 Ibid., pp. 30–1.

79 US Government Accountability Office, ‘High-Containment Laboratories: Improved Oversight of Dangerous Pathogens Needed to Mitigate Risk’ (30 August 2016), available at: {http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-642} accessed 23 September 2016.

80 Osterholm, Michael and Olshaker, Mark, Deadliest Enemy: Our War Against Hiller Germs (London: Hachette, 2017), p. 114Google Scholar.

81 Connell, Nancy and Rappert, Brian, ‘Searching for cures or creating pandemics in the lab’, in Lentzos, Filippa (eds), Biological Threats in the 21st Century (London: Imperial College Press, 2016), p. 258Google Scholar.

82 Samimian-Darash, Limor, Henner-Shapira, Hadas, and Davikohttp, Tal, ‘Biosecurity as a boundary object: Science, society, and the state’, Security Dialogue, 47:4 (2016), pp. 329–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

83 See Lipsitch, Marc and Inglesby, Tom V., ‘Moratorium on research intended to create novel potential pandemic pathogens’, mBio, 5:6 (2014), e02366-14CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

84 Selgelid, ‘Gain-of-function research’, p. 923.

85 Department of Health and Human Services, ‘Framework for Guiding Funding Decisions about Proposed Research Involving Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogens’ (2017), available at: {https://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/Documents/p3co.pdf} accessed 27 February 2019.

86 Porter, Natalie Hannah, ‘Ferreting things out: Biosecurity, pandemic flu and the transformation of experimental systems’, BioSocieties, 11:1 (2016), p. 23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

87 Barad, Meeting the Universe Halfway, p. 33.

88 See, for example, Walt, Stephen M., ‘The renaissance of security studies’, International Studies Quarterly, 35:2 (1991), pp. 211–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stephen M. Walt, ‘Realism and security’, Oxford Research Encyclopaedia of International Studies (2010), available at: {http://internationalstudies.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-286?print=pdf} accessed 27 February 2019.

89 See Walt, ‘The renaissance of security studies’; Buzan, Barry and Hansen, Lene, The Evolution of International Security Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 3–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

90 See Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde, Security.

91 Wæver, ‘Politics, security, theory’, p. 469.

92 Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde, Security, p. 27.

93 See also, Wæver, ‘Politics, security, theory’, p. 469.

94 See, Huysmans, Jef, ‘What's in an act? On security speech acts and little security nothings’, Security Dialogue, 42:4–5 (2011), pp. 371–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

95 Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde, Security, p. 23; See also, Williams, Michael C., ‘Words, images, enemies: Securitization and international politics’, International Studies Quarterly, 47:4 (2003), pp. 511–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

96 Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde, Security, p. 29, emphasis added

97 Ibid., p. 21.

98 Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde, Security, p. vii.

99 Barad, Karen, ‘Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter’, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28:3 (2003), p. 815CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

100 Barad, Meeting the Universe Halfway, p. 58.

101 Ibid., p. 217.

102 Barad, Karen, ‘Matter feels, converses, suffers, desires, yearns and remembers’, in Dolphijn, Rick and van der Tuin, Iris (eds), New Materialism: Interviews & Cartographies (Open Humanities Press, 2012), pp. 48–70Google Scholar.

103 Oels, Angela, ‘“Securitization” of climate change to “climatization” of the security field: Comparing three theoretical perspectives’, in Scheffran, Jürgen et al. (eds), Climate Change, Human Security and Violent Conflict, Hexagon Series on Human and Environmental Security and Peace (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2012)Google Scholar.

104 Elbe, Virus Alert; Elbe, Security and Global Health; Elbe, Pandemics, Pills and Politics.

105 Rychnovska, ‘Governing dual-use knowledge’.

106 Gjørv, Gunhild Hoogensen and Rottem, Svein Vigeland, ‘Gender identity and the subject of security’, Security Dialogue, 35:2 (2014), pp. 155–71Google Scholar.

107 Rühle, Michael, ‘The economization of security: a challenge to transatlantic cohesion’, American Foreign Policy Interests, 35:1 (2013), pp. 15–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

108 Barad, ‘Intra-action’.

109 Ibid.

110 Ibid.

111 Ibid.

112 See Thomas F. Gieryn, ‘Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists’, American Sociological Review (1983), pp. 781–95; Barad, Meeting the Universe Halfway, p. 140.

113 Osterholm and Olshaker, Deadliest Enemy, p. 115.

114 Jennifer Couzin-Frankel, ‘Poliovirus baked from scratch’, Science (11 July 2002), available at: {http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2002/07/poliovirus-baked-scratch} accessed 27 February 2019.

115 Koblentz, Gregory D., ‘The de novo synthesis of horsepox virus: Implications for biosecurity and recommendations for preventing the reemergence of smallpox’, Health Security, 15:6 (2017), pp. 620–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

116 Barad, Meeting the Universe Halfway, p. 58.

117 Ibid., p. 140.

118 Barad, Meeting the Universe Halfway, pp. 19, 116; Hollin, Gregory, Forsyth, Isla, Giraud, Eva, and Potts, Tracey, ‘(Dis)entangling Barad: Materialisms and ethics’, Social Studies of Science, 47:6 (2017), pp. 918–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

119 Barad, ‘Matter feels, converses, suffers, desires, yearns and remembers’.

120 Barad, ‘Posthumanist performativity’, p. 816.

121 Barad, Meeting the Universe Halfway, p. 247.