This is a helpful articulation of intra-action in action, so to speak; that is, of how material-discursive practices emerge with the becoming of the world. In Barad’s terms, I wonder if the camera or image technology might be said to be the apparatus? When the apparatus is changed or modified, we get—and also, crucially, participate in— a different view of the world.

I wonder: What are the problems of enacting this practice in the reverse? Some Indigenous scholars such as Zoe Todd and Sarah Hunt have argued that Indigenous ways of being and knowing are not concepts to be plucked or employed or drawn from—rather, they are living practices that emerge in relation to particular lands, waters, bodies, and so on. Another way to put this: can a reciprocity happen when Eurowestern philosophies engage Indigenous ones?

Such a succinct statement that captures various critiques of new materialism from Indigenous perspectives. Reminds me of Kim TallBear's now often-cited point. She writes, "First of all, indigenous peoples have never forgotten that nonhumans are agential beings engaged in social relations that profoundly shape human lives."

I've been drawn to their use of "alliance" in this chapter, which seems to be a generative and accountable way to bring together these bodies of knowledge.

Here again I read the "creativity" she mentioned earlier in the essay, the kind of invention we need for the Anthropocene.

In other woks, I've seen Braidotti state" we are in this together but 'we' are not all the same." I find this turn of phrase to embody the critique of the pan-human she notes in the next line.

This kind of affirmative opening up seems key for any understanding of posthumanist invention. I hear echoes of Latour's "why critique has run out of steam" here, as well as a lot of thinkers in rhetcomp (e.g., Boyle; Lynch).