Jane Bennett does not directly focus on “evilness” as a central theme in her political philosophy, including in Vibrant Matter. Her work tends to emphasize the vibrancy, agency, and interconnectedness of all matter rather than moralistic or dichotomous frameworks like good versus evil. However, there are several ways in which her ideas touch on or intersect with questions of harm, destruction, or what could be interpreted as “evil” in a broader sense:
1. Distributed Agency and Responsibility:
• Bennett argues that agency is distributed across assemblages, which include both human and nonhuman actors. This complicates traditional notions of individual responsibility for harmful or “evil” actions.
• For example, in discussions of political or ecological disasters (e.g., oil spills, systemic oppression), the blame cannot easily be pinned on a single actor or entity. Instead, these events arise from complex networks of human decisions, material forces, and systemic structures.
2. The Ambiguity of Matter:
• In recognizing the vitality and agency of matter, Bennett resists moralizing its effects as inherently “good” or “evil.”
• For instance, material forces like electricity or bacteria can be life-sustaining in some contexts and destructive in others. This ambiguity challenges traditional ethical binaries.
3. Political Harm through Neglect:
• While Bennett does not focus on “evil” per se, her political philosophy critiques anthropocentric systems and practices that neglect or exploit the vibrancy of the nonhuman world.
• This neglect can lead to large-scale harm, such as ecological destruction or climate change, which could be framed as “evil” in its consequences, even if it arises from systemic rather than individual intent.
4. Ethics of Attunement:
• Bennett suggests that an ethical failure to recognize the agency and vitality of matter leads to exploitative and destructive practices. While she does not label this as “evil,” it represents a profound moral and political failure in her framework.
• For example, the disregard for the interconnectedness of ecosystems might be seen as a form of hubris or negligence with catastrophic outcomes.
5. Fascination with “Dark Vitality”:
• Bennett occasionally acknowledges the unsettling or destructive aspects of material agency, what might be termed “dark vitality.”
• For instance, she describes the allure and danger of vibrant, nonhuman forces (like toxic waste or viral outbreaks) that disrupt human-centered systems and challenge our sense of control.
6. Critique of Simplistic Morality:
• Bennett’s materialist framework challenges traditional moral and political philosophies that rely on clear distinctions between good and evil, subject and object, or active and passive.
• By highlighting the distributed and nonhuman dimensions of agency, she shifts the conversation away from moral blame toward systemic understanding and ethical attunement.
Summary:
While Jane Bennett does not explicitly write about “evilness,” her political philosophy engages with related questions about harm, neglect, and the consequences of ignoring the vibrancy of matter. Her framework complicates simplistic notions of moral culpability by emphasizing distributed agency and the systemic nature of political and ecological challenges. In this sense, “evil” in Bennett’s philosophy might be better understood as the ethical and political failures that arise from a lack of recognition of the interconnectedness and vitality of all things.
