Non-representational theory and close relationships – an interview with Kinneret Lahad

Andreas: I know that these days you’re particularly interested in non-representational theory in the context of research on close relationships. Could you explain what non-representational theory is and why you think it’s a promising approach?

Kinneret: Sure! I think it’s a great idea to discuss non-representational theory in relation to our mutual interest, personal relationships. Non-representational theory, in a broad sense, is a cluster of theories with both shared and divergent elements. I am particularly inspired by the work of geographers like Nigel Thrift who's book Non-Representational Theory is often considered one of the foundational texts in this area. Other key contributors include geographers like Ben Anderson, Paul Harrison, as well as Paul Simpson and Philip Vannini.

In essence, non-representational theory doesn’t completely dismiss representation; this is a common misunderstanding. Rather, it challenges the dominance of representation and linguistic approaches in the social sciences and the humanities. Over the past decades, there’s been a dominance of social constructivism, textual interpretation, and discourse analysis, especially in the social sciences and some branches of the humanities. These approaches have often overshadowed aspects of life that can’t be easily represented through words, images, or texts. Non-representational theory invites us to explore the sensorial, the visceral, and things that “exist on the edge of awareness” (Anderson, Ben, & Harrison, Paul 2010. Taking-place: Non-representational theories and geography. Ashgate Publishing. Page 10)—things that, when translated into words and symbols, lose something vital, the very “something we struggle to put into words” (Simpson, Paul 2021. Non-representational theory. Routledge. Page 11).

I’m drawing here on the work of these scholars, who encourage us as to engage more with these overlooked elements. I think sociology, to a large extent, has missed out on the opportunity to engage with the potential contribution of non-representational theories to the sociological imagination.

Andreas: So, in this approach, you’re questioning the assumption that social reality can be entirely represented or uncovered, right?

Kinneret: It's one of its many merits! A central tenet of non-representational theory is to contest the idea that social reality is static, discoverable, and can be interpreted. Often, as sociologists, we approach social reality as something that’s simply waiting to be uncovered. Let’s look for example at how sociologists have studied single persons. I am now in the process of revisiting my earlier research on single women and trying to provide new answers to some of my previous research questions (Lahad, 2017). For instance – why, despite the counter-representations of long-term singlehood do the negative stereotypes about single women remain strong in many societies? What bestows these pejorative images with so much discursive force across time? I have claimed that the concept and comprehension of Time plays a crucial role in the discursive formation of traditional conventions about female singlehood, and in the ongoing production of single women’s subjectivities in general. 

In my earlier investigations, I initially used a more constructionist, representational approach. A non-representational approach would turn our attention towards the fluidity, sensory and indeterminate aspects of solo life. More specifically, it prompts consideration as to how singlehood emerges and reemerges through interactions and interconnections between different forces (including non-human ones such as animals, objects and technologies). This consideration provides openings to the sensory and embodied aspects of single life. Non-representational theory urges us to remain open to the experimental modes of conducting research that helps us think about the complex and dynamic ways that everyday singlehood unfolds in pre-linguistic ways.

I’ve only touched on a few aspects here as it's impossible to fully summarise the richness of non-representational theory in a short conversation. I do believe this outlook offers immense potential for sociologists. By emphasising processes, and forces which resist tidy categorization, non-representational theory fosters new ways of thinking about sociality and connectivity that unsettles boundaries between the human and the non-human, as well as the social and the material.

Andreas: Can you give an example of what kinds of things you’d be looking for when conducting research on relationships from a non-representational theoretical point of view?

Kinneret: Certainly. Non-representational theory has taught me to focus on elements like ruptures, silences and inconsistencies in the data along with the significance of embodied practices, objects and how these are enmeshed in temporal and spatial configurations. Obviously, sociologists have studied these matters extensively. However, non-representational theory urges us to follow the data to see how feelings arise and shift without immediately labelling them as pre-existing norms or uncovering a way to challenge them. In personal relations research, this endeavour involves avoiding the immediate categorization of data that does not strictly cohere with neat themes or codes. Instead, we would look at data as dynamic and fluid, as something which is in constant movement. Here, I’m inspired by anthropologists like Kathleen Stewart, who recommends not immediately jumping to representational thinking and to attune to the complexities of social life including its pre-verbal forces. Tim Ingold, another wonderful anthropologist, exemplifies some of non-representational theory’s focus on movements and unfolding processes by proposing a new way to draw a fish jumping into the water. He suggests that instead of drawing the fish as a static image depicting its various body parts, we should illustrate it as an abstract gestural line. Considering the fish’s movements in the water, emphasising in turn its evolving, always-in-flux movements. Similarly, in research, we should follow the data’s flow rather than trying to immediately categorise it.

Andreas: I can see the appeal of that, but often in research, especially when it comes to more pragmatic fields, people want to know: “What’s the use of this?” How would you respond to that? Is there a broader sociological point to be made here that hasn’t already been made?

Kinneret: That’s a fair question, and it touches on a much larger debate about the role of sociology and our commitments to social justice, inequality, and producing knowledge that has “impact”. The work of Ben Anderson and Sara Ahmed offers some important insights here. By extending the declarative with the unsaid, the visceral, and the non-representational, we can gain a new understanding of the power of ideologies, inequalities, and various forms of power. For instance, Sara Ahmed has taught me not to simply ask, “What is patriarchy?” but rather, “What does patriarchy do in everyday life?” How is it felt, how is it sensed, how does it shape body movements? Theresa Breman invites us to consider what happens when someone or something enters a room, especially in terms of sensations that she asks us to attend to. These questions can help us understand the subtle and powerful ways that ideologies grip us (and others) in unexpected and ever changing ways.

Andreas: But isn’t there a risk that by focusing on these sensations or feelings, we might disconnect them from a broader social reality? Couldn’t that limit the ability of researchers to address social inequalities?

Kinneret: I would argue that it’s critical not to dismiss or avoid the political aspects of affect even if they seem intangible at first. If someone says they feel uncomfortable in their workplace but can’t immediately explain why, instead of pushing for or waiting for a definite answer, we could consider this as an ongoing affective encounter. Does that feeling arise in other settings? Is it intensified in certain moments? How is it transmitted to other bodies?

By following affects, we can consider dynamics that might otherwise be missed. For example, that discomfort might reveal complex entanglements of patriarchy, ageism, or other forms of inequality in unexpected ways. The value of non-representational approaches resides in their openness to change, to processes that are ongoing, and get under our skin.

Andreas: I see your point. But how far do you take this? At some point, don’t you need to say, “This is a reaction to patriarchy” or offer some kind of representational conclusion?

Kinneret: You’re right that representation is significant and non-representational theory doesn’t dismiss it entirely. It’s about recognizing that representation is just one force among many. This understanding chimes with what Hayden Lorimer (2005) want to express with the term “more-than-representational theory”, as a complement to the term “non-representational theory.” The aim is to expand the tools we have as sociologists, not to eliminate representation and social discourses but to explore what can lie beyond its unifying narratives, attend to absences.

Let's return to patriarchy. Rather than seeing it as a static, all-encompassing force, this approach encourages us to understand how patriarchy emerges in different contexts, in its entanglements with other forces like colonial thinking, technologies and objects. By doing so, we can make more nuanced political arguments without reducing the complexity of social life to one-dimensional explanations and we can approach patriarchy as an ongoing process. 

Non-representational theory expands our analytical toolkit. It encourages us to stay with the messiness of social life, to follow and stay with its lines of movement. That doesn’t mean we ignore representation; it means we follow data, move with the data and make space for the excessive, the contradictory and incoherent.

Andreas: I like that idea of slowing down and not jumping to conclusions. It feels very relevant to good qualitative research. But I’m curious—could we think of this in terms of non-representable theory, the ideas we have that are too messy to present, instead of non-representational theory? Would that distinction make a difference?

Kinneret: Non-representational thought offers much more than messy outlooks as it includes affect studies, actor-network theory, and post-human thinking and concurrently different approaches to subjectivity and sociability. What I particularly like in reworking representational ontologies and epistemologies, is that it fosters humility. Stewart’s call for slow scholarship has tremendous value for sociological thinking emphasising the need to debunk the neoliberal dictates on what is considered ‘good research’ and who is the ‘productive academic’.

Andreas: Thank you so much for sharing your insights. 

Kinneret: Thank you Andreas, always a pleasure to talk with you.