Notes on: Udén M (2018) The novel feminist diffrraction concept: Its application in fifty-one peer-reviewed papers. Research Report. Luleå University of Technology https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327474208_The_novel_feminist_diffraction_concept_Its_application_in_fifty-one_peer-reviewed_papers Dave Harris Diffraction in science has been known for 200 years. It became a feminist concept after Haraway who suggested it was an alternative to reflection 'as [the main] metaphor for… Thinking things through' (1). Barad made it a major theme. The novel terminology needs clarification. Haraway has long seen links between science and feminism especially with things like the cyborg, but that 'involves both fantasy and innovation… The term diffraction is in its conventional meaning descriptive. It merely represents an understanding' that waves behave in a particular way. It has gained new meanings from various developments in feminism and gender studies. Wave theory suggests that there can be several modes for explaining how the world functions, according to effects to be explained, and level of understanding of the audience. Diffraction is one of several wave phenomena. An object that is visible reflects light impingeing on its surface. Sometimes waves pass through media or are partly reflected. Refraction occurs when a wave changes direction as it changes a medium. Diffraction arises when 'the wavelength is in the order of magnitude of an obstacle'. (2). Interference arises when waves 'either create a more intense wave together, cancel each other, or anything in between', assuming waves are similar. Thus x-ray diffraction shows us specific patterns indicating the geometry of the atoms. In social sciences, diffraction is essentially a metaphor, based on a representation of the conventional understanding. In natural science, it is accepted that generating 'epistemological and technological success' is the key rather than any attempt to correspond to reality. Wave theory has been successful in these terms, although even here, success 'does not mean that the direction taken is undisputable' — all science when materialized  is influenced by 'domination, competition over resources and struggles over knowledge and human identity'. This has been a major contribution from social sciences and the humanities. Metaphors are still common, 'guided by subconscious inclinations, strategic choices or convenience'. Borrowing concepts from another area is also 'common' but there might be problems. For example 'mathematical metaphors… Common in gender studies… Are sometimes [used to study the interaction of gender race and class]' but these may be 'expressed as additive categories' or as 'linear axes… Or, say, concentric figures'. There are theoretical consequences, although these are often ignored so the full implication of the metaphor is not developed. In particular, mathematical metaphors in feminist thought can be superficial, lacking any explanation about how interactions are actually produced [and ignoring the attempts to prioritise, say class, over gender]. Has the novel concept of diffraction led to significant results? 51 papers from peer-reviewed journals were investigated, through search engines. Articles selected were then read and different positions or indications identified. A note says that references to Haraway and Barad were very common. A wide range of academic subjects and topics used the term. Usually, the term is 'explicitly described as a metaphor', although there are also 'methodological instructions'. As an example ,Seyfrin introduces diffraction as a metaphor and then understands it as offering guidance on research practices, including '"the practice of formulating the purpose and research questions of an article, practices for gathering empirical material, situatedness of  the researcher, the choice of theories and methods, and the format of the text"' (5). She goes on to say that we should seek '"several stories, interpretations, angles, or perspectives, and to look the complexities and richness… For several layers of meaning and realities"'. She particularly looked for examples of 'counter stories' when women seemed not to be marginalised. She claims a kinship with Foucault and Law. Her emphasis on procedures to guide critique are common. For example diffractive reading is a methodology in 17 papers, usually implying 'reading texts or works of art through one another' [Taguchi is an example]. Cross reading in this sense 'is one of the [not very novel] fundamental techniques for academic advancement… A variation of the familiar theme' it has been particularly good in feminism at identifying 'emotion as an instrument of being, knowledge and cognition' (6). Others have investigated, for example 'how gender studies knowledge can contribute to neuroscientific research' where the suggestions are a logical consequence of pursuing feminist diffraction as a frame. Generally, only those practising subjects can genuinely assess the capacity of the metaphor . It is common to find the notion of 'reflection' occurring with diffraction, drawing on Haraway who opposes the notion of reflection referring to cultivated thinking and as a metaphor for examination and contemplation — apparently 'the long established conception'. Problems with this have led to interest in diffraction, which stresses '"interaction, interference, reinforcement, difference… Heterogeneous history, not about originals… Not [displacing] the same elsewhere, in more or less distorted form thereby giving rise to industries of metaphysics'. Using diffraction as a metaphor also implies being 'committed to making a difference and to not repeating the Sacred Image of Same"' [in Egeland, but quoting Haraway]. 'Reflection reproduces "the same". It makes no difference"' [weird— does contemplation and examination make no difference?]. What makes it a feminist choice is that it will do something '"other than replicate or intensify current social practices of inequality"'. In most of the others, the 'diffraction – reflection opposition' is still present, even important, even though not specifically mentioned. Sometimes the common and the novel uses are mixed, but mostly the reflection concept is discarded as 'insufficient for the feminist purposes' (7). This is because '"unlike reflections, which purport to mirror reality [!] diffractions describe interdependency and disruption as well as continuity"' [quoting Smith] There is also an attention to materiality, especially nonhuman matter, in a way which recognises its agency. This is also a 'capacity, consequence or quality of "diffraction"' for example, Jackson cites Barad in saying that '"reflective metaphors overemphasise culture and thus disempower nonhuman nature"', and apparently it is good that Barad acknowledges that '"the structure of the diffraction grating used in the experiment (specifically the number of slits) affects the pattern produced"' Overall, diffraction can be just seen as a metaphor or useful instrument 'without further reference to other wave phenomena or wave theory', connecting 'an easily understood principle'. However, some want to pursue 'deeper, or perhaps wider, congruence with wave theory' 'Wave theory can help to construct and calibrate an x-ray diffraction instrument but not to handle sexuality, education, activism or journalism'. It is rare to even discuss how to achieve uniformity between conventional and novel concepts, but 'physics is important in the rhetoric and the script is quite confusing'. As well as metaphor, some authors claim 'an interdisciplinary connotation' to include natural sciences and break down disciplinary barriers — Prophett and Prichard see them as entangled, as when diffraction patterns around the moon reveal colours and rings which '"cannot be attributed to the moon or the clouds but are produced through the intra-action of the moon and the clouds"' [actually another quote from other authors]. Diffraction draws attention to the history of entities, not to categories but rather '"as a passage"'. Physics is mentioned in half the papers as supporting feminist diffraction, 'in all cases referring to Barad' and often mentioning her training in physics — 'being of consequence for the workings and merits of the feminist diffraction methodology' (8). However, arguing for congruence between conventional and novel metaphors or methodologies produce obstacles, and has led to less creative debate than Haraway's cyborg. Haraway stresses interference rather than replication or reflection, interaction, difference. There is an implication that 'taken literarily diffraction detects interference'. Most of the presentations demonstrate interference, but the concept itself is not frequently mentioned. Other qualities of diffraction are also not discussed. For physicists, interference  'appears where there is a specific relation between coinciding waves, irrespective of the history behind this relation'. But if feminists are really interested in interference, why not study 'interferometry or … 'interference caused by reflection in thin films"' [apparently found in early physics education] (9). The main interest in diffraction seems to be to oppose reflection, and Barad sees little point in maintaining a distinction between diffraction and interference. But her 'choosing and mixing among case descriptions and explanation levels does not help' really, 'the source of the novel diffraction concept is a moral quest' for which her thought about diffraction analysis as compared to mirrorring apparently seemed an illustrative metaphor. It never was made with scientific rigour. This makes it hard to discuss the accuracy of wave theory when deployed in specific studies, even Haraway. There may be a contradiction in feminist theory. Although there is a stress on nonhuman matter, diffraction 'takes a completely human centred stance'. Perceiving objects via reflection as replicas or the same does not mean 'the objects and surfaces involved when they are produced are more "passive" than those that induce, say diffraction'. Wave propagation itself seems to lack agency, although the slits do. Many applications have been faithful to Haraway and Barad on reflection. However, refraction could also be seen as an opposite to diffraction, and Hayward has explored this 'as a meaningful and constructive feminist metaphor–methodology'. This leads her to talk about 'the agency of a world of surfaces as well as media' and draws implications for ' " the ontological status of refracted light… an irreducible nexus of enacted, active and non-active properties"'. Haraway sees this as a better option to replace reflection. A local PhD  student, Alander,  has even argued that '"the diffraction pattern we see is a reflection"' (10) Wave behaviour itself 'is of no consequence for the themes and topics to which the novel diffraction concept is applied'. The issue of whether it might be can be left to 'future interdisciplinary exchange'. There are still some issues arising from studying wave phenomena. For example in one influential argument, diffraction focusing on interference not replication also shows the limits of human rationality, because '"diffractive mappings are not rationally made… The productivity of diffraction comes from elsewhere"' [quoting Van Der Tuin -- NB she reads Barad diffractively with Bergson]. This theme is pursued in other works too, including a dreadful deleuzian bit by Phillips and Larson: '"diffraction is not a replication… It is a riding of the wild and unpredictable waves, the following of lines of flight along the contorted paths of rhizomes"', with implications for the entanglement of self with others and with phenomenon. Are diffraction mappings not rationally made, though? In natural science and technology rationality is a meaningless criterion, this means that any 'wave or wave phenomenon' can be generated somewhere else. However diffraction analysis itself is obviously 'rationally produced, managed and maintained', including by reference to wave theory. Rationality here means efficient as above. Conversely, 'successful meshing with nature is an embodied and immanent matter. It is hardly an innocent pursuit'. There is no support for the idea of diffraction as 'unequivocally good, free or wild'. In feminist work, materiality in physics is also 'culturally and socially contextualised, but this is 'lost in the discourse' [about diffraction] (11). Overall, it is not wave theory that lies at the heart of feminist diffraction, but rather the reflection concept — 'what diffraction is, reflection is not'. But this does not really fit the metaphor of reflection if it involves 'thinking things through'. There is an implied 'authentication from a connection to physics', but there is also a redefinition of wave phenomena 'into forms that are not supported by the natural sciences'. There is not even consistent application of Haraway's concept in the studies examined. Haraway offers a 'sketch of a mirror and a diffraction laboratory experiment' and this is then taken as 'a full description of wave theory, a complete representation that perfectly meshes with nature'. In much of the material studied, metaphors for thinking are just literally interpreted as physics. Pursuing the metaphor would not take us very far at the moment, because wave theory itself 'is of no consequence for the subject investigated' nor for how knowledge is produced. The actual subject of each paper's investigation requires specific articulation. Haraway's suggestion arose from a primarily moral motive, concerned with better developing knowledge. Whether this metaphor or any interdisciplinary metaphor actually will help collective feminist capacity is more doubtful. As Alander, the PhD student cited above, reminds us, 'most of what humans see, will see and have ever seen are reflections'. Collective knowledge efforts might be damaged by rejecting this notion. Is it necessary to acknowledge the agency of matter in developing our impressions? In the example of light phenomena around the moon, the first condition was that 'the moon reflects light that emanates from the sun'. Meshing of representations with nature is important at that fundamental level as well. The diffraction metaphor might lead to further interdisciplinary work, for feminist generally. It is true that it emphasises 'difference, change, interaction, history and traces'. We also know that many 'organisms utilise detection and creation of waves of all sorts, not limited to light'. These have been highlighted by diffraction, but its main energy still remains as the opposition to reflection, and this could adversely 'affect the options for development in other directions' (12). back to social theory page