In Chapter 2 (The materials of life) in Making, Ingold describes the lifelike qualities of raw materials we use to create objects. He illustrates how we are accustomed to think of making as a project: we start with an idea of a goal, and with raw material to achieve it, and once we think the material has taken on intended form, we have produced an artefact. However, he argues that the entire process of making is actually one of growth, and the maker is a participant in a world of active materials. To support his position, Ingold references French philosopher Gilbert Simondon and his critique of the hylomorphic model of making. The Aristotelian word itself is a combination of Latin words hyle (matter) and morphe (form). This scheme posits each object and body as a combination of form and matter, and Simondon, through a detailed description of the creation process of a brick, argues that this model neglects a very important aspect of this process: the energy involved to transform the “formless” clay into a “finished” brick. Thus, rather than the maker imposing her designs on a world that is waiting to receive them, Ingold, supported by Simondon, argues that the maker is simply intervening in worldly processes that are already going on.

About Gilbert Simondon

Our focus is primarily extracted from the work of Gilbert Simondon of Saint-Étienne, France, born on October 2, 1924. From an early age, Simondon became interested in the act of questioning things, a habit that had transitioned into a lifelong passion for research and teaching. He had completed his secondary studies at the Lycée Fauriel in Saint-Étienne and went down the post secondary avenue of which he was most loyal to: philosophy at the École Normale Supérieure in Paris under the supervision of Martial Gueroult, a French philosopher preceding Simondon. It was during his studies in Paris when he had started expanding his palette within the sciences, exploring physics, mineralogy, and psychophysiology, and within the arts, developing interest in the cultures of literature, music, and surrealist art. Science, however, was where he found that his philosophical studies could be enlightened by the most, even branching out to obtain a degree in psychology at other institutions. After several years of teaching philosophy, psychology, languages, and 20th century literature at secondary and post secondary level, Simondon ventured back into academia to get a Master’s degree in philosophy at Sorbonne University. Simondon began studying the subject of individuation in 1952, when he reframed the individual being starting from the process of individuation rather than individuation starting from the individual.

“I have chosen the notion of individuality and, for a year, I have been trying to make a reflexive theory of the criteria of individuality. (…) in fact, one must grasp the being before it has been analyzed into individual and environment: the individual-environment ensemble is not sufficient in itself; one can neither explain the individual by the environment nor the environment by the individual, and one cannot reduce one to the other. The individual and the environment are an analytical phase genetically and logically posterior to a syncretic phase constituted by the existence of a first mixture.” 

— Gilbert Simondon, January 1954 to Martial Gueroult.

https://gilbert.simondon.fr/content/biographie

Simondon on the Hylomorphic Model

Simondon’s thesis, Individuation in Light of Notions of Form and Information, invites a new perspective on remodelling frameworks in metaphysics. Rather than adhering to the hylomorphic model, which proposes that the results of making and production stem from the imposition of form onto matter, Simondon argues that products are formed through the simultaneous contraposition of form and matter (Simondon 2005, 41). Simondon believes that the preexisting model is too narrow and presupposes individuation, which itself is the process through which form and matter come into relation (Simondon 2005, 21). Therefore, Simondon argues that the hylomorphic model simplifies this complex process of making into the two innate ideas of ‘form’ imposed onto ‘matter,’ when in reality, the process of individuation is far more dynamic. More specifically, within the process of individuation, Simondon believes that form is ever emergent rather than fixed and given in advance. Therefore, Simondon argues that the hylomorphic model simplifies this complex process of making into the two innate ideas of ‘form’ imposed onto ‘matter,’ when in reality, the process of individuation is far more dynamic and grounded in information. He argues that information emerges in events, where form and matter coexist and coemerge in the process of individuation, rather than one forming the other (Simondon 2005, 36). Through shifting his perspective and rejecting the hylomorphic model, Simondon shifts his attention from being to becoming, where he explores what happens in between, rather than simply observing from the outside looking in. Through this perspective, he wants to approach organisms, objects, and even people as open, relational, incredibly dynamic things that are constantly in flux with their pre-individual fields.

How Ingold Uses the Quote

For Simondon, the creation of a brick illustrates how form emerges through interaction rather than from a predetermined design: the clay and mould converge in a “bringing together or unification of two ‘transformational half-chains’” (Ingold 2013, 25). This reflects the “first mixture”: the brick’s form emerges through the interaction of materials rather than from any pre-existing design. Simondon emphasizes that one cannot understand the individual in isolation from its environment: “one must grasp the being before it has been analyzed into individual and environment… one can neither explain the individual by the environment nor the environment by the individual”. This idea of the “first mixture” — that the individual and environment are inseparable in their formation — aligns closely with Ingold’s anthropology of making. Form emerges not from the imposition of a predetermined plan, but from the ongoing interaction between maker, materials, and environment. Making is a morphogenetic process — a dynamic flow of materials, forces, and energies in which the maker participates alongside the same forces that shape all living and nonliving things (Ingold 2013, 22). Both thinkers emphasize that materials are active participants in shaping outcomes rather than static matter. Ingold likens this idea to basket weaving, where shape arises from the interplay of willow branches, the weaver’s hands, wind, and bodily rhythm. All elements interact simultaneously from the start. Like the “first mixture,” the basket, maker, and environment emerge together, and only later can we consider the basket as a separate object or the maker as an individual agent. The maker follows the materials’ tendencies, contributing through movement, rhythm, and responsiveness. As Ingold notes, “in the field of forces, the form emerges as a more or less transitory equilibration” (Ingold 2013, 25), concluding, “perhaps bricks are not so different from baskets after all.” For Ingold, making is a longitudinal process, following materials as they grow and transform over time. The final form doesn’t exist independently of the materials or maker. Form arises through the continuous interaction of people, materials, and environment — a dynamic process in which individuals and their environments shape each other, reflecting Simondon’s insight.

Relevance to course

In our attached activity, we were able to roughly recreate Ingold’s students’ basket weaving experience through weaving yarn through handmade cardboard looms. We followed a tutorial on Instagram and immersed ourselves within the environment and process of tangibly making an object. We followed many of the same lessons Ingold described that his students did. Though we initially struggled with the set-up of our raw materials, the exceptionally separate pieces of yarn melded together naturally through the slow process of weaving and tightening – displaying the surprisingly recalcitrant properties of the material. We also ran into the problem of not knowing when to stop: despite the physical limitations of our loom, you could always tighten the previous stitches and make room for another row. Our deciding factor ended up being a lack of time, creating differences in our “finished” products. Throughout the making and reflection process, we discovered direct links between our activity, Ingold’s theories, and the critical term of body as defined by Wegenstein. Through expressing our learning in the tactile process of making an object with our hands, we were able to ground ourselves in nature and media creation more immersively than simply reading about it. By feeling the texture of the yarn and practicing the specific movements, we were able to connect our bodies to the bodies of the materials. Despite following the same tutorial, each of our final works depicted our own self-expression, and we were able to absorb knowledge through the medium of our body and learn from Ingold’s teaching through the experience of embodiment.

Citations:

Ingold, T. (2013). Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art & Architecture. Routledge.

Mitchell, W. J. T., & Hansen, M. B. N. (Eds.). (2010). Critical Terms for Media Studies. University of Chicago Press. 

Simondon, G. (2020). Individuation in Light of Notions of Form and Information (T. Adkins, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press.  (Original work published 1964)

Simondon, G. (2012, December 8). Form & Matter: Gilbert Simondon’s critique of the hylomorphic scheme (Part 1). The Funambulist Magazine. Retrieved from https://thefunambulist.net/editorials/philosophy-form-matter-gilbert-simondons-critique-of-the-hylomorphic-scheme-part-1

Wegenstein, B. (2010). Body. In W. J. T. Mitchell & M. B. N. Hansen (Eds.), Critical Terms for Media Studies (pp. 19–34). University of Chicago Press.

Ela, Lorainne, Dea, Victoria