I saw a lecture called: There is No Such Thing as Mediation. This sounds like an outlandish claim am I right?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, that does sound like an outlandish claim—at least at face value. If taken literally, it would mean denying the entire structure of representation, language, media, and even cognition as mediating processes. But depending on the lecture’s philosophical or theoretical grounding, it might not be as absurd as it first appears. Do you know which framework the lecture was working from?

You said:

Agential Realism

ChatGPT said:

Agential realism, as articulated by Karen Barad, offers a nuanced perspective on the nature of mediation. Central to this framework is the concept of intra-action, which challenges traditional notions of separate entities interacting through mediation. Instead, intra-action posits that entities emerge through their relationships; they do not pre-exist their interactions. This implies that what we typically consider as mediation—an intermediary process between distinct entities—is reconfigured. In agential realism, there aren't pre-existing, independent entities requiring mediation; rather, entities and their boundaries are co-constituted through intra-actions. Therefore, the conventional idea of mediation as a bridge between separate entities becomes less applicable, as the entities themselves are not seen as inherently separate prior to their intra-action. ​

You said:

But isn't the air a medium through which sound waves propagate

ChatGPT said:

Yes, physically speaking, air is a medium through which sound waves propagate. But in agential realism, the concept of mediation isn’t being denied in a straightforward, material sense. Instead, the argument is against a representationalist view of mediation—where mediation implies that there are pre-existing, independent entities (like sound and air) and that one simply transmits the other.

In agential realism, the sound and the air are not separate things that come together through mediation. Rather, they emerge through intra-action—their relationship is what defines them as distinct in the first place.

So, saying that mediation "does not exist" in this framework is not the same as saying "there is no medium" in a classical physics sense. It’s saying that the ontological structure of the relationship itself is different—the air is not merely a neutral conduit for sound; it is co-constitutive of what sound is in that particular interaction.

Does that distinction help?

You said:

It sounds like a redefinition of what mediation is.

ChatGPT said:

Yes, exactly. Agential realism doesn’t deny that things move through media in a conventional sense (like sound through air), but it redefines mediation by rejecting the idea that there are stable, pre-existing entities being transmitted across a neutral medium. Instead, it sees mediation as an active, constitutive process—an intra-action where entities emerge through their relational entanglement rather than merely being connected by an external medium.

So, if the lecture claimed "mediation does not exist," it was likely shorthand for "mediation, as traditionally conceived (as a bridge between pre-existing entities), does not exist." What exists instead is a constant process of entanglement where distinctions between entities and their media are dynamically enacted rather than assumed as given.

Instead, it sees mediation as an active, constitutive process—an **intra-action** where entities emerge through their relational entanglement rather than merely being connected by an external medium

You said:

This seems to make mediation even more crucial.

ChatGPT said:

Yes, exactly! If mediation is no longer just a passive conduit but the very process through which entities come into being, then it becomes even more fundamental. Instead of something secondary—just a means of transmission—mediation (or intra-action) is what actively constitutes reality.

This actually aligns with some process-relational perspectives: instead of thinking of mediation as an in-between that merely connects pre-existing things, it becomes the generative condition of things themselves. In this sense, mediation isn’t erased but radicalized—it is no longer just about movement across a medium but about the very formation of entities and phenomena.