I have become interested recently in .the apparent evaporation of the social incultural studies and critical theory. It could be that this is merely the anxiety of anunreconstructed humanist，for whom notions of the post-human，statements about theagency of objects，and discoveries of the neural and cognitive aspects of humanbehaviour are a step（or several steps） too far. Nevertheless， I think it is worthinvestigating this unease，and trying to make the case for a certain caution in relationto tendencies to abandon too hastily the solidities of cultural and sociological theory.One of the things I will consider in this essay is why these challenges to traditionalmethods and theories have been necessary（and valuable）-that is，what the limits ofcultural theory have been，and why scholars have turned to different approaches.I amtalking here about developments which might seem quite disparate： the tum to"affect";the（re） turn to phenomenology（and post-phenomenology）;actor-networktheory in sociology and science studies; theories of the post-human （human/animal，human/nature，human/technology）;theories of materiality; emphasis on the agency ofobjects; the tum to neuroscience in the humanities and social sciences; the insistenceon "presence" as an unmediated encounter（for example， with the work of art-seeGumbrecht 2004）; the foregrounding of the embodied nature of any act（even themost "intellectual" practices，such as reading-see Littau 2006）.This is indeed aneclectic list.But one finds constant overlaps and common meeting points-forexample，in a conference at the University of Manchester in February 2009，organisedby the ESRC-funded Centre for Research on Socio-Cultural Change，on " Materialisingthe subject： phenomenological and post-ANT objects in the social sciences" （three ofthe themes already contained in the title，and discussion at the conference too aboutcognitive science，neuroscience，and affect）.

　　……