Invisible Bonds of the Modern World: The Concept and Uses of Assemblage in Sociology

In today’s rapidly changing world, it is no longer enough to see social structures simply as old-fashioned “fixed systems”. Imagine for a moment a crowded metropolitan square: A businessperson monitoring stock market data on his phone, a self-driving car, a historical statue in the square, the wind blowing at that moment, and the digital security cameras of the city municipality… They are all together at that moment, in that square. However, this unity is not a permanent structure, but a “combination” that can change, disintegrate or transform at any moment.

In order to explain such complex and dynamic situations, social scientists are developing a new perspective through the concept of assemblage. George E. Marcus and Erkan Saka in 2006 Theory, Culture & Society journal reveals how this concept has come to play a “savior” role in modern research.

What is Assemblage? A Concept’s Journey from Art to Sociology

The concept of assemblage originates from the art world. 20. cubist painters or futurist sculptors at the turn of the century would put together unrelated objects (newspaper clippings, pieces of metal, wood) to form a new whole. Borrowing this aesthetic stance, social theory realized that social events were in fact of such a “bricolage” nature.

In academic language, assemblage refers to temporary wholes that are formed by heterogeneous elements (people, ideas, objects, technologies) coming together over a period of time, but which are always open to change. To understand this concept, it is necessary to compare it with the traditional notion of “building”. A building is a “structure”; its bricks are fixed and their location is fixed. Whereas a “festival” is an example of an assemblage. People come, tents are set up, music plays, digital signals fly through the air and when the event is over, everything is dispersed. But for those few days, the festival is a coherent reality in itself.

Basic Pillars of the Assemblage Concept

To understand this theoretical approach, it is necessary to know three key features:

1. Heterogeneity (Diversity): There are not only people in an assemblage. A rule of law, a computer algorithm and a human emotion can be part of the same assemblage.
2. Emergence: The sum of the parts produces a different result than the parts themselves. Just as hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water, which is a completely different substance, so too, when social elements come together, they create unpredictable new situations.
3. Impermanence and Fluidity: These assemblages do not last forever. They serve a specific purpose, exist for a while and then dissolve or transform.

Legacy of Deleuze and Guattari: Mechanized Society

The French thinkers Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari are undoubtedly behind the current popularity of the concept of assemblage. They saw society not as a static organism but as a “machine”. But this was not a metallic machine, but an “apparatus” in which desires and techniques were articulated.

As Marcus and Saka emphasize, for Deleuze, assemblage is a “topological” concept. These structures are formed by the intersection of two open systems under the influence of an external force. Theorists such as Manuel De Landa develop this idea, arguing that assemblages are composed of parts and that these parts have a unity of their own. So even if you are part of a network, when you leave it you are still yourself, but when you are in it you are part of “something else”.

Technical Note: Assemblage does not contain an “essence.” It is only a ground where differences are produced and in this respect it is a challenge to the search for “stability” of classical social theory.

From Anthropology to Technology: Four Different Assemblage Stories

Theoretical discussions can sometimes be up in the air. Marcus and Saka present the work of four different researchers as case studies to understand how this concept comes to life in the field. Let’s look at these stories through the eyes of a researcher.

The Changing Face of the Laboratory: Paul Rabinow and “Anthropos Today”

When anthropologist Paul Rabinow entered laboratories to study modern scientific processes, he noticed something strange. Science was no longer just done under a microscope; huge budgets, ethical codes, computer software and global collaborations were involved. Rabinow found that existing concepts were insufficient to describe this complexity.

For him, assemblage described the “slippery” slope between major social problems (problematizations) and established institutions. For example, a development in biotechnology simultaneously mobilizes the technical capabilities of a laboratory, the laws of the state and the ethical values of society. This combination is an example of an assemblage concept that is “volatile” enough to disappear in decades, but powerful enough to change the world in the moment.

Global Flows and Local Collisions: Ong and Collier

When you think of “globalization”, do you think of a massive, unstoppable force spreading everywhere? In Global Assemblages, Aihwa Ong and Stephen Collier challenge this perspective. According to them, the “global” does not move in a vacuum. When a global financial system or a technological standard hits a particular local area (a village or a factory, for example), what emerges is neither fully global nor fully local.

Using the concept of the “global assemblage”, they describe how techniques, ethical values and political decisions form unstable but functional associations. Here, assemblage represents the temporary order in chaos.

Anatomy of Emotions Kathleen Stewart

Sociology is not just numbers and laws; it is also feelings. Kathleen Stewart uses the concept of assemblage to trace emotions. While studying the lives of ordinary people in America, she defines the momentary mood created by a news report on television, the dwindling money in the wallet and the morning cup of coffee as a “sensate assemblage”.

Rather than a tool of analysis, assemblage here is a state of performance that reflects the intensity and texture of life. When the researcher puts the pieces together, what emerges is not “society” but the “life energy” of the moment.

Man or Machine? N. Katherine Hayles and Cognitive Assemblage

Literary and technological theorist Katherine Hayles examines the process of human mechanization through the science fiction stories of Stanislaw Lem. According to Hayles, our minds are no longer just inside our skulls. Smartphones, cloud storage systems and the flexible connections we make with algorithms are a “cognitive assemblage”.

When you use the map on your phone to give directions to someone, your brain and the phone’s GPS system create an instant assemblage. In this assemblage, who is “human” and who is “machine” is secondary; what matters is the new ability to “know”.

“Nervous Condition” when Analyzing

Using the concept of assemblage is like walking on a tightrope. Marcus and Saka state that researchers working with this concept are in a kind of “nervous tension”. Why?

Because on the one hand you are trying to describe a structure, on the other hand you have to emphasize how unstable and ephemeral that structure is. If you push the concept of assemblage too far, if you try to put it into a fixed mold, it loses its “living” quality and becomes a “dead metaphor”. This is why researchers always have to describe a state of “becoming”.

Why is Everything Today an “Assemblage”?

In conclusion, assemblage is a strategic tool that combines the aesthetics of art, the depth of philosophy and the analytical ability of social sciences. The modern world no longer moves in “blocks” but in “connections”. From the climate crisis to artificial intelligence, from waves of migration to the digital economy, everything is formed by the coming together of heterogeneous parts.

Marcus and Saka’s article reminds us that the world is less like a puzzle and more like a set of ever-changing clouds. Thanks to the concept of assemblage, we can see the patterns within this cloud, but we also know that it can dissipate at any moment.

So, do you think that momentary interaction between an algorithm and your interest on social media platforms is just a “community” movement or a huge digital assemblage that will take a completely different form tomorrow?

Technical Summary and Key Concepts