We humans are made of matter itself and live surrounded by a material world.
In this context, foregrounding material factors and reconstructing our understanding of matter is essential to persuasively explaining the conditions of coexistence in the 21st century.

『New Materialism Paradigm』 was born from the belief that writers from diverse fields, including philosophy, political science, literature, culture, and women's studies, should recognize the reality of materialism that has been scattered and lost, re-examine the question of materiality, and assign proper value to the material elements surrounding human beings.
Each of these writings, which speak of the renewal of materialism and the new materialism, naturally intersect and resonate with one another, triggering countless paradigms for the new materialism.

In modern Western culture, the dominant perception of materiality has been that it is an essentially passive material operated upon by humans who imbue it with subjective meaning, either by using it as a means of survival or by transforming it into a medium of aesthetic expression.
The view that matter is inherently devoid of agency or meaning, and is heterogeneous and inert to consciousness, has solid roots in classical science and philosophy, and is consistent with and presupposes the naturalistic attitude, or common sense, that takes the natural world 'out there' for granted as a collection of essentially given objects.
But isn't it possible to imagine matter differently, as a vibrant materiality already imbued with agentive power and existential meaning, conceived as inherently changeable, individual, idealistic, and situated within a subjective realm? If so, what conceptual or metaphorical means might help us moderns express this inherent generativity? Is it possible to understand the process of materialization and its generative nature, to grasp the dynamic and sometimes resistant capacities of matter, without resorting to animism, religion, or the mysticism of Romanticism?
--- p.137

Jonathan Lear described the mind as a faculty that is inherently prone to breakdown.
Conscious matter tends to be destroyed when it is placed under the pressures of life.
Life is simply “too much.”
We abstract impersonal energies into stable concepts of subject and world, and whenever we glimpse such energies, we feel helpless and aware of our own weakness.
Such destructive and inhuman energies are intimately present to us, yet we cannot fully identify or control them.
All we can do is try to personalize something so inhuman, to give it meaning, and thus make it our own.
But our efforts are doomed to failure, because such excesses, which make us tremble and shake, are quantitative energies with intensity and flow.
According to Lear, human beings' repetitive helplessness is the repetition of some event without content.
The feeling of helplessness that occurs repeatedly comes from experiencing too much energy.
A protrusion of a quantity without quality.
If there is indeed repetition, it is inherent in our attempts to inject the breakthrough and destruction of energy into meaningful everyday life.
--- p.196

In this way, he remains in a state of suspended action, unable to take any other action.
This high-tech comic, with its uncertain and ambiguous characters, raises questions about what it takes to stay connected in a fast-paced world where connections are stretched too thin.
The film invites us to explore and renew our attachment to a world that is increasingly moving away from the pace of life implicitly assumed by Merleau-Ponty.
We develop a more advanced kind of attachment to this world and set about the task of defeating the abstract hostility that so easily arises within us and around us.
And we are invited to consider how the spark of existential hostility, once sown, is fanned by destructive events, media frenzy, and political campaigns, and how it is infused into institutional practices such as investment, consumption, church gatherings, press coverage, voting patterns, and national priorities.
A sense of care that we initially had for this world is opened up and amplified, a sense that can be ignored or reinforced by tactical means and micropolitics.
--- p.285

The point is simple.
Our 'doing' triggers our 'ability to act'.
This is not to argue that 'ham' simply limits abilities.
Conversely, our ‘acting’ expands and opens up some capacities.
Even if any 'expansion' in a particular direction will in turn limit what we can do in other respects.
The more we can activate certain parts of our body, the more we can do.
At the same time, the less we use other body parts, the less we can do.
So if gender shapes what we 'do,' it shapes what we can do.
--- p.368~369

We must avoid the reductionist trap of assuming that both the practices of everyday life and the structuring of space are functionally beneficial to the reproduction of capitalism, or that individual experiences of everyday life and space are uniform (or simply passive).
To do so would be to paint the endlessly bleak vision of modernity presented in Adorno and Horkheimer's Dialectic of Enlightenment.
This perspective fails to recognize that the material practices that constitute modern life are the only basis for bringing about significant political and social change.
In fact, Lefebvre pursues this point in his last book, Rhythmanalysis, through reflections on the rhythm of everyday life, especially in the context of urban space.
Here, 'rhythm' refers to the repetitive nature of daily life, but "there can be no absolute repetition that is infinitely identical.
Therefore, this is a relationship between repetition and difference.
“When it comes to routine, rituals, ceremonies, festivals, rules and laws, there is always something new and unpredictable in the repetitive, that is, something different.”
So even in seemingly repetitive practices of the modern city—taking the same route to work every day, going to the same kinds of bars, restaurants, or clubs with friends, surfing the internet to expand our network, playing video games that virtually interact with urban living spaces—there exists difference, and the potential for such practices to become sites of political resistance and transformation.
Although historical materialism has traditionally tended to ignore this last type of practice, such analyses play a central role in understanding the reproduction of capitalist society and considering how social relations may change over time.
However, while this approach to the organization of everyday life and living space is important, it must be linked to an analysis of the relationships between economic production, the state, and the international system.

--- p.419~420